> On 30 Jan 2019, at 20:57, Paul Schalck wrote:
>
> as many critics go towards "I don't see any coherence" or "to me it's just a
> random bunch of colored letters" or "it's hard to read the word CONTEXT",
> some afterthoughts in that regard (difficulty, randomness).
>
> Personally, I like
Am 2019-01-30 um 14:00 schrieb Paul Schalck :
> @Floris vM: I'm glad that my nemesis on the matter felt himself challenged to
> make his own proposal. While I think it's too minimalistic (only insiders
> know what 'CTX' stands for), I like your idea of the subscript 'T'. Your
> concept with
Am 2019-01-30 um 11:09 schrieb Floris van Manen :
>> In fact, having a pictograph instead of / along with
>> textual content is probably a good idea.
>
> I do agree ;-)
>
>
> Here’s an attempt the blend the lines in plain monochrome …
> The latter having a naive reference to the typical TeX
Hello again,
as many critics go towards "I don't see any coherence" or "to me it's just a
random bunch of colored letters" or "it's hard to read the word CONTEXT", some
afterthoughts in that regard (difficulty, randomness).
Personally, I like visual material that catches my attention, but does
Although I don't think that it's a good idea to paint a car which
doesn't work as it should in uncountable situations, I'd like to make a
suggestion:
When you're over the decision which tone the blues and reds should have,
please put an .ico file or similar of the logo into the CTX
I agree with Willi.
Kind regards,
Massimiliano
Il 30/01/19 13:50, Willi Egger ha scritto:
Hi,
here my humble personal thoughts:
I would say, that the multicolor version is dissecting the word ConTeXT to
unidentifiable crumbles. It is to my taste to less connected to typesetting,
herewith
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 04:02:32PM +0100, Hans Hagen wrote:
> ok, let me add 1c ... since 2011 in the distribution there is always a file
> context-version.[pdf|png] which is a colorful representation of the current
> context version (date and time) ... probably no one ever noticed it
I did! I
On 1/30/19 1:50 PM, Willi Egger wrote:
I would say, that the multicolor version is dissecting the word ConTeXT to
unidentifiable crumbles. It is to my taste to less connected to typesetting,
herewith agreeing partly with Clyde.
It is useless to argue about taste, but it may be of interest to
On 1/30/2019 10:31 AM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Hi,
Just a quick note on logo design:
The ConTeXt logo could just as well be a set of tulips or
some (TeX-styled) lion or a dutch cow or a windmill or
some variation off the Pragma-ADE logo (see pragma-ade.com).
There is no real need to display the
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 19:58:40 +0100
"Paul Schalck" wrote:
> @Alan B: I've uploaded MetaPost files of the main version.
MP produced using pstoedit is of little interest; it is not the same as
generating a graphic naively using MetaPost. Also, writing good MP code is a
simple and fun exercise
Hello,
thank you all again for your reactions. A lot of interesting comments here on
logo design in general and a ConTeXt logo in particular. I'm honored that the
new design has found its way into the Wiki, thanks Taco!
@Lukas: I like the idea. Would be worth a try.
@Floris vM: I'm glad that
Hi,
here my humble personal thoughts:
I would say, that the multicolor version is dissecting the word ConTeXT to
unidentifiable crumbles. It is to my taste to less connected to typesetting,
herewith agreeing partly with Clyde.
The experiment of Taco however, has some charm. It includes the
Hello,
thanks Paul for the nice job! The colorful hexa-shaped logo seems much prettier.
One point/suggestion - if the letters "TEX" shared the same background - be it e.g. light gray - it might be
cleaner how to read ("discover") the word "ConTeXt"; it would also keep the hexagonal shape,
==
LuaTeX 1.09.2 2019-01-19
==
This is a transitional release to LuaTeX 1.10 for TeX Live 2019
The LuaTeX team
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:15 AM Floris van Manen wrote:
> If TeX and Context are about typesetting beautiful readable typography,
> the logos as presented do not reflect that thought per se.
> At first glance is is a pile of incoherent letters and colours.
> e.g. difficult to read and
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:15 AM Floris van Manen wrote:
> If TeX and Context are about typesetting beautiful readable typography,
> the logos as presented do not reflect that thought per se.
> At first glance is is a pile of incoherent letters and colours.
> e.g. difficult to read and memorise.
Hi,
Just a quick note on logo design:
The ConTeXt logo could just as well be a set of tulips or
some (TeX-styled) lion or a dutch cow or a windmill or
some variation off the Pragma-ADE logo (see pragma-ade.com).
There is no real need to display the letters “context”.
In fact, having a
Hi,
While this discussion is going on, it is still the case that Paul’s
new unofficial logo is better than the old green one, so I did
in fact replace the wiki logo. It will stay up until someone
comes up with a proposal with a higher level of consensus.
Thanks Paul!
Taco
PS I tried
If TeX and Context are about typesetting beautiful readable typography,
the logos as presented do not reflect that thought per se.
At first glance is is a pile of incoherent letters and colours.
e.g. difficult to read and memorise.
.F
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
> @Floris vM: Font, spacing, overall appealingness.
> No Helvetica/Nimbus Sans, which has less meaning to me for ConTeXt than a
> DIN-ish/technical one.
> Colors are fun.
Could you elaborate on how ‘fun’ in colors is defined?
I see no coherency in the color palet.
> If you don’t see it this
Hello,
thanks for your feedback. Again, I don't want to impose or dismiss anything. I
wanted to share this because I believed somebody else in the ConTeXt community
could be interested.
@Taco: Actually, I stumbled upon the nice ConTeXt group logo recently and was
wondering who made it. To
21 matches
Mail list logo
