I wonder how a character standardizer would like it if a bunch of graphic artists criticized her character encoding. ☺
OK, I have to admit that even though I applied the Savvy logo to my home page almost immediately, with an eye toward applying it to all my other pages, I could see some room for improvement. Here are some (hopefully) constructive suggestions, in no particular order: 1. If the W3C HTML conformance logos were used as a template (a good idea), there's no reason the Savvy logo couldn't have been exactly the same size (88 × 31). That way it would line up more uniformly with the W3C logo, as I tried to do on my page. The Savvy logo is slightly bigger, 89 × 35. I also like the "beveling" effect on the W3C logo, which could be achieved easily in a 256-color GIF without increasing the file size noticeably. 2. The "pink" version is actually a decent match for the inside pages of the Unicode site, but as Marco pointed out, red and white are really the defining colors of the Unicode logo. I don't care that the name "pink" makes no sense (actually I'm grateful it's not pink). 3. The gray version is too dark. 4. It would be nice if the Savvy logo could incorporate the basic UNi logo in some way, but I understand how this could be a problem. After all, the Consortium has strict licensing and usage guidelines for use of the UNi logo (http://www.unicode.org/consortium/logo.html). 4a. The UNiCODe lettering might be a bit odd, but it's been a trademark of Unicode, Inc. for at least a decade. Deal with it. 5. Translated versions would be a definite plus. Multilingual support is, after all, probably the main benefit people associate with Unicode. If Kareem needs some additional "pro bono" work, perhaps list members could send suggested translations (to Kareem or Magda directly, **NOT** to the list). 6. Then there's that word "savvy." As others have explained, it's a slangy English word meaning "knowledgeable in a practical sense." Like "savoir-faire" and other terms from the same Latin root (sapere, "to be wise" or "to understand"), it has acquired a special meaning beyond the literal and can be difficult to translate. It's noteworthy that someone like Marco, who is not a native English speaker but whose use of colloquial written English is excellent, did not know the word. I don't really think we are trying to say that a Web page is "knowledgeable" about Unicode, but rather that it "uses" or "takes advantage of" Unicode. How about "Powered by Unicode"? -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
