On 10/07/13 06:22, James Beck wrote:
What's wrong with it?
Best regards,
Tony.
I have a few complaints about the original logo.
1. It's very busy (seven colors?!)
2. It doesn't print well (seven colors, hairline borders, gradients)
3. It's inconsistent (some parts are embossed, others not. Shading is
done in both blue and black.)
4. The font styles ("V" and "im") are different (this makes my eyes twitch)
5. The "m" looks like someone melted it with fire. Inelegant and weird.
6. As a general rule, when loud background texture (green diamond) cuts
through text, it makes me twitch (see the treatment of "im")
A shocking number of my colleagues have no idea how great Vim is. Some
of them were surprised to learn Vim has "syntax highlighting, just like
Eclipse!" I think this ignorance comes from two places: first, they've
only used vim to modify .bashrc on a server somewhere through Putty, and
second, the visual identity looks like the program was abandoned 10
years ago. One reason I finally decided to post this, was because git
recently redid their logo (and it looked a lot like some of the designs
I was playing with), and I think the result reminds people that git is a
powerful, modern tool. I wanted the same for Vim.
James
"Very busy, seven colors". So what? How many colours are there in the
Firefox logo? How many shades of blue in SeaMonkey's? Personally I don't
prefer drab icons over colourful ones. But of course, /de gustibus et
coloribus non disputandum est/ (Latin: "one mustn't quarrel over tastes
and colours" [i.e. over taste and colour preferences]).
"Some parts are embossed, others not". Right. I'd like it even better
with drop-down shadows around not only V but also im. Also if it were
all in a single nice-looking font: that "im" part of the big logo looks
amateurish to me.
I don't have colleagues anymore so I can't value that "A shocking number
of my colleagues" argument. Maybe I'm too much of a geek to accept or
reject a program by the mere look of its icon. First see what it does
and how I can use it. <span class="offtopic">When I started on
mainframes in the 70s, and even as late as my first PCs (640K, IBM
PC-DOS, no hard disk at first) there were no icons at all, no mouse,
just a command-line, keyboard, and teletype (or teletype-like shell)
display. Doesn't mean that I don't like today's GUIs, I do. But I still
use the shell command-line quite a lot (which nowadays means bash for
me).</span>
<p class="offtopic">
git, a powerful modern tool? Maybe, and so is Emacs. Personally I've
never been able to feel at ease with either of them: give me Mercurial
and Vim any time. Which of course doesn't remove any bit of git and
Emacs's power and usefulness — to other people.
</p>
Best regards,
Tony.
--
ARTHUR: Now stand aside worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT: (Glancing at his shoulder) 'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm's off.
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" PYTHON (MONTY)
PICTURES LTD
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
