On 5/26/07, Waldemar Kornewald <wkornewald@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Stephan, On 5/26/07, Stephan Assmus <superstippi@xxxxxx> wrote: > <http://www.yellowbites.com/stuff/index.html> > > I am actually in favor of both 3b and 5b and having them available at the > same time. I know from personal experience that it can be very helpful to be > able to chose from more options, in order to use whichever fits a particular > surounding best. In this case, the dark color of 3b could be substituted > with another dark color by the user of the logo. I'm fine with 1b and 5b, but I think 3b is the best because it can also be easily provided in black&white. Does 3b still look good if you put a frame around it, so the "Compatible" is still part of the logo when printed on white background? Do you really think it's good to have two colored logos? Doesn't that hinder recognition? What if, say, 80% use logo A and 20% use logo B? Doesn't that make B look like a fake? Note, I do agree that it's good to have one b&w (maybe 3b?) and one colored version (3b/5b?).
Having two colored logos doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. As others have stated, it'd be nice for distros to have a choice with the color of the logo (such as for 3b), and right there you're opening yourself up to having more than two logos, color-wise. As long as the logos are effectively identical otherwise, you still have a lot of pattern recognition in common, and if anybody takes half a second to actually read the thing, they're going to realize it's identical to the others except perhaps for the colors. Anyway, my wife and I both like 5b and 3b the best as well. Nice job, Stippi. :-) -Tyler