James Britt said:
> I find the literal gem image boring and impractical (in contrast to Ruby
> itself), and I may in fact be in the minority, but I don't know how I or
> anyone would really know that.

The icon is striking and eyecatching, I tend to like it (at least how its
used on the page).

My only comment is that I have never seen a picture of an actual ruby gem
in that particular shape.  I've seen ovals, circles and pear shapes
(amoung others), but nothing in that red diamond shape.

It probably doesn't matter, I doubt anybody really cares, but it does
bother me a bit.

BTW, I'm no expert on gems.  I'm just going on what I've seen by googling
the topic.  I would be thrilled if someone pointed out that Rubies do
actually occur in that shape.

-- 
-- Jim Weirich     jim / weirichhouse.org    http://onestepback.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)