On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:33:25AM +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:55:18 +0900, James Britt <james.britt / gmail.com> wrote:
> > I do not care for the new logo, finding it clumsy and complex, useless
> > at small resolutions and monotone renderings...
> 
> Fully concur.  Also, as a merely practical matter, this logo will be
> difficult (and therefore expensive) to print well[1].
> 
> General advice to the mailing list from someone with a degree in graphic
> design:  do not accept a logo proposal without considering the one- and
> two- color treatments, and what it looks like at small sizes[2].
> 
> -mental
> 
> [1] Think teeshirts, hats and mugs, not book covers.
> 
> [2] Rule of thumb:  if you can't make a recognizable favicon out
>                     of, you lose.

That's why I thought the ruby-assn.org logo looked better:

  http://www.ruby-assn.org/logo.png

See the very simple inverted triangle logo dealio on the left.  Think
about how easy it would be to create a miniaturized monochrome
representation of it without losing its distinctiveness (though some of
the fade effect stuff would have to go, of course).

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Anonymous: "Eat your crow early, while it's young and tender.  Don't wait
until it's old and tough."