I agree that we should use the first round of voting to learn what the
general consensus of the Haskell community is on a logo design "idea"
(and to filter out the non-viable logos).
In the spirit of bikeshedding, I would love to see---and would
volunteer to spend part of a day editing, say, the top one or two
logos, in Photoshop---generating numerous variations on fonts, colors
(text, emblem and background), and relative font/emblem sizes.
(Alternately, the original author of the favorite logo(s) could
produce said variations.) Then I think we should vote on the final
minor variations.
I can *almost* picture a few of the current logos becoming the Final
logo, but not As Is; there are many great ideas but some of them (or
combinations of a few of them) could be improved in minor ways,
bringing things (at least to me) up to professional level for a logo.
(cf. the python.org logo)
Jared.
On 3/9/09, Ian Lynagh
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 11:13:40AM +0000, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
Another reason condorcet voting is nice is that there is no need to group "similar" items together.
I think the plan is that once a logo "class" is chosen, we'll have another vote for the actual colour scheme etc to be used, if applicable.
Yes, we could have done this in a single vote, but then people would need to spend time creating 30 variants of each logo, and we'd be ranking 3000, rather than 100, options.
Thanks
Ian
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe