From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Tue May 27 2003 - 18:37:56 EDT
Theodore Smith wrote:
> My first reaction, is that the logos don't look like they compare to
> other logos in terms of style. For example "Mac OSX" logos, XML logos,
> and that generally do look more snazzy.
They were loosely modelled on the W3C HTML validation logo, which
is comparable, in some ways, in what it is trying to do. See:
where the Unicode site uses the W3C NTML logo to indicate our own
dedication to validating our pages with the W3C HTML validator.
> My second reaction is that I hope I haven't annoyed anyone.
> My third was that I probably ought to say it anyhow. Maybe they will
> will take a look at other large organisation's logos and see how to
> make the Unicode.org logo as snazzy.
Well, it is a "Unicode Savvy" logo, not a "Unicode Snazzy" logo. ;-)
And one of the design goals was to make it small (but recognizable),
so that it wouldn't burden the loading of pages that might want
to use it. The snazzier you make it, the more you make people
pay (in time and bytes) for loading the snazz.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 27 2003 - 19:21:21 EDT