On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Guillaume Lerouge wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 00:41, Ludovic Dubost <[email protected]> wrote:
+1 for 4A
and I'm at this point very -1 on 16 because of the W which has a missing arm.. I can't read XWiki in it..
I'd like to react about this: at this stage I share Ludovic's feeling. I had people from outside the project look at the 16 logo and they weren't able to read "XWiki" in it. I'm afraid that while stylistically interesting, this logo is too unreadable for mainstream use - unless we don't expect anyone to understand the XWiki logo that is.
I'm feeling pretty close to giving it a -1 too if its readability isn't improved. I know I might be going against the flow here but we're about to make a significant choice here and I don't want us to regret it.
Any thoughts?
Guillaume
I share your opinion... Besides the fact that I don't like it because it's miles away from the "web 2.0" style that I think we tend to. It would be good if our style was "geeky-oldschool" but I don't think it's the case. But this is a personal and questionable opinion. The fact is that me too, at a first glance, I can't read XWiki in it and I have to make an effort in order to "see" XWiki written in that logo. My 2 cents, Fabio