On Apr 13, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea wrote:
Hi all,
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?
IMO it's a bit too late to give -1 for a logo that passed the first round. Is it less readable now?
No but if you check none of us voted for it and there was no rule for giving -1 (I would have given it otherwise since I didn't like it in the first round. That said I was pretty sure nobody would vote for it when I saw it. I was wrong it seems ;)). BTW the problem of readability was raised even in the first round but not much was done about it (or I didn't see it).
16 was voted by 11 community members (including myself) in the first round. Do we count less than "people from outside the project"? If we want a community-chosen logo then we should let the community choose. If we want a logo that is good for marketing then we should find a branding company to do it for us.
errr? We *definitely* want a logo that is good for marketing! That's the main point (the only point?) of having a logo. When users log into some website and see this logo we want them to know the site is using XWiki (if they can't read it, they won't even be able to google it if they like it and want to find more about this project). It seems you're opposing marketing and community. I don't know why. This is all about marketing. The whole xwiki.org is about marketing (i.e. make people want to use XWiki). Otherwise we'd just publish the sources with no documentation at all. Thanks -Vincent PS: I'm not saying that we should revote or remove that logo. I'm just giving a strong opinion that the logo is unreadable and is going to cause a lot of confusion. I would like to see that fixed if that logo is selected by the vote.
Thanks, Marius
Guillaume
Ludovic
Le 12/04/10 16:44, Sergiu Dumitriu a écrit :
On 04/12/2010 04:30 PM, Thibaut Camberlin wrote:
My corrected vote is +1 for 12A.
12A has been retired and is no longer a valid option. Please choose another one.