Comments on: Gnome Logo on Slashdot http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/ Random stuff Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:53:32 +0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/comment-page-1/#comment-111 Anonymous Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/#comment-111 classic. classic.

]]> By: Anonymous http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/comment-page-1/#comment-112 Anonymous Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/#comment-112 This looks ugly, look at it. Malda is blind, they should accept the original GNOME logo. This looks ugly, look at it. Malda is blind, they should accept the original GNOME logo.

]]> By: Simos http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/comment-page-1/#comment-113 Simos Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/#comment-113 I think you should start from the .svg file (Inkscape) and do the drop-shadow feature there.<br/>As is, <br/>1. it's pixelised<br/>2. the shadow is badly cropped.<br/>3. there is some blurring.<p/>Most importantly, there are some strong guidelines for the GNOME logo, <a href="http://live.gnome.org/LogoGuidelines">http://live.gnome.org/LogoGuidelines</a><p/>Sorry if this is discouraging. I am bad with graphics as well. In any case, there are some good artists on GNOME that can sort out such things. I think you should start from the .svg file (Inkscape) and do the drop-shadow feature there.
As is,
1. it’s pixelised
2. the shadow is badly cropped.
3. there is some blurring.

Most importantly, there are some strong guidelines for the GNOME logo, http://live.gnome.org/LogoGuidelines

Sorry if this is discouraging. I am bad with graphics as well. In any case, there are some good artists on GNOME that can sort out such things.

]]> By: Michael Zeltner http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/comment-page-1/#comment-114 Michael Zeltner Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/#comment-114 You linked the wrong file on the earlier design, I think you meant the version without the 2 in its name.<p/>And, please, tell me you're being sarcastic? You linked the wrong file on the earlier design, I think you meant the version without the 2 in its name.

And, please, tell me you’re being sarcastic?

]]> By: Simos http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/comment-page-1/#comment-115 Simos Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/#comment-115 Just to re-iterate, any coloured GNOME foot will probably get shot down by<br/><a href="http://live.gnome.org/LogoGuidelines">http://live.gnome.org/LogoGuidelines</a> Just to re-iterate, any coloured GNOME foot will probably get shot down by
http://live.gnome.org/LogoGuidelines

]]> By: Simon http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/comment-page-1/#comment-116 Simon Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/#comment-116 I agree with the anonymous guy, don't think this version looks good at all. Between the drop-shadow and the colouring, it seems to be the logo with a Slashdot skin, and really doesn't look good to me.<p/>Instead, can I suggest something based on the 2.14 splash or the banner currently on the Gnome homepage? I think the white foot on blue background is a good look - simple and clean, without being boring. I agree with the anonymous guy, don’t think this version looks good at all. Between the drop-shadow and the colouring, it seems to be the logo with a Slashdot skin, and really doesn’t look good to me.

Instead, can I suggest something based on the 2.14 splash or the banner currently on the Gnome homepage? I think the white foot on blue background is a good look – simple and clean, without being boring.

]]> By: Ulrik Sverdrup http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/comment-page-1/#comment-117 Ulrik Sverdrup Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/#comment-117 You are right. That's absolutely tacky enough for slashdot. Seriously, it goes well with the rest of the design ;-) You are right. That’s absolutely tacky enough for slashdot. Seriously, it goes well with the rest of the design ;-)

]]> By: Craig http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/comment-page-1/#comment-118 Craig Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/#comment-118 The foot is good, but the word probably doesn't need to be there because it will be in the context of the article, and it also is very hard to read because of the drop shadow.<p/>Glad to see this wrong being righted! The foot is good, but the word probably doesn’t need to be there because it will be in the context of the article, and it also is very hard to read because of the drop shadow.

Glad to see this wrong being righted!

]]> By: Byron http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/comment-page-1/#comment-119 Byron Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/#comment-119 It needs a photo of Cyborg Bill Gates getting crushed by the foot...also maybe something with more Google logo, then it would make it through Slashdot's rigorous design process It needs a photo of Cyborg Bill Gates getting crushed by the foot…also maybe something with more Google logo, then it would make it through Slashdot’s rigorous design process

]]> By: stripe4 http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/comment-page-1/#comment-120 stripe4 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/jamesh/2006/03/20/gnome-logo-on-slashdot/#comment-120 Take a look at Slashdot topics <a href="http://slashdot.org/topics.shtml">http://slashdot.org/topics.shtml</a><br/>Can someone please explain me how is Sony's logo better than GNOME's official logo (not the current Slashdot one) judging by colors (B&W) and dullness? Take a look at Slashdot topics http://slashdot.org/topics.shtml
Can someone please explain me how is Sony’s logo better than GNOME’s official logo (not the current Slashdot one) judging by colors (B&W) and dullness?

]]>