Re: Simplified logo concept

On 10/07/13 06:22, James Beck wrote:
>> What's wrong with it?
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Tony.
>
> I have a few complaints about the original logo.
>
> 1. It's very busy (seven colors?!)
> 2. It doesn't print well (seven colors, hairline borders, gradients)
> 3. It's inconsistent (some parts are embossed, others not. Shading is
> done in both blue and black.)
> 4. The font styles ("V" and "im") are different (this makes my eyes twitch)
> 5. The "m" looks like someone melted it with fire. Inelegant and weird.
> 6. As a general rule, when loud background texture (green diamond) cuts
> through text, it makes me twitch (see the treatment of "im")
>
> A shocking number of my colleagues have no idea how great Vim is. Some
> of them were surprised to learn Vim has "syntax highlighting, just like
> Eclipse!" I think this ignorance comes from two places: first, they've
> only used vim to modify .bashrc on a server somewhere through Putty, and
> second, the visual identity looks like the program was abandoned 10
> years ago. One reason I finally decided to post this, was because git
> recently redid their logo (and it looked a lot like some of the designs
> I was playing with), and I think the result reminds people that git is a
> powerful, modern tool. I wanted the same for Vim.
>
> James
>

"Very busy, seven colors". So what? How many colours are there in the
Firefox logo? How many shades of blue in SeaMonkey's? Personally I don't
prefer drab icons over colourful ones. But of course, /de gustibus et
coloribus non disputandum est/ (Latin: "one mustn't quarrel over tastes
and colours" [i.e. over taste and colour preferences]).

"Some parts are embossed, others not". Right. I'd like it even better
with drop-down shadows around not only V but also im. Also if it were
all in a single nice-looking font: that "im" part of the big logo looks
amateurish to me.

I don't have colleagues anymore so I can't value that "A shocking number
of my colleagues" argument. Maybe I'm too much of a geek to accept or
reject a program by the mere look of its icon. First see what it does
and how I can use it. <span class="offtopic">When I started on
mainframes in the 70s, and even as late as my first PCs (640K, IBM
PC-DOS, no hard disk at first) there were no icons at all, no mouse,
just a command-line, keyboard, and teletype (or teletype-like shell)
display. Doesn't mean that I don't like today's GUIs, I do. But I still
use the shell command-line quite a lot (which nowadays means bash for
me).</span>

<p class="offtopic">
git, a powerful modern tool? Maybe, and so is Emacs. Personally I've
never been able to feel at ease with either of them: give me Mercurial
and Vim any time. Which of course doesn't remove any bit of git and
Emacs's power and usefulness — to other people.
</p>


Best regards,
Tony.
--
ARTHUR: Now stand aside worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT: (Glancing at his shoulder) 'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm's off.
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail" PYTHON (MONTY)
PICTURES LTD

--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.