The octagon looks cool but it might be hard to recall what was it about (e.g. if you have that as an icon in your desktop). BP: I like your design but the two lower documents make me turn my neck every time I see them. I think it would be better if the three documents appear standing up (maybe stacked). I would also prefer if the arrows and the \all symbol to be mutually exclusive. Either works. I'm also not a designer, and I doubt there are many designers around here, which is a problem :) On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 2:09:26 PM UTC-5, Kolen Cheung wrote: > > (I included the image below so one need not to click into it. But let me > know if it troubles you and I will use links next time.) > <#8f9805be-9ec0-4808-8e82-efecf8f0b813-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org_>More on the > rmarkdown “logo” > > - > > are you sure it is a logo? Because when I go to their website > , it is nowhere to be seen. And a search > on “rmarkdown” logo on Google Image > > only have this on a few results. Would it just be an illustration (say > people showing on presentations) on what rmarkdown is? > - > > What I said earlier does not mean that the image [image: PNG] would be > a good logo design (it might very well not be a logo): it is too busy, and > would get lost when viewed in small scale/far away. > - > > The image above and the octagon concept I had earlier on is basically > the same concept. I think this is also a good illustration that when > viewing any of the concepts here, we should think of the abstract form of > it, rather than sticking to the actual manifestation of the original > concept. (e.g. in pop songs, the demo and the final product sounds really > different, but whoever is screening the demos will need to look pass its > current form and visualize the potentials in the concept) > > <#8f9805be-9ec0-4808-8e82-efecf8f0b813-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org_>Judging criteria? > > I think this last point above cannot be stressed enough especially if > there would be some sort of poll. The judging criteria should not be biased > towards how finished the concepts was, but focus on the potential it has > (because none of them are finished products). So it might be beneficial to > have 2 polls where the 1st one is for selecting candidates for refinement. > The would be the main difficulties of a poll, and personally I think it > would be easier that the first screening is done by @jgm alone (let say > @jgm gave us the 3 concepts he likes most, and as a community we push the > design of all 3 concepts, and then poll for 1). > <#8f9805be-9ec0-4808-8e82-efecf8f0b813-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org_>Another idea > > Another idea is from the diagram in Pandoc - About pandoc > : [image: diagram] (which is “fractal-ish”). When I > was a newbies in pandoc, every time I visited pandoc.org I was fascinated > by that diagram. That diagram points from formats to formats (so not having > a central “AST” element). This sparks a concept that involves something > like (just Google search results) [image: this] or [image: this] on an > octagon (I might draw one when I have time. Others can use this idea too). > > And I hope this last paragraphs shows that I’m impartial to having a > central “AST” or not. But I think a key to creative processes is not to ban > ideas too early. It is like one’s drawing a mind map. When you’re > brain-storming, a certain path might seem a dead-end. But if you cross out > that path too early, you might have eliminated a solution prematurely. One > would just ignored that path, until you brainstorm something worth pursuing > there. And in the end, how good is a design if it isn’t impressive enough > for people to ask the philosophy behind it? > > On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 12:47:49 AM UTC-8, Sergio Correia wrote: > > Personally, I wouldn't use a logo chosen without the approval of John; >> would feel a bit rude tbh. That said, we can vote on proposals and pick our >> favorites, in order to frame the discussion. >> >> >> About the logo: >> >> >> - We should pick a logo that denotes *what* pandoc does, not *how *it >> does it. Users (rightly) don't care that pandoc builds an abstract syntax >> tree, so that should not be in the logo. (This is also what BP stated in >> his Dec16 post) >> - At its core, pandoc converts documents. It converts *.md* into *.html >> and so on*. A quick google image search tells us that *the* canonical >> icon for conversion is the circle arrow symbol (kinda like the recycling >> arrow). example: >> http://cracksfree.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/avs-document-converter_98327.jpg >> - For documents, any stack would do: >> http://images.clipartpanda.com/document-clipart-082004-green-grunge-clipart-icon-business-document4.png >> >> It's also interesting to see how the rmarkdown folks look at this: >> >> http://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/images/RMarkdownOutputFormats.png >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 3:03:55 AM UTC-5, Albert Krewinkel wrote: >>> >>> 藤原由来 writes: >>> >>> > Then, as some people say, we need commitment of logo in this group >>> (not only in >>> > this thread). >>> > >>> > I like the idea to release the final logo in the release date of >>> Pandoc 2.0. >>> > Because meaning (like a story or literature) is important to be >>> impressively >>> > remembered for people. >>> >>> It seems clear to me that jgm is the only person who can choose an >>> official pandoc logo. >>> >>> However, we, as an community, can still vote on a logo. It won't be >>> official pandoc logo, but the community logo which can be used to brand >>> projects build with or around pandoc. Of course that logo could be >>> changed as soon as an official logo is chosen. >>> >>> My suggestion would be to wait a little while longer before doing any >>> voting, e.g. until the first of March. >>> >> ​ > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pandoc-discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pandoc-discuss+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To post to this group, send email to pandoc-discuss-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/144500db-fdc8-44fe-99b9-6dab9f85b41a%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.