Re: RFC: Designing Logo of Pandoc

[Kolen Cheung <christian.kolen-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2860 bytes --]



On Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 3:53:13 PM UTC-8, John MacFarlane wrote:
>
>
> I'm really not sure what to say:  people here seem to want 
> a logo much more than I do, so I feel a lot of pressure. 
> But since I don't think we NEED a logo, I'm not going to go 
> to go for one unless it really looks right. 
>

For me I don't think I need a pandoc logo. But as someone who loves pandoc 
and want other people to use pandoc too, a logo is good PR. I think most 
people here probably think this way, as a logo really is for promotion, for 
public recognition. There's many kinds of things we want to improve pandoc, 
and one kind is basically to make other people use it so that I can keep 
using it. (e.g. why someone want to make pandoc documents more reproducible 
is that if so it makes it possible to collaborate using pandoc and hence 
one can stay using pandoc when collaborating, to over-simplify the issue.)

>
> I actually think this one by Alexis is pretty nice, though 
> now it has been accused of amateurism. Well, I'm not a graphic 
> designer, so I wouldn't know. But I like it better than the other 
> proposals of reverse pilcrows in boxes. 
>

I don't think it is as negative as those wordings appears to be. The chain 
of thoughts in those conversations above (if I interpret correctly) was 
that we weren't designers so we hit a creativity wall. Recall we almost had 
a decision years ago that when it came to the design stage (after having 5 
good candidates from concepts only), but then we hit a roadblock that no 
one can turn those nice concepts into presentable logo. IMO the one from 
Alexis is good enough to use as is. It is not only a good concept but a 
deliverable product. (Yes it can be improved but it is publishable as is, 
and over time when someone has the talent and time to improve we should 
allow room for that.)

So IMO if that's the one you like, then why not. Sure different people has 
slightly different preferences and may have our own philosophical biases. 
But I don't think anyone hate that logo. It is more a matter of can we do 
better. But if the most important opinion here thinks that's better then I 
don't think you'd have strong opposition since it is not bad.
 

>
> I do think that it makes sense, if we have a logo, to have 
> the canonical version be a particular vector image, and not 
> just, say, a reverse pilcrow typeset any old way. That's not a 
> logo, it's just a symbol. 
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pandoc-discuss/6af5e7cd-39a3-43c8-ae25-db4972b72b6a%40googlegroups.com.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3712 bytes --]