(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.)
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
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)
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).
Another idea
Another idea is from the diagram in Pandoc - About pandoc: (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)
or 
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:
On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 3:03:55 AM UTC-5, Albert Krewinkel wrote:藤原由来 <sky.y...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 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.