On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 01:46:48 +0000 Tiago Marques <tiagomnm@...> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:18 PM, E. Liddell <ejlddll@...> wrote: > > > On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:20:28 +0100 > > L0ner sh4dou <sh4dou@...> wrote: > > > > > 2011/12/15 E. Liddell <ejlddll@...> > > > > > >If there's no great hurry, I may try my hand at sketching something > > > >over the next few days . . . > > > Your sketches will be more than welcome. And there is no hurry, since > > > I need to gather my ideas for whole structure of website, not only for > > > layout. > > > > Okay, it took a little longer than I had hoped. So sue me. Here are nine > > miscellaneous logo mockups: > > > > http://postimage.org/image/5g0xh97rr/ > > > > > These seem a bit to complex to pass as a logo. As been discussed recently > about the icon set, it would be important to keep Crystal SVG and has such > have a logo that blends well together style and color wise with the > existing theme. Perhaps toning down on the reflections would also help with > visual recognition of the logo. I think it is important that whatever comes > out of this thread is easily used from 16x16 up to 256x256 pixels, though > that is not always possible. I am forced to ask--did you actually try scaling them? The tree, triangle, and triskele designs, which received the most votes, remain recognizable at 16x16 (little details like the tree's leaves and the triskele's loops are inevitably lost, but the overall shapes remain clear). Details like colour and reflection are easy to change--it's the basic shape that's important in a logo. Based on your reaction, I suspect that what I presented actually looks too finished. That's my fault, though--really, I know better. > I also rather liked sh4dou's 1st sketch. I think this is the heart of the matter. Eventually, someone's going to have to tally the votes and hand them over to Timothy for a decision, but I don't think there's any hurry.