I tried to put something in that space in my initial revision. If we keep the void, I think the emanating rays need to fade into it more gradually. The way it is now, it kinda draws your eye to the hole and then there's nothing there...
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Marc Stewart
<marc.c.stewart@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 08:27 +0200, Fabian A. Scherschel wrote:
> Wow.... Really great work going on here. I really love Mo's new
> version and I think it's nearly perfect but I still think we need
> something in the middle of all those emanating rays and sparks. A hole
> there looks out of place, IMO.
I like the void. I think it fits better with the emergence concept, too.
Emergent properties appear in unexpected ways due to the complex
interactions of a system, and therefore don't appear to have an obvious
source. Consequently, I think a hole provides a better visual metaphor.
But then I don't see it purely as emanating rays; I see solid structures
in there, like looking down on a city full of skyscrapers and
searchlights, or into a kaleidoscope. So, for me, the hole is just
equivalent to the road, or the end of the tube; I don't expect anything
to necessarily be there.
Of course, if someone made a wallpaper that had something in that space,
and it was an improvement, I'd support it—great images trump good
metaphors! But I think adding something just for the sake of filling
that space would actually be a detraction.
Marc