On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:21:58PM +0300, John Babich wrote:
I prefer Logo 3 since it has some depth, yet it is clean and would
make a nice t-shirt (IMHO).
First of all, nice work, Mo.
I also prefer #3. It looks a lot cleaner to me than #2 with the shading,
and I think it would be better suited to use in a wider array of contexts.
I think #5 also looks very professional and has some good potential, but see
my comments below.
Regarding #1 and #5, the semi-official naming standard for these events has
been of the form "FUDCon $location $year", ie "FUDCon Boston 2007",
London 2005", "FUDCon LinuxTag 2007". We should avoid abbreviations like
"'07", and if the logo is to include provisions for the year, it should
likewise make room for the location. #5 could probably accommodate this
Related to the logo discussion, it has occurred to me in the past that we've
been extremely inconsistent with our use of capitalization of "fudcon".
These logos all use "fudcon", the subject line of this e-mail thread uses
the more common "FUDCon", and googling around will turn up official and
semi-official uses of "FudCon", "FUDcon", and "FUDCON" as
well. We really
need to decide once and for all how we spell this thing before we codify a
particular form in a logo. :)
Personally, I think the logos look pretty good with "fudcon", but up until
now, I think the clear leader in use has been "FUDCon", which thus has the
weight of historical precedent. Also, since the name is short for "_F_edora
_U_sers and _D_evelopers _Con_ference", it could be argued that it makes
some logical sense to capitalize it in this way.
I have no strong religious opinion on the matter, but I think we should
decide what the standard usage will be, and then use it consistently across
all our materials.
Opinions? Would these logos look weird/dumb with some capital letters stuck
in there? If we stick with the form "FUDCon", would it look better in a
more horizontal logo like #5?
Paul Stauffer <paulds(a)bu.edu>
Manager of Research Computing
Computer Science Department