Subject: Re: Web image.
To: Andy R <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Richard Rauch <email@example.com>
Date: 05/02/2002 18:30:21
> > Hm... And the ``logo version'' of the image would,
> > again, just be an
> > image of the net?
> Don't know. I like the idea of a mound of computers
> with the daemon on top, which my idea doesn't really
> address. Maybe they don't have to be the same? Or is
> that one of the requirements?
I don't think that formal requirements have ever been stated (or even that
it's a given that the old image will go).
However, a ``logo version'' (something less busy) would be nice. One of
the valid objections (okay, one that I can somewhat agree with; (^&) about
the current image is that it's too busy for use as a logo. The images
shouldn't be the same (unless the ``main'' image is suitable for use as a
logo), almost by definition. However, IMHO the two should have a
recognizable relation---and underlying part or spirit that *is* the same.
I.e., there shouldn't be two toally unrelated images, one for ``full
displays'' and one for ``logos''.
``I probably don't know what I'm talking about.'' --firstname.lastname@example.org