Hi Dan, and all Squeakers,
The image we use for our Smalltalking association
(http://www.smalltalking.net)
 is an image where two trees fused each other and grow in common ground.
Trying to communicate the objective of the "association" of individuals
living in collaboration.
As "sharing our common grounds in the search of a common grown without
loosing our individual personality".
An image where the individual and the group are present at the same level
and a clear upside direction of grown (same direction of the glove), can
have more in common with Squeak community efforts.
I do not feel confortable with "personification" of Squeak, as a tool or the
allegory of the ambience as an individual, because it put us under the old
paradigm of the men commanding (or in front) of the computer/tool as in a
conversational model where the humman is in front of a magic glass.
I prefer to consider the smalltalk ambience as an open system [*] and not as
a container -an image or an individual-, but I also know that today it is
not common this kind of appreciation about what Smalltalk is; and that it is
currently defined (as known) as a language as most of the Smalltalkers.
cheers,
Ale.

[*] An ambience (like smalltalk) is not an object, as it is not the image.
It can´t be defined as the container of all the objects, because it is open
in time. The definition of Smalltalk as an ambience includes the time and
the effects of our actions through concrete objects preserving the "global"
stability. We can name the ambience as "Smalltalk" and model it as a
SystemDictionary (to be well known by the GC that currently needs a root
object), but it is not an object.
Most of the problem related with Ambiental efforts of preservation are
related with the wrong asumption that the ambience is an object. We have in
Smalltalk an invaluable resource to learn how to act in an ambience
preserving its stability and a very good tool to teach the limits of
formalization and the consecuences of reduction as a method to conquest the
world.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Ingalls" <Dan at SqueakLand.org>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: another balloon picture


G-ran  wrote...
>Bert Freudenberg <bert at impara.de> wrote:
>> Am 21.02.2005 um 19:11 schrieb Pavel Krivanek:
>> > StÈphane asked me if I can produce some stylish balloons. Here's one.
>> > Is
>> > there a time to update Squeak's presentation graphics?
>>
>> Awesome!
>
>What can I say, that is stylish indeed! This balloon with the new web
>site style should look pretty good - sbut, it is not as playful anymore
>- could we perhaps throw in some little thingy there somewhere keeping
>that colourful playful feeling too?

I like the graphic, but I agree it could use some humanization.  I kind of
miss the passengers, since the original concept was that the balloon was a
vehicle.  Of course, that's all IMHO.

Quite a while ago I came across a wonderful book with a rodent hero who (I
think) personifies the Squeaky spirit.  (I like his hat, too).  If I were an
artist, I'd try to get him into the basket, with either a bottle of
champagne or a telescope.  [just saw Markus G's similar thought]

Here's a link (my msg got too big and bounced when I put in a scan)...
http://www.childhoodbooks.com/si/66789.html

Of course, there's a copyright on this particular image, but it's just to
give an idea.  Helen Craig might be happy for Tyler to become a mascot.

On the other hand, it's not good to mix too many things up in art.

- Dan

PS:  Another thought that occurred to me a while ago was to use the common
image of a light bulb over someone's head as a symbol for an idea.  The
concept is to make it bigger like a hot air balloon, and show the person (or
mouse) borne aloft by his own idea.  Again, I'm not an artist.

PPS:  These are just more ideas. Pavel's graphic is also fine, clean and
simple, all by itself.