Better?
http://www.hackontest.ch

Thanks for the critique,

Markus

> 2008/5/7 tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org>:
>
>>
>> On 7-May-08, at 3:14 AM, cdrick wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I'm not against the mouse icon at all... but refreshing it with a 3D
>> > look maybe could be nice,
>> >
>> Could someone please explain to me why a '3D look' is 'more modern' or
>> 'refreshed'?
>
>
> I knew this would be interpreted like this...
>
> It's just a feeling I expressed seeing squeak logo in this web page
> (compared to others)... I should have said more contemporary probably..
> and
> probably this was almost due to the rendering (as Bert noted)... black on
> gray etc... but yeah designing and choosing a logo is something hard and
> somewhat "useless"...
>
>
>
>> Generally all it achieves in my opinion (and yes, Virginia, I am a
>> professional) is a tackiness and ersatz contemporaneity that simply
>> means
>> having 'refresh' it again a short while later.
>
>
> This is the whole logo and graphics story I think. But if graphists exist,
> who have design rules to respect, there must be a reason. IMO , one is to
> catch people attention, give a whole picture with the help of a symbol...
> In
> this sense, I'm sure the actual logo is ok, but on the other hand, people
> have to be very open-minded and curious to give a try... I could'nt say
> the
> word it brings to me... I forgot...  Anyway, as we don't want squeak to
> become mainstream. It's better it stays a kind of secret weapon, so this
> is
> not a problem ;)
>
> Cédrick
>
> ps: Every corporation, systems, products make they image evolve over time.
> Seaside for instance had already 3 different logos (
> http://www.seaside.st/about/trivia/logos). I'm glad they didn't keep the
> 2002 one ;) ... no offense to anybody, I'll be terrible at designing
> one...
> and even choosing... Just impressions...
>
>