Everyone's input needed: voting and feedback on Fluid Engage logos (again!)
obara.justin at gmail.com
Fri Nov 27 21:40:43 UTC 2009
I think the quality of all of them is pretty good.
What makes things a bit more difficult for me is that I would probably rank the versions with the word "engage" differently than the smaller versions. I voted based on the longer versions.
Here are a few of my comments (that don't necessarily reflect the way I voted).
r) Is the most pleasant looking, probably because of the tie in to nature
f) Is probably the hardest to read, and could appear as though the word engage is breaking something.
q) the image above the word "engage" seems to be out of place.
I actually like the font used. While, I'm pretty sure they are all the same, the one in q pops out the most. Guess it's bolded or something. It makes me wonder if we could just have a text only logo instead of adding in a graphic alongside.
On 2009-11-27, at 4:08 PM, James William Yoon wrote:
> Dear Fluid community,
> We've come up with three more good logo candidates (one of them a revision of a logo from the first round). They're up on this page here:
> We'd like you to take a look at the logos, and **RANK THEM ACCORDING TO YOUR PREFERENCE**.
> A good idea to make a well-informed decision would be to check out the copy Jess wrote for http://www.fluidengage.org as a reference point for what Fluid Engage is all about.
> Please use this thread to provide open feedback and share whether you felt compelled by one in particular over the others, or whether you felt more or less the same about all three. Let us know what you liked and didn't like!
> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
> see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the fluid-work