another logo possibility

[Andrew Drake]

Hi,

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Alasdair Allan wrote:
> The other approach is to do the precisely the opposite, for instance look at 
> Red Hat, or Tux, or the BSD daemon. All instantly identifiable. However they 
> don't mean anything, they're "just" logos. The logo doesn't have to represent 
> anything, it can even be an insider joke (the Red hat logo was precisely 
> that), it just has to work as a logo and allow brand recognition.

Redhat has a red hat logo. You can't get much clearer than that. What does a
VOEvent look like? If we want people to remember it, why not make make it
simple, like redhat, etc, yet still astronomical enough to recognize 
that it may be an event?

> We shouldn't get fancy, we aren't designers here. Stick to something simple. 
Yes.

> I rather like the latest logos (attached) that Rob made. What's wrong with 
> having a few < /> angle brackets? its a logo, the people it means something 
> to will get a chuckle, the people that it doesn't won't care.

By using it we are emphasing the XML, which is just one way of representing
something which (hopefully) is intrinsically more interesting than the 
semantics. Will we even want to stick with XML in a few years?

-Andrew
--