Re: CSS Logo -Reply

Okay, I've looked at these proposals, and here's my (rather 
opinionated) two cents:

As far as style, I like Suite 1 from the web page the best, but then, 
I'm a fan of Art Noveu (sp?). (I'm hoping Microsoft releases a 
TrueType Art Noveu font.) I think it's important that the logo 
look very texy as opposed to imagey, in other words, as though 
it pertains to the way text is given styling rather than being 
replaced by images.

Suite 2 had that pseudo-hand-drawn look, which I don't think 
coalesces with the idea of an automatically cascading style 
sheet mechanism.

Suite 3 was very imagey.

Suite 4 was texy, but the letters seemed out of alignment
with each other. In some, the "C" looked like it was barfing 
out the Ss.

I liked David Perrell's version of a button, because I think 
"styled with CSS" sounds better than "CSS enabled" (even with 
the "Netscape Enabled" precedent),  but I still like the styling 
of suite 1 best.  I think it's important to have a 
graphic that's very buttony, for lack of a better word, so people 
who have never seen it will know to select it (oh, I guess I can 
use the word "click" here) to learn more about CSS.

C  h a r l e s    P e y t o n   T a y l o r         ctaylor@nps.navy.mil
The opinions and views expressed are my own and do not reflect those of 
the Naval PostGraduate School 

                       "Dreams are like water, colorless, and dangerous"

                   http://vislab-www.nps.navy.mil/%7ectaylor/


>>> Hakon Lie <howcome@w3.org> 11/27/96 05:27pm >>>
>Thanks to everyone who has contributed CSS logo proposals -- including
>Digital Style, Steven Pemberton, Gordon Blackstock and Ka-Ping Yee.
>I've updated the logo page [1] and look forward to comments and new
>constellations. 
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Style/css/logo/
>
>Regards,
>
>-h&kon
>
>H   ?   k   o   n      W   i   u   m       L   i   e howcome@w3.org   W o r l d
 
>Wide  W e b  Consortium inria ???#?? FRANCE http://www.w3.org/people/howcome

Received on Monday, 2 December 1996 20:26:45 UTC