From tupper@peda.com Thu May 27 13:12:13 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: tupper@peda.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 56940 invoked from network); 27 May 2004 20:12:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 May 2004 20:12:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.76) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 May 2004 20:12:12 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.189] by n20.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 May 2004 20:11:39 -0000 Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 20:11:38 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 2046 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 66.218.66.76 From: "pedagoguery" X-Originating-IP: 24.244.66.135 Subject: Re: Lojban Flag X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=51317927 X-Yahoo-Profile: pedagoguery X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22438 --- In lojban@yahoogroups.com, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2004, pedagoguery wrote: >=20 >> I've put up a simpler Lojban flag in the files area ("graphics" >> directory). Comments? I removed the lines from the original >> flag and turned the arrowheads into equilateral triangles. >=20 > Your drawing does look nice, but I'm not yet sure if it looks > nicer than the "canonical" drawings of it. In any case I > don't like the loss of the coordinate system, because it > has a symbolism that is at least somewhat important. Thanks for your kind comments and thanks for explaining some=20 of the symbolism that Xah alluded to earlier. I think the arrowheads alone are enough to evoke the Cartesian=20 co=F6rdinate system --- in a flag, at least. I've put up a few more quick designs in the "graphics" directory. I=20 think A and D are best. Design D is more explicit with the=20 Cartesian system, while A is less of an abrupt change from the=20 official design. In terms of complexity / clutter, I think design D is perhaps a bit=20 too simple, design B is a bit too complex, and design A is just=20 about right. I think design A's explicit inclusion of all four=20 quadrants of the Cartesian system is a good feature. If one wanted to really emphasize the quantitative nature of=20 Cartesian co=F6rdinates, I think one would probably want ticks=20 included on the axes. I'd like to have a flag that would reproduce well at small sizes. > People have previously complained that it looks to thin, > "weak", "not striking", etc. I think those complaints could > be alleviated somewhat by making heavier lines, and by > emphasizing the arrowheads, as you did. >=20 > I've also noticed that the Lojban logo tends to look better > with the middle space of the Venn diagram (ie. A & B) very > wide, so that the vertical axis of the coordinate system > obscures as little as possible of it. It is this sort of thing that lead me to a simpler design. Design B=20 has the Venn circles further apart than before.