Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 04:35:47 -0400
Message-Id: <200405290835.i4T8Zja15991@xahlee.org>
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com, tupper@peda.com, xah@xahlee.org
From: "xahlee.org" <yahoo@xahlee.org>
Subject: Lojban Flag
Content-Length: 2474
Lines: 76

Thanks Jeff for the drawings.

i think G is the best. It is something i'd like to try first. (you beat=20=

me to it)
I'd also like to try varying the two circle's size, one larger than the=20=

other.

as for color, i'd prefer lojban logo to be just black on white.

For the arrow, i'd try singe sided arrow.

Thanks Jeff again for these experiments.

  Xah
  xah@xahlee.org
  http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html


On May 27, 2004, at 1:11 PM, pedagoguery wrote:

--- In lojban@yahoogroups.com, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2004, pedagoguery wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> 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
of the symbolism that Xah alluded to earlier.

I think the arrowheads alone are enough to evoke the Cartesian
co=F6rdinate system --- in a flag, at least.

I've put up a few more quick designs in the "graphics" directory. I
think A and D are best. Design D is more explicit with the
Cartesian system, while A is less of an abrupt change from the
official design.

In terms of complexity / clutter, I think design D is perhaps a bit
too simple, design B is a bit too complex, and design A is just
about right. I think design A's explicit inclusion of all four
quadrants of the Cartesian system is a good feature.

If one wanted to really emphasize the quantitative nature of
Cartesian co=F6rdinates, I think one would probably want ticks
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.
>
> 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
has the Venn circles further apart than before.