Received: from localhost ([::1]:51312 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Yp8ne-0001sq-Qb; Sun, 03 May 2015 22:20:14 -0700 Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]:38382) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Yp8nY-0001sh-Em for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 03 May 2015 22:20:12 -0700 Received: by wiun10 with SMTP id n10so98200400wiu.1 for ; Sun, 03 May 2015 22:20:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=EMV1ilB+ucveW5QXddO/Ho9zUaUfQnqFlpkonrUjyis=; b=MPTZ39tRIWXT1LZT5DsHqWAaEdRPL+3AiSEXBV6Wz2skRTITIul+1tUsZSy/IZpFYI cz3atittMwhOnmEm5K9+RzzEubyG/eBm6or7qVs2I3D2vy3//P0v6MMpVpiVP5Iqd2Pk oTToTnTRkyoM5Mprw9VJWQLYAzvKao0OutISCPsu3jkTygEiCT/1ii17e0dU9Wk4RfF/ MxtYm3THUSdakM3vN8UjPv0GAPp2bfkBc2TGhoKOBWYF2wueSkk740HFMUOyFRVvt2zM 1GXysrKZ55uGk1sLR8tZqwOAXJ7UnH5jC9zHm3TCznmZeKm1FUYwbrl1q9QF05uI22sQ YDVw== X-Received: by 10.180.231.41 with SMTP id td9mr16447126wic.69.1430716801323; Sun, 03 May 2015 22:20:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.221.167 with HTTP; Sun, 3 May 2015 22:19:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150503155545.GG2137@nvg.org> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 08:19:40 +0300 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Official logos of Lojban, LLG. X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7914111591629181952==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============7914111591629181952== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134c5ccb796da05153ab660 --001a1134c5ccb796da05153ab660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-05-04 2:40 GMT+03:00 guskant : > 2015-05-03 15:55 GMT+00:00 Arnt Richard Johansen : > > On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 11:45:59AM +0300, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > >> I'm not aware of any official logos of LLG. In fact I know that only > Lojban > >> logo was approved. > >> > >> So I propose approving of the following vector images: > >> > >> 1. Make the following vector image the official flag of Lojban: > >> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/File:creka_lojban-2400.svg > >> > >> 2. Make the following vector image the official logo of LLG: > >> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/File:lojban_logo_cizra.svg > >> > >> The meeting is over and now we can only approve anything unofficially. > > > > As far as I understand, the former symbol has been the official symbol > for both Lojban the language, and the LLG, for a number of years. In my > opinion it should remain so, for reasons of continuity. > > > > I have no objections against using it as a flag, but doubt if we need a > formal decision to do so. > > > > I also think that creating the latter symbol was a mistake, and that it > should preferably not be used at all, much less adopted officially. > > > > I totally agree to Arnt Ricard Johansen. According to {lu ju'i lobypli > li'u 14 moi}, the former one > http://mw.lojban.org/papri/File:creka_lojban-2400.svg is also a symbol > for LLG: > > http://mw.lojban.org/papri/me_lu_ju%27i_lobypli_li%27u_14_moi > "[...] there is a commercial purpose to the logo. It is a symbol for > la lojbangirz. as well as, and possibly more than, for the language > (this unfortunately may not have been in the minds of the designers > and voters, but, oh well). [...]" > > If we should decide an svg file to be official, the colors might be > considered as official. If so, the colors should not be in codes > #ff0000 and #0000ff , which are the current colors of the svg file for > the former symbol. > > I _don't_ think the combination of colors should be decided as > official, and I'm not sure that the colors were also an agreed > property of logo. Even if the colors should be decided as official, > colors of a logo should _not_ be composed of _primary_ colors in > considering color-blindness. Several days ago, I suggested a > combination of #ff5252 as red and #2e2eff as blue for favicon of > mediawiki website, though it seems to be rejected by la gleki: > http://mw.lojban.org/papri/File:LMW_favikon_blanu.ico it's been rejected because tiny details like ends of arrows don't scale smoothly to 16x16 or 24x24 or whatever size browsers wants from them. this image becomes blurry. So different sizes are needed in the .ico. la selrun and I tried different icons and asked Robin to change every time to them. Finally we decided not to bother him until some clearly visible image is devised. > (Because it is designed as a favicon, it shows only a part of the full > form of logo for aesthetic reason.) > I checked with Inkscape if this combination of colors is visible to > color-blind people on various brightness of color of background, and > it should be fine. > > As for the latter symbol > http://mw.lojban.org/papri/File:lojban_logo_cizra.svg , even if it was > or will be discussed as a candidate for LLG logo, I would oppose it. > People may use it as an unofficial symbol, but it is not suitable as > an official design, because I don't think {lo se jbobau} should have > two arms and two legs. Official design should be in more universal > design. (This reason was my motivation for creating my {bripre}: > http://mw.lojban.org/papri/la_bripre .) > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --001a1134c5ccb796da05153ab660 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-05-04 2:40 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>:
2015-05-03 15:55 = GMT+00:00 Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.= org>:
> On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 11:45:59AM +0300, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
>> I'm not aware of any official logos of LLG. In fact I know tha= t only Lojban
>> logo was approved.
>>
>> So I propose approving of the following vector images:
>>
>> 1. Make the following vector image the official flag of Lojban: >> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/File:creka_lojban-2400.svg=
>>
>> 2. Make the following vector image the official logo of LLG:
>> http://mw.lojban.org/papri/File:lojban_logo_cizra.svg=
>>
>> The meeting is over and now we can only approve anything unofficia= lly.
>
> As far as I understand, the former symbol has been the official symbol= for both Lojban the language, and the LLG, for a number of years. In my op= inion it should remain so, for reasons of continuity.
>
> I have no objections against using it as a flag, but doubt if we need = a formal decision to do so.
>
> I also think that creating the latter symbol was a mistake, and that i= t should preferably not be used at all, much less adopted officially.
>

I totally agree to Arnt Ricard Johansen. According to {lu ju'i l= obypli
li'u 14 moi},=C2=A0 the former one
http://mw.lojban.org/papri/File:creka_lojban-2400.svg is also = a symbol
for LLG:

http://mw.lojban.org/papri/me_lu_ju%27i_lobypli_li%27u_14_= moi
"[...] there is a commercial purpose to the logo. It is a symbol for la lojbangirz. as well as, and possibly more than, for the language
(this unfortunately may not have been in the minds of the designers
and voters, but, oh well). [...]"

If we should decide an svg file to be official, the colors might be
considered as official. If so, the colors should not be in codes
#ff0000 and #0000ff , which are the current colors of the svg file for
the former symbol.

I _don't_ think the combination of colors should be decided as
official, and I'm not sure that the colors were also an agreed
property of logo. Even if the colors should be decided as official,
colors of a logo should _not_ be composed of _primary_ colors in
considering color-blindness.=C2=A0 Several days ago, I suggested a
combination of #ff5252 as red and #2e2eff as blue for favicon of
mediawiki website, though it seems to be rejected by la gleki:
http://mw.lojban.org/papri/File:LMW_favikon_blanu.ico

it's been rejected because tiny details like en= ds of arrows don't scale smoothly to 16x16 or 24x24 or whatever size br= owsers wants from them. this image becomes blurry. So different sizes are n= eeded in the .ico. la selrun and I tried different icons and asked Robin to= change every time to them. Finally we decided not to bother him until some= clearly visible image is devised.


(Because it is designed as a favicon, it shows only a part of the full
form of logo for aesthetic reason.)
I checked with Inkscape if this combination of colors is visible to
color-blind people on various brightness of color of background, and
it should be fine.

As for the latter symbol
http://mw.lojban.org/papri/File:lojban_logo_cizra.svg , even i= f it was
or will be discussed as a candidate for LLG logo, I would oppose it.
People may use it as an unofficial symbol, but it is not suitable as
an official design, because I don't think {lo se jbobau} should have two arms and two legs. Official design should be in more universal
design. (This reason was my motivation for creating my {bripre}:
http://m= w.lojban.org/papri/la_bripre .)

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members

--001a1134c5ccb796da05153ab660-- --===============7914111591629181952== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============7914111591629181952==--