From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Frings Subject: Re: Re: Sourceforge community award Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:58:33 +0200 Message-ID: <90F04357-F857-4D66-B074-B8D5FC8D8442@agfa.com> References: <4AA80F05-FECC-427D-BD20-E5AD3F273C1E@gmail.com> <4A2F52EA.6080105@gmail.com> <87bpouo9v6.fsf@fastmail.fm> <87my8ejs14.fsf@mean.albasani.net> <0087C93B-1BC2-4942-9B05-A372ED20E0D2@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MF1er-0005Yr-FH for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:58:41 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MF1em-0005YU-Vm for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:58:41 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35197 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MF1em-0005YR-SY for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:58:36 -0400 Received: from mornm01-out.agfa.com ([134.54.1.75]:44343) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MF1em-0004qr-DB for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:58:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <0087C93B-1BC2-4942-9B05-A372ED20E0D2@gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode Org-Mode On 12 Jun 2009, at 05:58, Carsten Dominik wrote: > > On Jun 12, 2009, at 12:59 AM, Memnon Anon wrote: > >> Leo writes: >> >>> On 2009-06-11 21:49 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote: >>>> I am attaching the picture to this email, you can also retrieve it >>>> from >>>> >>>> http://orgmode.org/Org-mode-scc.png >>> >>> That screen shot looks very beautiful. There's one minor glitch. The >>> font is non anti-alias. >> >> Pictures often give people their first impression of a software, as >> stupid as it is. What do you all think of the used colors? > > I do to some extend agree with you. The buffer picture does > look very colored and a bit unrealistic. A real buffer would > look less colored because the distribution between text and > functional elements would be different. These lines are so short > to make them readable at all in a screenshot. Will readable lines make the case? It all boils down to the question you pose: "what's its function?". > I actually do use these colors currently and find them quite > workable. I think there's a difference between what's workable and what's `attractive at first sight'. These days everything must be "web20", soft, polished, nice graphics, ... Too attract people, it must not be workable, but pretty. I agree with the poster about the "90s look". If the function of the screenshot/logo is to attract people and make them click through, it must be appealing AND pick their interest. The one screenshot on worg with the R plots has some of those qualities, but I think it's too dark and contains too much info (window is too big for a scaled-down screenshot). The alternative --only the logo-- is not bad, but I would add a slogan, such as "Your life in plain text"; short and bold. The logo by itself is not well-known and might not invoke this "Hey, what would that be? Let me see!" reaction. Hmmm, are there any marketeers on this list? Cheers, Peter.