Not sure anything looks good at 16x16 except my favourite colour. ^_^<div><br></div><div>Maybe you are right on the source file and svg issues of blending, I have never spent much time on Windows or Linux looking at the QGIS logo,</div>
<div>but it scales and blends nicely on OSX.</div><div><br></div><div>What are some Logo examples that people think are more "professional looking"?</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:18 PM, MORREALE Jean Roc <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jr.morreale@enoreth.net">jr.morreale@enoreth.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">The actual logo is very difficult to read at small size (32x32 and 16x16) because of the font used and all the details (gradient, shadow, arrow). The SVG source file is a mess (non-blending parts, incoherent shadow) and not scalable. And I would add that integrating the logo into a modern-looking publication makes people die somewhere, I'm pretty sure that's a fact.<br>
<br>
<br>
Le 26/11/2011 21:32, Mars Sjoden a écrit :<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I am just wondering what is wrong with the current QGIS icon/symbol?<br>
<br>
Are there some complaints about it's design?<br>
<br>
It currently seems simple, scalable, representative,<br>
and recognizable amongst those who currently are using QGIS.<br>
<br>
signed,<br>
<br>
Devil's Advocate<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br></div></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Qgis-developer mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/qgis-<u></u>developer</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>