On 19/01/2017 13:30, Daniel Dekany wrote:
A new choice! So now in theory I should cancel this vote and start a
new one. But I guess we can be less formal in this case. After all,
changing a logo is backward compatible (an almost disturbing feeling
if you have maintained FM... <-; ).
#1.5
I still like #3 on the top row... simple, and square is nice on certain sites
(ie certain sites require a square logo).
-David
On Jan 19 2017, at 4:3
OK, I focused, and I still prefer 2 with its (very hard to see) paler shadow
Jacques
Le 19/01/2017 à 18:47, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Sincerely I don't see the differences between 1.5 and 2.
Disclaimer: I'm a bit daltonian
Jacques
Le 19/01/2017 à 13:30, Daniel Dekany a écrit :
A new choic
Sincerely I don't see the differences between 1.5 and 2.
Disclaimer: I'm a bit daltonian
Jacques
Le 19/01/2017 à 13:30, Daniel Dekany a écrit :
A new choice! So now in theory I should cancel this vote and start a
new one. But I guess we can be less formal in this case. After all,
changing a l
+1 for 1.5
Am 19.01.2017 6:19 nachm. schrieb "Jacopo Cappellato" <
jacopo.cappell...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Daniel Dekany
> wrote:
>
> > A new choice! So now in theory I should cancel this vote and start a
> > new one. But I guess we can be less formal in this case. After
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
> A new choice! So now in theory I should cancel this vote and start a
> new one. But I guess we can be less formal in this case. After all,
> changing a logo is backward compatible (an almost disturbing feeling
> if you have maintained FM...
A new choice! So now in theory I should cancel this vote and start a
new one. But I guess we can be less formal in this case. After all,
changing a logo is backward compatible (an almost disturbing feeling
if you have maintained FM... <-; ).
I change my vote to +1 for #1.5.
Monday, January 16, 2
