<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
How about the fact that I have to change it yet again once the new Ubuntu font gets finished?<br>https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Brand<br><br><br>> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 14:37:50 -0800<br>> From: euxneks@gmail.com<br>> To: ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com<br>> Subject: Re: [ubuntu-art] .doc, .xls, etc icons in Humanity Update<br>> <br>> >> Thank you, if you look through this thread, there are a few other<br>> >> variations<br>> >> I did.<br>> >> Adding stroke, trying a different version of the Ubuntu Title Font.<br>> >> http://old.nabble.com/file/p27617704/humanity-msword.svg Stroke<br>> >> http://old.nabble.com/file/p27626085/humanity-msword2.svg Stroke with<br>> >> alternate font<br>> <br>> I like the second one.<br>> <br>> Why? I think it seems more dynamic, and may convey the idea of<br>> "filetype" better. The reason I say this is because a W fully<br>> contained within the document could give the impression of it just<br>> being a text file - "letters in a document". Whereas, a W partially<br>> inside but slightly outside would, in my opinion, give the impression<br>> of it being part of the document and at the same time, _not_ part of<br>> the document, perhaps giving more meaning to the typical user - i.e.<br>> W being the filetype, which is in essence ephemeral to the end user.<br>> <br>> :) Just my attempts at logically laying out why I like the second one<br>> better :P Feel free to rip apart my statement.<br>> <br>> -Chris<br>> <br>> -- <br>> ubuntu-art mailing list<br>> ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com<br>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art<br> <br /><hr />Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. <a href='http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/' target='_new'>Sign up now.</a></body>
</html>