Re: Not snazzy (was: New Unicode Savvy Logo)

From: "Marco Cimarosti" <marco.cimarosti@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Yes, you are right. I never heard the word "savvy" before this morning.

Savvy is better understood in this context as "aware", than "archaic" or 
"informal" in your English-Italian dictionnary. It means the author of the 
website that uses this logo has considered taking the time to comply with the 
needs of their international users, and took the time to learn how to best fit 
their needs, by using a technology that is tought to deliver an information 
that will be better understood by more people and more softwares. So this meets 
the desire of respecting what is now an industry standard, and avoiding using 
legacy technologies that never reached the same level of interoperability.

A web author could then be said savvy if he adopts interoperable technologies 
that most people want, because it offers non proprietary solutions, and 
achieves a better audience for the content.

My question is more related to the requirements to display such a logo. After 
all, one could use this logo on a web site that uses a standardized encoding 
like ISO-8859-1 (which can be viewed even on legacy browsers), and avoids 
mixing contents with various encodings (where the visitor needs to guess select 
and select manually the encoding).

My understanding of this logo is that it can be used on a web site that uses a 
coherent and correctly labelled encoding that is widely implemented. A Chinese 
web site could for example still use the ISO-8859-1 character set to encode its 
web pages, provided that Chinese characters are encoded appropriately with 
character entities such as "&#20346;" where the sample number here is the 
**Unicode** codepoint (excluding any non standard use of sequences like 
"&#240;&#136;&#128;&#144;" (these values are fictive) assuming that the browser 
will be able to automatically correct tis sequence "as if " it was UTF-8 
encoded.

The other requirement is that te web site MUST not label its content with UTF-8 
when it is not (for example if it is encoded with CUSE-8). So my opinion is 
that a web site that fully conforms to the HTML4 or XML standards regarding its 
encoding is implicitly conforming to Unicode (because this is a requirement in 
all W3C standards for documents and schemas).

Being "Unicode savvy" means also that the author has taken the time to test the 
support of its content with common browsers and available fonts (excluding 
proprietary fonts that may require a separate licence, and all non-Unicode 
technical fonts), by a careful analysis of how the content will be interpreted 
(this means some knowledge of some technical implementation issues found in 
browsers, so that the content will not be broken, but without using any 
non-standard Unicode "extension").

Finally this logo implies that the web site adopts the Unicode standards 
instead of any other encoding algorithms found in proprietary application, and 
chooses to remove all content whose encoding would cause problems to most 
people (for example ISO2022, despite it is a standard, is widely implemented 
only in far eastern Asia). The design focus does not then address a specific 
population or part of the world.

That's why I prefer the Unicode motto "The world speaks Unicode", or something 
like "Best viewed by anyone" in such a logo.

Concerning the logo itself, its colors are strange, and do not match the 
official colors of the Unicode logo. But the worst thing is that both logos are 
not enough contrasted to be readable: red letters on this dark gray is 
difficult to read. These logos do not meet a basic design rule for logographic 
arts, which is that the logo must be easily recognizable, easily reproduced 
(think about printing them on a B&W laser or inkjet printer with less than 
300dpi!), so it must use a contrasted design for its colors. Finally the 
typographic design of the word "savvy" is quite poor. Additionally, many 
readers would read it "sawy", and could not find this word in a dictionnary.

Conclusions: these initial logos are difficult to read (even worse for the many 
people that are color blinded and cannot easily differentiate the dark red 
letters from the gray background!), difficult to understand, difficult to 
reproduce, and not very attractive visually. May be this page is a call for 
contributions...

A subsidiary question is: can these "logos" be translated, and recolored ? What 
is the legal aspect when using the unique typographic design of the "UNI" 
ligature used in the official Unicode logo and in the proposed logo ? Can we 
design our own logos that will link to the same website, but with a more 
appealing look?



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/8FfwlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: unicode-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This mailing list is just an archive. The instructions to join the true Unicode 
List are on http://www.unicode.org/unicode/consortium/distlist.html
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/