# Ruby Logo **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [November 23, 2008, 12:35pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-logo/153938 "2008-11-23T12:35:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/a9a28c/32.png) [@tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tunickelz)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 12:35pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-logo/153938/1 "2008-11-23T12:35:09Z")
I changed the color a bit on the Ruby logo, and I think it looks better (and if I may say so, fits with Why’s (Poignant) Guide to Ruby better as well). ---
**Author:** ![tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/a9a28c/32.png) [@tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tunickelz)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 1:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-logo/153938/2 "2008-11-23T13:22:07Z")
Original is better for me :). On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Fredrik S. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > – Pozdrawiam Rados³aw Bu³at [http://radarek.jogger.pl](http://radarek.jogger.pl) - mój blog ---
**Author:** ![tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/a9a28c/32.png) [@tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tunickelz)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 5:15pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-logo/153938/3 "2008-11-23T17:15:01Z")
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Fredrik S. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I changed the color a bit on the Ruby logo, and I think it looks better > (and if I may say so, fits with Why’s (Poignant) Guide to Ruby better as > well). > > Attachments: > [http://www.ruby-forum.com/attachment/2955/attractive\_ruby.png](http://www.ruby-forum.com/attachment/2955/attractive_ruby.png) The trick is to stay the same. ---
**Author:** ![tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/a9a28c/32.png) [@tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tunickelz)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 2:47am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-logo/153938/4 "2008-11-24T02:47:55Z")
From: Fredrik S. [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] # I changed the color a bit on the Ruby logo, and I think it # looks better # (and if I may say so, fits with Why’s (Poignant) Guide to # Ruby better as # well). # # Attachments: # [http://www.ruby-forum.com/attachment/2955/attractive\_ruby.png](http://www.ruby-forum.com/attachment/2955/attractive_ruby.png) that’s not red 🙂 btw, if you only color the jewel and the ruby font, it is much better and the whole logo would stand out. i would prefer that the font be changed too. Currently, the font looks as if it’s an ad from a cosmetic or perfume… (no offense intended) ---
**Author:** ![tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/a9a28c/32.png) [@tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tunickelz)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 8:34pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-logo/153938/5 "2008-11-24T20:34:35Z")
I prefer the original color for the gem, but maybe the background color should be changed. This pink is flashing to much in my eyes I think 😉 I just like the original 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/a9a28c/32.png) [@tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tunickelz)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2008, 3:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-logo/153938/6 "2008-11-24T15:10:47Z")
Peña, Botp wrote: > From: Fredrik S. [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] > > # I changed the color a bit on the Ruby logo, and I think it > > # looks better > > that’s not red 🙂 True. It should be a ruby coloring. On the other hand, though the GEM should be colored as a ruby, perhaps a tweak of the background might help a bit. ---
**Author:** ![tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/a9a28c/32.png) [@tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tunickelz)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2008, 11:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-logo/153938/7 "2008-11-30T23:47:45Z")
Peña, Botp wrote: > that’s not red 🙂 > Yes, but rubies aren’t only red. They vary in color > ([Ruby - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby)). From Wikipedia: “The finest ruby is best described as being a vivid medium-dark toned red. Secondary hues add an additional complication. Pink, orange, and purple are the normal secondary hues in ruby. Of the three, purple is preferred because, firstly, the purple reinforces the red making it appear richer[3]. Secondly, purple occupies a position on the color wheel halfway between red and blue.” The color of the ruby in the logo doesn’t look very “vivid”. attractive\_version.png was just a mockup. But I still think it could use an edge. So I think some purple/pink to spice it up would look very good if not overused (like it was in attractive\_version.png, I just changed the hue of the whole image). Would be interesting to see some attempts at this. ---
**Author:** ![tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/a9a28c/32.png) [@tunickelz](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tunickelz)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2008, 7:35am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ruby-logo/153938/8 "2008-11-25T07:35:55Z")
On Nov 23, 9:30 am, Fredrik S. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I changed the color a bit on the Ruby logo, and I think it looks better > (and if I may say so, fits with Why’s (Poignant) Guide to Ruby better as > well). > > Attachments:[http://www.ruby-forum.com/attachment/2955/attractive\_ruby.png](http://www.ruby-forum.com/attachment/2955/attractive_ruby.png) > > – > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/. I think the “Atractive Version” lacks some of the elegance of the original. It is nice, but I think elegance is a important factor for the Ruby logo, since elegance is important for Ruby itself. 🙂 However, a change in the background only could be nice, although it’s hard to say without actually seeing one.