Hi,
>
> flapflap:
>
> IMO the placement of the pins should be fixed but I wouldn't
> change the pin lengths if it leads to the inner two not being possible
> to be seen (if only the outer ones are visible, I fear people might not
> recognise it correctly)
>
Okay. I didn't have time, yet, to do the promised comparison but I
will.
>
> sajolida:
> I found the original idea of fixing the placement of the pins a funny
> bug and I was not against people fixing it. Now, I'm quite strongly
> opposed to changing more than that in the current drawing; which is
> basically the position of *one* stroke (or five with the pins).
>
No worries. There is no obligation to change anything. However, here
[0] is the polished Tails logo, should you change your mind. It is just
an upgrade to what we have here [1].
>
> I think it would be a mistake to change the logo (after only 1.5 year
> of
> use) to something that will make people go. "Hmm, they change the logo.
> What's going on?"
>
I do not think people will think this :)
>
> We're talking here about "brand" and "marketing" if
> you want, and I don't want to change it just for more "technical
> correctness" on the picture.
>
No worries, though this is a self-conflicting POV.
>
> Anyway a technically correct USB stick
> would never smile, right?
>
It would, or frown, as seen in the attached document [0], as the
impression is a mechanical fastening technique to hold in the
ever-shrinking boards; nano size USB sticks use this approach.
We should polish what we have instead of starting over and changing the
branding. Maybe 2.0 is an appropriate time.
Wordlife,
Spencer
[0]: TailsLogo-USBGuy.png
[1]:
https://tails.boum.org/contribute/how/promote/material/