🚀 go-pugleaf

      That still implies a deliberate decision (ie, not to check the text) on
      your part




There are many deliberate decisions we have to make that involve not doing what we want.

      Okay, so your previous statement was really saying "BUT ..... as I've
      stated many times, Richard Archer-Jones has set a limitation to bending
      the rules for art's sake, and *that* is what this thread is supposed to
      be about."




Do you really think there are actually no limits at all? No limits before the bending or breaking of rules for art's sake just becomes farcical, and takes it into the poor category? In fact, is no art poor?

      Well, if you just want to pontificate on your view of acceptable design,
      write a blog.




Sorry, blogs are beyond me at the moment. I have a vague idea what they are but not sure.

      If you post on a public forum, expect to be challenged on your statements
      and expect the thread to wander.




You've lost me on this one. Why would I not expect to be challenged on my statements or not expect the thread to wonder on a public forum? And why would such a thing not also happen on a blog (whatever one of them is)?

      Here's a couple more questions for you: if someone came to you to do some
      work with a predesigned lowercase logo (or with something that transgressed
      another of your limits), would you refuse to work on it? And how do you
      feel about unicase fonts?




Oh I would do the job. As much as I consider it's a poor design I wouldn't jeapordise my job for such principles (but I might do for such principles as Neil suggests). As for unicase fonts (I presume a unicase font only has one case, as opposed to the word 'unisex' which is ridiculously taken to mean both sexes), well, just as I can't see the point in lower case proper nouns I can't see the point in such fonts. The reasons that you state as 'the point' don't work for me for the reasons I have stated. If they do work in certain designs for the target market well, so be it. I still think it's a poor design though, and I'm not sure you can be certain capitals wouldn't also have worked in such cases.

      ....... and (as I've previously noted) the Olympics logo has certainly
      lodged itself in your brain, so it's worked as far as you're concerned.




Mmmm ..... do you really call that 'worked'? Does the saying 'Any publicity is good publicity' always work? I think we're back to this 'limits' thing again. I don't see how it can be considered to have 'worked' if I think the London Olympics logo text is poor. By that reasoning the whole logo itself can be considered to have 'worked' because I think it's poor. How does that reasoning work? Is there any point in producing good art anymore?