Rules for a Better Conference Name Badge (2017)

Re:Rules for a Better Conference Name Badge (2017) by jpatokal on Monday February 04, 2019 @07:20AM (#19075685)

All these examples of bad badges, but not a single good one? A picture would have been worth the entire blog post here.

Update: Huh, apparently that angry fruit salad at the end was supposed to be a good one. Fortunately the one on the homepage looks decent: https://badge.reviews/

Github: https://github.com/BadgeReviews/badges

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rules for a Better Conference Name Badge (2017) by wodenokoto on Monday February 04, 2019 @07:55AM (#19075908)

It also took me a while to realize the last picture was of a good badge, but the article never states that a good badge looks good, only that it conveys a few key information in clear, large print.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rules for a Better Conference Name Badge (2017) by hxsvui on Monday February 04, 2019 @07:21AM (#19075687)

You didn't read the article, there's one at the bottom.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rules for a Better Conference Name Badge (2017) by chrisseaton on Monday February 04, 2019 @07:26AM (#19075722)

> You didn't read the article

It's against HN guidelines to accuse someone of not reading the article.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rules for a Better Conference Name Badge (2017) by vibragiel on Monday February 04, 2019 @07:34AM (#19075764)

You're getting downvoted, but the guidelines explicitly say:

> Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

[ Parent | on HN ]