From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-20 11:38:24
David Abrahams wrote:
> Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 1. I disagree that it is well-recognized. It's too busy to make a
> memorable visual statement.
> 2. Even if it is well-recognized, I think it would be terrible to be
> tied down to that logo forever just because people currently
> recognize it: it's not a very good logo. I mean that it doesn't
> do what a logo should. I remember what the Spirit logo looks like
> better than I remember the Boost logo, and I've had way more
> exposure to the latter.
And I would say that both of these reasons are due to the fact that the
simpler logos can be easily vectorized, while the current Boost logo is
more like artwork than a logo. It's a nice image, but perhaps not a
nice visual key, which is the purpose of a logo.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk