From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-22 12:39:12
David Abrahams wrote:
> Rene Rivera <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> writes:
> All I see there is:
I did mention that it would not work in IE :-\
> And there are no clickable links. But if I go to
> http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/more/ I can browse what I
> presume you've done there.
Yes that's it.
> I'm not fond of any of these. They're all still trying to do too
> much, IMO. Too many fonts, and too many design elements that don't
> make sense to me. For example, what's the point of the circle around
> the angle brackets? And why do they poke through the sides of the
The bare logo is just that, the logo. The text "Boost/C++" is the tag
line and only embellishes the actual logo. Anyway.. I personally think
that the "/C++" part isn't meaningful. Truthfully I put it in per your
suggestion. Like the logo Joaquin designed what works best is something
that has a single iconic logo with the minimum tag line text. Given
that, my direction was to use the template "<>" brackets as that is what
most closely invokes Boost to me. The circle is a framing container,
although breaking at the left and right edges did not come out as well
as I intended, it was a mistake to play with the negative space. Another
approach I like, which happens to be similar in effect to Joaquin's, is
to interleave the <> with each other (see attached).
> In my suggestion
> The slash followed boost and boost was lowercased because it
> corresponds to what we write when we #include boost headers. If
> you're going to upcase boost and move the slash, the slash may as well
> be dropped. Putting C++ in typewriter font doesn't make any sense to
> me either. We never write that in our programs. Do you regularly
> increment variables named capital `C'?
Dave I think you are falling into the same mental trap you accused me
of... You are placing significance on the logo because you have a set
idea of what it means.
> Logo design is really, really hard.
That it is. And it took me weeks to come up with the one for my company.
> But if you take a look at the
> really effective ones (Apple, FedEx**, Coke, UPS, ...) they do basically
> one simple thing. It's much better to err on the side of minimalism.
Seen them, studied them... The most effective ones in the long run
reduce the textual component to the bare minimum. Here's a guideline,if
you can "read" the logo in less than 2 syllables, it's probably too long.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk