From: Joaquín Mª López Muñoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-22 13:22:34
Daniel Frey ha escrito:
> I like it. Although a version without the L-shapes might be interesting,
> too. Or maybe fill the edges, too? Hmm... it just looks a bit nervous to
> me with the "gaps" in two corners. With filled edges, it's more like a
> solid block. And "solid" is a good word to associate with boost, IMHO.
Well, here are all the possibilities so that we can compare them.
My personal preference is, in this order:
The crosses alone (2) lose the solid look, while in the full square
version (4), it looks like, instead of six pieces, the two crosses are
depicted against a flat background, which ruins the lego metaphor.
As for (1) and (2), the added little square at the bottom (2) renders
the logo more stable, though in the other hand the result is not as
clean as (1).
René Rivera wrote:
> I think the L shapes are distracting from the ++ in this case because
> they are too similar to the ++. Using another framing element that
> doesn't resemble the ++ would likely work better.
I can't come up with another framing scheme that maintains the lego
metaphor. To me, those L shapes do not really form a frame, but
are supposed to be stacked along the cross pieces. Your anschauung
may vary, of course :)
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk