From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-22 17:06:44
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>I'm not a logo expert by any stretch of the imagination... but it
>>seems to me that if you have a rocket, you don't need the text
>>"boost". The rocket is the logo. It needs to have some unique visual
>>features that establish its identity as the "boost/C++" rocket, of
> Interesting. But every logo I've seen includes the name of the entity
> it stands for somehow.
Yes, and that's done to enforce the association between the logo and the
company identity. Eventually the logo becomes synonymous with the
identity and starts getting used more frequently without the name. AT&T,
Cingular, Apple, and Motorola come to mind in that respect.
> Even if the rocket isn't part of some "Boost"
> text, you need to choose a font for "Boost" and decide how it sits
> next to or below the rocket.
True, but it will likely be easier to decide on the substance of the
logo without the text. No distractions that way. Not that one should
forget totally about the text. But it's much easier to think about what
can represent Boost, without the word Boost in it.
So far I see three different concepts for logo:
1) The "<>" brackets.
2) The "++" operator.
3) The rocket.
Perhaps discussing what the logo substance is before getting to deep
into the design is best?
Are there other concepts that would work?
Which of the above work better?
Are any of the above just not representative enough?
-- -- 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