From: Aaron W. LaFramboise (aaronrabiddog51_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-01 03:37:34
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> How can you rationally decide if a nice colored rocket is better than b/w
> logo from Joaquin that is beatifylly minimalistic? It's simply not
I agree that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
But we may not be looking for beauty. Likely we are looking for a logo
that meets a set of requirements, and further performs well versus a
variety of useful tests. I do not think objective evaluation of a logo
is any more impossible than objective evaluation of libraries to be
included with Boost.
I would suggest that, for each submission to the Wiki, a list is made of
the logo's strengths and weaknesses. When Dominique remarks on the
mailing list that a graphic looks "too busy," she should also record
that fact on that Wiki so people later will be able to review each logo
A more thorough set of guidelines might also be helpful. Its difficult
to make a good logo (and to decide which logo is good!) if we haven't
defined what that is. Perhaps the short list of guidelines could be
expanded (based on discussions on the mailing list) into slightly longer
lists of "almost-requirements" and "recommendations."
Perhaps, then, if or when a vote becomes necessary, the vote would be on
how well each logo performs in each useful catagory, rather than a
simple popularity contest.
Aaron W. LaFramboise
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk