From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-17 00:07:47
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> The deadline for submission of entries is technically over
> but I still keep getting new entries.
One thing I would like to say is, my only reluctance on the part
of some of the logos is that while they are quite beautiful, they
have too many colors to know what they would look like as a small
icon. I think a good example would be the Apple logo. You have
the original version, which is quite simple, quite easy to render
in many different media, but also quite amenable to stylization.
Then you have the "modern" version, which is the same thing, but
made to have a 3D appearance with some shiny reflections. I would
be more likely to vote for entries that display some potential for
such "dual use". Granted, we don't have the same marketing needs
as Apple, par se, but something that would look good both in small,
simple (i.e. "low color") contexts as well as hi-color, hi-res
would fit the variety of contexts in which the Boost logo might
What that means is that logos that have some very fine detail might
look good at their original scale, but might lose their impact
when scaled down. Logos that depend on extensive 3D shading for
effect might also look good in a hi-color scenario, but would be
more convincing if a low-color alternative were provided as well.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk