From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-08 11:11:09
From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > So who's going to break the ice?
> Here goes:
Darn! You beat me.
> One of the most important challenges for us to deal with in the next
> few years is raising Boost's level of professionalism, both in
> practice and in image (**). The logo should project solidity and
> In this department, number 67 stood head and shoulders above the rest
> for me. It is also memorable and easily iconifiable. The next
I didn't say it, but it did convey professionalism to me. Good
> most-likely candidate for me was 68a, closely followed by 75c,
> suitably modified. Most of the others didn't even come close in my
68a wasn't logo material to me. There was nothing that could be
extracted as an icon, and the lack of any kind of color makes it
far too subdued. It would simply be lost on a web page, for
75c's graphical element connotes nothing but paper to me. Since
Boost isn't a paper company, that doesn't fit Boost to me. Also,
itwill not look good without a great deal of color depth and it
certainly won't be meaningful as an icon.
> Having given them a second look after noticing them in the upper ranks
> of the voting, 38 and 39 look better to me than they did initially,
> but they still have a fundamental problem: they project the
> connotation of a child's toy blocks. While that has a certain appeal
> in projecting "ease-of-use" and "component software," it has obvious
> negative overtones in my opinion.
That's what bothered me! That's also why I liked 67: the blocks
were abstract, not toy-like.
> The 83 series, BTW, ranked fairly high on my professionalism scale,
> but seemed to be more appropriate for a photographic services or
> printing company or a music company, and the retro lettering, while
> pretty, perhaps makes too much of a statement.
That's why I thought changing the color wheel to a single hue
would be helpful.
> In my opinion, getting "C++" or "::" into the logo design as graphic
> elements is of very little importance (***). Most of the designs that
> do that seem to be too clever by half, which is distracting and looks
> somewhat amateurish in the end. I realize I was probably responsible
I *really* liked Jonathan's syringe idea (#88), but couldn't
bring myself to vote for it because it didn't convey a good,
> for planting that seed. Sorry, but what can I say? I'm not a skilled
> logo designer, and I know it -- which is why I only made one
> submission, and that was only to stimulate thought. Probably the
> reason the FedEx logo works is that it's really subtle.
I'll say it's subtle. There's capitalizes on a common
abbreviation that allowed them to combine two very short "words"
into one, yet distinguish the "words" by color. The result is a
*pronounceable* new word so the juxtaposition causes no reading
problems. We can't do the same, and attempts to do so simply
> (***) I do think it's important to have the words "Boost" and "C++
> Libraries" in there somewhere, but not neccessarily as graphic
"Boost," yes. "C++ Libraries," no. I think there should be a
tag line, but I don't think it has to be "C++ Libraries."
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk