From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 17:08:20
Zoltan 'cad' Juhasz wrote:
> As I attended the competition I don`t judge anyone`s work, since I`m
> affraid I couldn`t stay objective.:)
I think we already decided that subjective is okay ;-)
>> Then I examine it, my first thought is: "what is it supposed to be?"
>> This is not good for a logo, IMO: when you look at a logo, it
>> should be clear that a it represents something concrete or that it
>> is a purely abstract design. (If a concrete representation is hidden
>> in what first appears to be an abstract design, that's okay too.)
>> The reason I find myself asking what this particular logo is meant
>> to represent, I think, is that it's not sufficiently complex to hold
>> its own as an abstract design. Once I ask myself what the logo
>> represents, I can only conclude that it depicts a stack of paper.
>> This is a big problem:
>> aside from the fact that Boost has little to do with a stack of
>> paper, stacks of paper are simply uninteresting.
> I would like to protect my 75th application by some words: a logo
> doesn't need to illustrate anything tangible,
Of course -- I explicitly said so.
> since everyone will
> think and feel by seeing the logo the way he concieves of the
> represented. Jonathan saws papers, I saws component layers.
> that is
Of course! ;-) I hope I didn't offend you.
> Zoltan 'cad' Juhasz
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk