From: Reid Sweatman (drunkardswalk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 17:38:46
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Zoltan
> 'cad' Juhasz
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:42 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Logo Contest
> Although logo gives the face of the project, company, team
> etc., it does not
> determine the area of operation of the represented! I mean a
> logo doesn't
> need to reflect to all of the services a company provides and
> it's very hard
> to find a logo that looks great and tells everything about
> the company.
> Conclusion: sometimes that's good enough to have an
> impressive logo the
> emotional effect depends on the represented. However, I'm
> absolutely sure
> about the thing that the "user" will not spend any valuable minute on
> racking his brains about the very meaning of an abstract logo :).
> > Pepsi, Nike, Sun, Microsoft Windows, BMW, Toyota, Apple...
> The logos of these companies are really impressive and
> stylish, aren't they?
> In my point of view Nike, Sun and perhaps Pepsi have those
> logos that are
> great just by being a logo the others mentioned need to have
> the background
> meaning to catch the attention.
> Iconify: I share the opinion of those who think about the
> recognizability of
> a logo as a basic feature, especially by extremely tiny
> size... but I don`t
> think that we would need a sparated icon logo as well.
> Sometimes the logo
> itself can work as an icon:
> Although the logo of the Infiniti company is completely
> abstract, it`s
> incredible: http://people.inf.elte.hu/cad/etc/boost/infiniti.png
Spot on. I'd further add that most of the best commercial logos are pretty
simple--not all, but it's a lot harder to make a complex one appealing.
Without singling any of the entries out, I think that most of the
currently-posted entries are too complex. As a side note, and not a very
relevant one (maybe), it's pretty clear the list is populated by a mostly
left-brained crowd; look at how many of the entries depend on word play,
acrostics, and the like. Not saying that's bad, but again, the logos people
tend to remember are more likely to be graphic than semiotic. Yeah, I guess
that one deserves a smiley, on the grounds of self-referential irony. So
here: <g>. Now, if there were just a way to make emoticons
tail-recursive...come to think of it, I'm surprised no one used recursion as
a means of indicating "boostness." If it weren't too late, I'd maybe have a
go at that. Although most of my ideas were based around shapes, color use,
Incidentally, I'm also surprised no one has tried to define a coherent color
scheme, especially given that there *are* graphic designers present. Is it
just that everyone unconsciously accepted the existing "cool" scheme? Only
a couple of the entries even try to do much with color, and I can't find any
consistency in the usage (possibly my fault; it's just a hobby with me).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk