From: Mark Blewett (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 20:28:20
[A repost with (hopefully) proper quoting.. thanks Jonathan, and apologies
to everyone else for the previous post]
At 22:38 09/03/2005, Reid Sweatman wrote:
I really want to respond to a comment at the end of Reid's post.. but there
are a few interesting comments on the way... so I've added my thoughts
>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.
I agree, and add a further comment.
Yes there have been some well drawn/rendered logos, however many seem (IMHO
to me) like taking a average idea, but adding as many effects to make it
look good. What I think (and hope) we should be looking at is the concept,
not the frills.
>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.
Again I agree.. there are a few graphical people here, but most are
"left-brained crowd".. but what's Boosts target audience? It's actually a
serious question.. first line would be developers.. so a "left-brained
crowd" logo would be ok, second line are companies.. which probably don't
look at the logo, more the legal use of boost.
What I'm trying to say is most logo's are for the general population.. in
the case of boost (unfortunately) we don't have world domination.. so we
should be producing a logo for the selected target audience.
>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,
I agree with "graphic than semiotic" for the general population.. does it
apply to potential Boost users? I'm not so sure... but believe its probably
>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).
I started writing an email awhile back (which I didn't posted), commenting
on various designs.. however writing it I felt as it I was actually
questioning the process rather than the produced logos (I'm not knocking
the designers or anyone else.. just questioning)
Why I'm responding to your email is a similar thought...
Before we have a boost logo, do we need to define the boost "colours", the
boost "font".. the foundations of a "corporate" logo?
Or another example, capitalization.. should should Boost be "boost",
"Boost" or "BOOST".. my thought is "Boost" in documentation, and "boost"
(because coding standards apply) in code. Buts what about in a logo?
Going back to colours.. I'm not sure what you mean about the "existing cool
scheme".. I presume variants of blue.. there's are good reasons... 1)
(unfortunately) most of us are male (and our target audience).. and we have
a preference for the colour. 2) Industry Conventions.. I posted a link
awhile back (http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg75724.php) which
gives another reason;
I'm no expert either but
http://graphicdesign.about.com/od/logotips/a/8logoelements_2.htm has a
interesting point about colour which I haven't seen mentioned here;
Works Within Industry Conventions
Often there are consistencies among logos in certain industries, and
following these conventions can help customers more easily identify what
you do or what you sell. This doesn't mean you should sacrifice
originality, but it does mean you (or the firm creating your logo design)
should be aware of patterns among logos in your industry and somehow
incorporate these consistencies into your design.
For example, did you realize that the main color for the logos for
Microsoft, IBM, Dell, Hewlett Packard and Intel is blue? The color blue is
associated with stability and progress and has long been a standard color
among high-tech companies. So if you were a technology company, you would
probably want to incorporate blue into your logo design to take advantage
of these positive built-in associations.
I guess choosing a logo is very personal and emotive (compared to
accepting, or not, a new library).. but personally I trust the judgement of
the people here and the process.. discussion is the key I feel.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk