Re: [boost] Re: Logo 67 bad [was: Logo comments]

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-10 10:24:09

From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Reid Sweatman wrote:
> >
> >> It might be salvable, though.  I liked it a lot, just thought it too
> >> close. Got to looking more closely and noticed that you can (if you
[snip]
> >> eliminating the half closest to the "ship."  Just suggestions.  It's
> >> the flu meds, y'know?  I'm a zombie right now.
> >
> > It would be easier to follow if you would post some examples.

Most definitely.  That also doesn't fit the minor alterations
theme I proposed.

> >> But it would have
> >> been my first choice, too; ought to be some way to rework it while
> >> keeping the essence.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the contest is closed now. I don't think we can open up one of
> > the logos for major redesign without doing it for the others.
> 
> Maybe we should do that.  We've learned a lot since this started.

Since most of the submitters aren't graphic artists, they have
learned a lot from the discussion, too.  I'd really like to see a
number of the logos reworked.

> We can always give an extra award to cover our learning experience if
> any logo designers would feel cheated.

Do you mean forcibly select the best from the current crop plus
start a new round to select the real logo?  I guess that would
work.

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;