From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-10 17:55:17
From: "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]>
> 1. IMO logo should be transparent - essentially it should work with most
> pastel and white colors
I disagree in part. I think you're suggesting that there should
be no background shading, but rather than the background of the
page on which the logo appears should "come through" the logo.
That's a good idea depending upon the background you put it
over. It means the logo must use pastels and not more saturated
colors, and it means that a cool logo will look even odder over a
Why the limitation? I can understand it looking good against a
white background because that's the usual web page background
color. The rest I don't follow.
> 2. The shouldn't be border - logo should be natural part of the page
I disagree. I don't think there's a good reason to limit them
this way. Some, by nature of their coloring have intrinsic
borders. Some have borders as design elements. Consider the
Infiniti logo that's been mentioned repeatedly here: there is a
distinct border. Is it a bad logo as a result?
> 3. No funny fonts - in long run it doesn't work
I'm not sure which fonts you would classify as funny.
> 4. No funny/complex objects - it maybe fun to draw. fun to look first N
> times, but then it became annoying. This criteria would eliminate a lot of
> current submissions
> 6. Logo should be scalable - in a sense that it should work ok in different
> 7. There preferable should be something beyond the text - plain text with
> minimal variations doesn't initiate any recognizability
Yes, there must be a graphical element which is, itself, really
the logo. The text is an adornment that we can use in common
cases like the Boost home page, but not necessarily on all other
web and documentation pages.
> 1. #99 - very solid submission. Look professional, simple. ++ could be used
> for icon. IMO It bring slogan: boost - blur(beyond,extend, e.t.c) the
> bounds of C++. May be some extra graphic symbol could be added
I don't like it specifically because it looks blurry! I can't
focus on it. Unlike the IBM logo, in which the letters appear
striped, this one just seems to be vibrating.
> 2. #10 - simple recognizable, easily scalable (including icon), brings a
> connotation of ++. Though I would definitely change a colors. May be some
> extra text are in order
I dislike this one because I find myself struggling to identify
the shape. Is it a sphere? Is it a pair of T's, X's, crosses,
or plus signs? What is the significance of whatever the shapes
are being drawn apart in the middle? It is just visually
frustrating to me.
> 3. #67 Even we kinda agreed that it bring unwanted associations the
> connotation of building blocks seems good. May be we could reorder'em
> o o
> o o o o o
> ooo or o
There is nothing sacrosanct about the current arrangement of
blocks, so this is a good idea (with apologies to Simeon's vision
for the logo).
Perhaps a drop shadow arrangement of blocks in the form of +'s
Where the X's are blocks in a more saturated color and the o's
are blocks in a less saturated (shadow) color.
> Also I believe it should be transparent
I'd gladly look at a transparent version, but I don't understand
-- 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