[boost] Re: [logo] what I prefer

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-11 09:17:51

"Rob Stewart" <stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:200503102255.j2AMtHU09302_at_vanzandt.balstatdev.susq.com...
> 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
> warm background.
>
> 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.

I meant It should work with pastel and white colors as background. SOme
people using some graying. bluish colors as background.

> > 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?

I meant there should not be one big rectangle border around the whole logo
(including text and graphic symbols)

> > 3. No funny fonts - in long run it doesn't work
>
> I'm not sure which fonts you would classify as funny.

#100, #91, #57, #56 #40 for example

> > 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.

Why is it bad?

> > 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.

It could be anything you want. It does (and shouldn't) matter. I like it's
simplicity and symmetry.

Gennadiy