From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-11 12:36:40
From: "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]>
> "Rob Stewart" <stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > 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.
Why should our logo have to look good against other's
backgrounds? If Boost has a color scheme which specifies white
backgrounds, for example, then that's all we should require.
As I stated above, to require it to look good against various
pastel backgrounds means the logo must not use saturated colors.
While a somewhat saturated warm logo would look fine against warm
pastels, a similarly saturated cool logo wouldn't (and vice
> > > 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)
That I can agree with.
> > > 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
Ah, "funny" as in odd or unusual. I agree that those fonts don't
> > > 1. #99 - very solid submission. Look professional, simple. ++ could be
> > > 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?
I told you why. It is blurry and I can't focus on it. It
vibrates leaving me uncomfortable when looking at it. That's
hardly the impression you want Boost to make is it?
> > > 2. #10 - simple recognizable, easily scalable (including icon), brings a
> > > connotation of ++. Though I would definitely change a colors. May be
> > > 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.
Most of those things are meaningless in the context of Boost and
its libraries. Thus, the ambiguity is distracting. Dave's
suggestions on altering it might prove to make this an attractive
-- 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