From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-11 15:02:15
Rene Rivera <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>>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 think I rejected that one without looking very closely. I think black is a bad
>>>choice; it looks better with a deep blue (see attached)
>> The symbol looks like it's trying to be two plus signs with pointy
>> ends, mapped onto a sphere. But the sphere mapping isn't quite done
>> right. If we could fix that, I think this could be a real candidate.
> I'll see what I can do :-)
Great. I have to say, I probably didn't consider it enough. I think
maybe 67 was most appealing because its execution was top-notch.
There are few other logos in the contest that were as polished. This
just goes to show that a good idea with sub-par execution will
probably make a negative impression on at least some people.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk