Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation - was C++ Networking Library Release 0.5

Subject: Re: [boost] [logo] Boost logo variants for use in unofficial or unreleased boost documentation - was C++ Networking Library Release 0.5
From: Patrick Horgan (phorgan1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-30 19:02:46

Bjørn Roald wrote:
> On Saturday 30 January 2010 07:24:06 am Patrick Horgan wrote:
>
> ...elision skillfully done by patrick
>> and I LOVE that you used GIMP.  If you need
>> any help converting to svn via inkscape for resizability (yes, it's a
>> word--I just made it up), I'm happy to help.  If not, I'm happy to cheer:)
>>     
>
> I have used Inkscape to vectorize before.  It is awesome!  But if we are going 
> to make these scalable, then I suspect there are better starting points than 
> the web version of the boost logo that I had at hand.  Maybe even a vector 
> based original.  Even Inkscape has limitations. 
>   
If there's a vector based original, cool, but if not, it's easy to 
replicate a bitmap graphic in Inkscape--just time consuming.  You just 
keep the original in the bottom layer and build up until you've 
replicated it.  From then on you can generate bitmaps at any size you 
want from the vector graphic.  GIMP and Inkscape both have crap text 
modes compared to Adobe's software, of course, but I still stick with 
open software, cause it saves the world (and annoys Microsoft).
> Any opinion on the various font sizes? On my screen the smallest become fairly 
> blurry, but seems to still provide fair readable for randomly selected 
> bypassing testers.  As it is a lot of anti-aliasing needed I am eager for 
> opinions on how it is to read and if the message is too toned downed or too 
> highlighted in the various logo variants? 
>   
Ok, as a design idea, I think that boost is the primary message, so in 
the same way that the C++ Libraries part is subordinate to the boost 
part, so should be the added parts, and I'd like them to match, 
stylistically, the part that says C++ Libraries, but just a tiny bit 
smaller.  For the first, one, PROPOSED FOR, I set it up as follows:
font: URW Gothic L Semi-Bold Oblique
size: 8
letter spacing: 4.0
That does a pretty good job of matching the weight and spacing of the 
C++ Libraries phrase.

Of course for things like under construction for, even changed to under 
construction, which doesn't quite mean the same thing, these settings 
don't work, it's too big to fit in the space between b and t, which is 
probably why you had the font size 7 for it.  So, what do we do?  You 
can change the spacing to 3 for that one, which is ok, or if you move 
the top of the text box up and change it to centered, you can get UNDER 
on top above CONSTRUCTION and it fits ok, or you can move the text box 
down below C++ Libraries where there's plenty of room and it makes it 
say boost c++ libraries under construction which is cool, but neither of 
the latter two options is balanced graphically.

One other change I would make is that since they really mean, "not 
really part of boost yet if ever", that they should be red, to say that 
even though our main message is "boost" you should pay attention to this.

Patrick

Could you try it and see what you think?

Patrick