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: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-31 04:44:01

On Sunday 31 January 2010 01:02:46 am Patrick Horgan wrote:
> > 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.  

agree.

> 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

Did you get all that set up in Inkscape...?  did not find a way to set letter 
spacing?

> 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.

We need to ensure the message is hard to misunderstand.  So the flow of text 
that is natural to read is important and then of cause what it mean.  It is 
not boost that is under construction, is it.

> 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.

Yes that may be a good idea.  It breaks the style though.

-- 
Bjørn