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: 2010-01-31 17:23:23

Bjørn Roald wrote:
> On Sunday 31 January 2010 10:33:56 pm Patrick Horgan wrote:
>   
>> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>     
>>> On 01/31/2010 02:56 PM, Thomas Klimpel wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Wasn't there a "rejected proposal for" logo? I guess it was dropped
>>>> for the same reason that "under construction for" was renamed to
>>>> "under construction". How about "in preparation for" and "rejected
>>>> by"? These would at least make a statement about the relation to
>>>> boost.
>>>>         
>>> IMHO, the "rejected" logo makes a disservice for the library, as it
>>> marks it as something of inappropriate quality for Boost in eyes of
>>> users. Therefore I'd like it to be rephrased to something more
>>> neutral, such as "unofficial extension" or something of that kind.
>>>       
>> LOL!  I can't imagine anyone would proudly proclaim "my software was
>> rejected by boost!"  If they are rejected by boost though, they have no
>> business showing a boost logo associated with their software (unless
>> they're using boost, then they could have the using boost logo).
>>
>> I agree that things like using should be blue.  I feel that things that
>> say, "I'm not a part of boost yet but I want to be", should be in red so
>> that people notice that this isn't boost.
>>
>> I'm glad to see some good conversation here.  What's the difference
>> between "proposed for" and "under construction for", and is it a big
>> enough difference to have both?
>>     
>
> No I don't think so.  The idea was to somehow capture the state of the 
> submission.  "Under construction for" was saying it was not ready for 
> submission.  "Proposed for" or "Proposal for" was for saying this is the 
> proposed version.
>
> I have changed my mind and suggest to not use the logo for communicating 
> details of submission or release state.  Other means are simpler and better.  
> I am thinking there are 3 valid use-cases that deserve logo variants.
>
> 1.
> Official boost - the original logo
>
> 2.
> Preliminary Boost - need placeholder logo in proposed documentation for 
> planned and actual submissions for review, this logo should not lead to the 
> misinterpretation that this is official Boost.
>   
This could be the proposed for icon.
> 2.
> Using Boost  -  probably a smaller almost icon sized logo that does not take 
> over the users website :-)
>   
You can make it so small you can't see it if you want.  The master is a 
vector graphic and it can export at any pixel-width you want.  I made a 
pretty small one on my proposal web-site now so that you can see that 
the smaller letters become almost invisible when too small.

Patrick