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
>>> 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.
> Official boost - the original logo
> 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.
> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk