Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for new variants of the Boost logo.
From: Jeffrey Bosboom (jbosboom_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-08 22:16:20
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> 1 For projects that are written with Boost 'in mind', perhaps for submission,
> but are *not yet reviewed and accepted*.
> "For use with" - logo for projects having some association with Boost, but
> are *not 'official'*.
> (Many like red text to signal strongly that this is NOT (perhaps yet) a Boost
> approved library).
I don't think this is self-descriptive enough. For example, GIL is a
Boost library, and GIL extensions are obviously "for use with" Boost.
But I don't think "for use with" implies "not officially part of" Boost.
> 2 For projects that *use* Boost, and would like to acknowledge this - with
> "Powered by" - logo for all projects *using* Boost.
> (in addition to the 'Using Boost' listing on the website)
I really like this, Boost needs more publicity *from the places it's
used*. Few people who haven't heard of Boost or who have a negative
opinion of it will be going to the "Using Boost" listing, and those who
bother to check it out won't be as persuaded by it as an endorsement
from a Boost user.
> To see the proposed logos: http://dbp-consulting.com/boostvariantslogo.html
> (produced by Patrick Hogan).
I have a minor issue with the right-justification of the "powered by"
text. It seems to be presenting the illusion of being 'blown back' as
the logo moves to the left (which fits with the logotype's slight right
lean). Normally this would be fine, but the top of the 'b' grabs my eye
as I scan left-to-right over the text, so I tend to see "boost powered
by C++ libraries" instead of "powered by boost C++ libraries" -- I know
what the logo says, it just feels weird to read.
I'm not sure center- or left-justification would be any better, though,
and it's a minor quibble. I'm happy enough to approve the logos as is.
> PS Some were also in favour of a "Proposed for Boost" logo to be used only *for
> libraries in the review queue*,
> but not yet in a final release. Others felt this was unnecessary. So unless
> there is strong support for this, it does not form part of this proposal.
Not only is it necessary, it makes it easy for users of the logo to do
the right thing, by not removing the logo when they leave the review
queue. Also, with the recent pace of the review queue being as it is,
this risks becoming a semi-permanent status, and I'd prefer not to
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk