Re: [boost] [git] Submodule's readme and logo

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Submodule's readme and logo
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-13 10:05:55

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Andrey Semashev
> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 1:48 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Submodule's readme and logo
> 
> On Friday 13 December 2013 14:23:58 Adam Wulkiewicz wrote:
> > Andrey Semashev wrote:
> > > On Friday 13 December 2013 12:23:06 Adam Wulkiewicz wrote:
> > >> Let me know what do you think about it. And don't hesitate to write
> > >> about your ideas or propose changes.
> > >
> > > I've taken a look at some of the logos. I don't quite like the
> > > specialized Boost icons on the left. I'd prefer the common Boost
> > > icon to be used without modifications, its white-blue color scheme
> > > looks more stylish to me.
> > Ok, and what do you think about those simple ones, without additional
> > colors?
> >
> > http://github.com/awulkiew/boost-logos/blob/master/config.png
> > http://github.com/awulkiew/boost-logos/blob/master/inspect.png
> > http://github.com/awulkiew/boost-logos/blob/master/polygon.png
> > http://github.com/awulkiew/boost-logos/blob/master/utility.png
> > http://github.com/awulkiew/boost-logos/blob/master/quickbook.png
> 
> Yes, these look better, but I still prefer the the official Boost icon more.
> It's just simpler and more minimalistic, I guess.
> 
> > > Also, multi-word names of libraries use underscore. Although it's
> > > not written anywhere to my knowledge, such names are typically
> > > spelled in one word, camelcase, without underscores (e.g.
> > > Boost.SmartPtr). Here is the discussion policy:
> > >
> > > http://www.boost.org/community/policy.html#lib_names
> > >
> > > This may not look very well on the logos though. So it's probably
> > > best to stick with the official Boost logo without library names or
> > > no logo at all.
> >
> > Yes, the naming scheme worked well with the Geometry and later I just
> > followed it. I tested some other schemes and they look ok:
> >
> > https://github.com/awulkiew/boost-logos/blob/master/smart_ptr.png
> 
> I don't know, neither one is particularly appealing. The last two versions are the better ones, I
think. The
> fourth, probably, is the preferred one.
> 
> Note also that there were alternative logos for the proposed libraries. I can't find them now, but
there's
> some version in my old docs:
> 
> http://boost-log.sourceforge.net/boost.png

This is a 'Proposed for Boost' logo but I think we should make the 'proposed' much more prominent,
perhaps in red?

> I don't have the svg, sorry. 

I suppose, all the logos should be in the same style, more or less.

+1 for all using the existing 'brand' logo as is for all libraries.

But we need an 'official' SVG version of boost.svg that works for all browsers.

And I believe that the time has come to move to SVG for all graphics if possible.
Even Internet Explorer 9 to 11 now supports SVG pretty well (as do most other browsers now that
screen sizes range from a postage stamp up to a cinema screen with every imaginable aspect ratio and
pixel density).

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow,
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  07714330204
pbristow_at_[hidden]