From: "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com>
1. IMO logo should be transparent - essentially it should work with most pastel and white colors
I disagree in part. I think you're suggesting that there should be no background shading, but rather than the background of the page on which the logo appears should "come through" the logo. That's a good idea depending upon the background you put it over. It means the logo must use pastels and not more saturated colors, and it means that a cool logo will look even odder over a warm background. Why the limitation? I can understand it looking good against a white background because that's the usual web page background color. The rest I don't follow.
2. The shouldn't be border - logo should be natural part of the page
I disagree. I don't think there's a good reason to limit them this way. Some, by nature of their coloring have intrinsic borders. Some have borders as design elements. Consider the Infiniti logo that's been mentioned repeatedly here: there is a distinct border. Is it a bad logo as a result?
3. No funny fonts - in long run it doesn't work
I'm not sure which fonts you would classify as funny.
4. No funny/complex objects - it maybe fun to draw. fun to look first N times, but then it became annoying. This criteria would eliminate a lot of current submissions
Agreed.
6. Logo should be scalable - in a sense that it should work ok in different resolutions
Agreed.
7. There preferable should be something beyond the text - plain text with minimal variations doesn't initiate any recognizability
Yes, there must be a graphical element which is, itself, really the logo. The text is an adornment that we can use in common cases like the Boost home page, but not necessarily on all other web and documentation pages.
1. #99 - very solid submission. Look professional, simple. ++ could be used for icon. IMO It bring slogan: boost - blur(beyond,extend, e.t.c) the bounds of C++. May be some extra graphic symbol could be added
I don't like it specifically because it looks blurry! I can't focus on it. Unlike the IBM logo, in which the letters appear striped, this one just seems to be vibrating.
2. #10 - simple recognizable, easily scalable (including icon), brings a connotation of ++. Though I would definitely change a colors. May be some extra text are in order
I dislike this one because I find myself struggling to identify the shape. Is it a sphere? Is it a pair of T's, X's, crosses, or plus signs? What is the significance of whatever the shapes are being drawn apart in the middle? It is just visually frustrating to me.
3. #67 Even we kinda agreed that it bring unwanted associations the connotation of building blocks seems good. May be we could reorder'em differently: o o o o o o o ooo or o
There is nothing sacrosanct about the current arrangement of blocks, so this is a good idea (with apologies to Simeon's vision for the logo). Perhaps a drop shadow arrangement of blocks in the form of +'s would work: XX XXoo XXXXXXoo XXXXXXoo XXoo XXoo oo Where the X's are blocks in a more saturated color and the o's are blocks in a less saturated (shadow) color.
Also I believe it should be transparent
I'd gladly look at a transparent version, but I don't understand the motivation. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;