Hi Mark, I find it very difficult to read your message because of your quoting style. Jonathan

-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Mark Blewett Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 4:35 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: RE: [boost] Logo Contest

At 22:38 09/03/2005, you wrote:

I really want to respond to a comment at the end of Reid's post.. but there are a few interesting comments on the way... so I've added my thoughts

"Spot on. I'd further add that most of the best commercial logos are pretty simple--not all, but it's a lot harder to make a complex one appealing."

I agree, and add a further comment.

Yes there have been some well drawn/rendered logos, however many seem (IMHO to me) like taking a average idea, but adding as many effects to make it look good. What I think (and hope) we should be looking at is the concept, not the frills.

"Without singling any of the entries out, I think that most of the currently-posted entries are too complex. As a side note, and not a very relevant one (maybe), it's pretty clear the list is populated by a mostly left-brained crowd; look at how many of the entries depend on word play, acrostics, and the like. "

Again I agree.. there are a few graphical people here, but most are "left-brained crowd".. but what's Boosts target audience? It's actually a serious question.. first line would be developers.. so a "left-brained crowd" logo would be ok, second line are companies.. which probably don't look at the logo, more the legal use of boost.

What I'm trying to say is most logo's are for the general population.. in the case of boost (unfortunately) we don't have world domination.. so we should be producing a logo for the selected target audience.

"Not saying that's bad, but again, the logos people tend to remember are more likely to be graphic than semiotic. Yeah, I guess that one deserves a smiley, on the grounds of self-referential irony. So here: <g>. Now, if there were just a way to make emoticons tail-recursive...come to think of it, I'm surprised no one used recursion as a means of indicating "boostness." If it weren't too late, I'd maybe have a go at that. Although most of my ideas were based around shapes, color use, and shading."

I agree with "graphic than semiotic" for the general population.. does it apply to potential Boost users? I'm not so sure... but believe its probably true.

"Incidentally, I'm also surprised no one has tried to define a coherent color scheme, especially given that there *are* graphic designers present. Is it just that everyone unconsciously accepted the existing "cool" scheme? Only a couple of the entries even try to do much with color, and I can't find any consistency in the usage (possibly my fault; it's just a hobby with me). Okay, <\kibitz>"

I started writing an email awhile back (which I didn't posted), commenting on various designs.. however writing it I felt as it I was actually questioning the process rather than the produced logos (I'm not knocking the designers or anyone else.. just questioning)

Why I'm responding to your email is a similar thought...

Before we have a boost logo, do we need to define the boost "colours", the boost "font".. the foundations of a "corporate" logo?

Or another example, capitalization.. should should Boost be "boost", "Boost" or "BOOST".. my thought is "Boost" in documentation, and "boost" (because coding standards apply) in code. Buts what about in a logo?

Going back to colours.. I'm not sure what you mean about the "existing cool scheme".. I presume variants of blue.. there's are good reasons... 1) (unfortunately) most of us are male (and our target audience).. and we have a preference for the colour. 2) Industry Conventions.. I posted a link awhile back (http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg75724.php) which gives another reason;

<quote> I'm no expert either but http://graphicdesign.about.com/od/logotips/a/8logoelements_2.h tm has a interesting point about colour which I haven't seen mentioned here;

Works Within Industry Conventions Often there are consistencies among logos in certain industries, and following these conventions can help customers more easily identify what you do or what you sell. This doesn't mean you should sacrifice originality, but it does mean you (or the firm creating your logo design) should be aware of patterns among logos in your industry and somehow incorporate these consistencies into your design. For example, did you realize that the main color for the logos for Microsoft, IBM, Dell, Hewlett Packard and Intel is blue? The color blue is associated with stability and progress and has long been a standard color among high-tech companies. So if you were a technology company, you would probably want to incorporate blue into your logo design to take advantage of these positive built-in associations. </quote> I guess choosing a logo is very personal and emotive (compared to accepting, or not, a new library).. but personally I trust the judgement of the people here and the process.. discussion is the key I feel. ---------------------------------------------- First of all, "This is a friendly call. Of course it's a friendly call. Listen, Dimitri...if it weren't a friendly call...you probably wouldn't have even gotten it." <g> Yes, I did know that about blue and computers, although I've never read a book that related blue to "progress." Stability, yes. Depending on the saturation and exact hue, also constancy, power, energy, soothing or meditative qualities (the list of adjectives could go on indefinitely <g>). My personal take is that it says "safety" to an industry that's anything but predictable. Which isn't to denigrate it. I like blue. Got blue color schemes on all my machines (or teal, which is close). It just seemed that no one had given it any thought, and I was trying to, well, *goose* people a bit, maybe get someone to try something else. If you noticed it as it breezed past and sank, my one early attempt was blue, and I thought at that time (seem to recall some posts that made me think that) we were supposed to keep the old color, to minimize collateral changes to color in the page content. As for "targeting the audience," I harbor a deep suspicion that just because coders work with text doesn't mean they'll necessarily *respond* positively to it. Sadly, I have a wee bit of experience to tell me that (don't ask, don't tell <g>). For one thing, yeah, we're working in a text medium, but I don't really think the bulk of us are really all that language-oriented. I'd wager that better than 95% of the people who track this list are male (which I do *not* say to belittle women, or even to suggest that the logo should just target males--I'm just talking numbers), which dictates a pretty strong statistical leaning towards problem-solving techniques based on some form of physical visualization. (About to commit the sin of generalizing from a single particular, but...) I'm about as language-oriented as it goes, with an advanced degree in writing and Lit, but when I code, I *picture* things. Abstract patterns of colored blocks, actually. It's subtle, but there. Now, after all that disquisition, I'll observe that a text logo can work. Good ones are pretty hard to do, but you can think of some if you try. However, apart from IBM, can you really think of many others? Look closely at HP's logo, or Motorola's, any of that ilk, and you'll see there's a graphic component even to them. Hell, there's one to IBM's. Check out what their trademark actually is. Block serif lettering in a particular shade of blue, broken by horizontal drop-outs. Hmmmn. I'm looking at the Dell logo on my monitor; not sure what it means to do. Looks like it's got "lazy E syndrome." <g> It may be that a large percentage of the submissions are text-based simply because that's the first idea anyone will have, on average. I would say that, yes you *do* need to be thinking about all those foundations, if you expect to get it trademarked, because anything not explicitly specified in the description will *not* be considered part of the trademark. You also have to be careful not to over-constrain the definition, or you can arrive at situations where you can't claim copyright protection for certain usages. For instance, a logo I once did (still think it's my best) for a rock band was largely defined by a geometric pattern that surrounded and dominated the opening capital of the band's name. There was also a backdrop done in a flame scheme by airbrush, and I'd designed a custom font for the name that echoed patterns in the geometric figure. The description finally filed mentioned only the figure and the name. Including the font would have forced the band to always use only that font. Likewise the backdrop; that logo had to appear on a number of things, and lots of them wouldn't have been conducive to having a lot of deep saturated reds, oranges, and yellows on them. I'm speaking of US trademark law, of course. I don't know the conventions in other countries. But yeah, I do think of this process as "establishing a brand," in the full commercial sense. Were I at liberty to drop names, I could tell you a tale of a company that neglected to trademark a very important part of what had come to be a long-established and well-known brand, and their main competitor simply appropriated it for their own advertising, undoubtedly luring customers who associated that very key thing with the wrong company. But I ain't. And I ain'ta gonna. <g> Okay, Boost isn't a "company" in the traditional sense. But it's got to work with laws designed for corporate protection, and that means really working with them. Yeah, it's personal. Since Boost isn't a company I "own" or do branding for though, I'm not emotional about it. If it's seemed that way, I apologize for the impression I managed to import into my messages. And yep, discussion is the key. Which is what we're doing, I thought. <g> Reid