Re: [Boost-users] Boost Logos: proposed high constrast logo

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Boost Logos: proposed high constrast logo
From: alfC (alfredo.correa_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-05 17:22:58

On Oct 5, 6:02 am, "Paul A. Bristow" <pbris..._at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: boost-users-boun..._at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-users-
> > boun..._at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Alfredo Correa
> > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 7:05 AM
> > To: boost-us..._at_[hidden]
> > Subject: [Boost-users] Boost Logos: proposed high constrast logo
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > In my opinion there should be a high contrast version of the Boost logo .
> > (by that I mean either black and white or high contrast with very mild
> gradients
> > on white background). Particularly I am talking about the three hexagons
> icon.
>
> > As an example, the first attachment here has the official logo in SVG
> format.
> > Because of the background gradient and the gradient fill of the hexagon it
> is not
> > *obvious* how to convert this to high contrast. What should be replaced by
> > black (or solid blue)? the hexagon filling? the hexagon borders? the
>
> background?

yes, in the official logo there is a grey gradient below the three
hexagons which makes things worst.
The grey gradient background gives some *color* constast with the
white borders of the hexagons. Needless to say it doesn't give the
necessary black and white contrast.

>
> Personally I'm not sure what the hexagons are about anyway.
>
> (We are not a chemical company - and I didn't vote for the logo).
>
> But it's what we've got.

Right, Me neither, I am not a fan of the logo. I think it is just
barely ok. But this is not what the discussion is about.

>
>
> > A possible high contrast logo is attached in the second file. By no means
> official
> > or the best option, it is just an possibility, maybe the simplest one.
> > *Just an example*.
>
> > Note that even the darkest blue used in the gradient of the official logo
> is not
> > enough to contrast with white, so I used a darker blue.
>
> > The reason I think a high contrast logo is the following:
> > If you want to have a document printing quality (or high quality PDF)  you
> need a
> > vector format. If the printing or visualization is done in black and
> white, the logo
> > should have high contrast otherwise the appearance will be very device
> > dependent. While everyone should take care in printing in good devices
> having a
> > logo that is barely visible in black/white/grey printing in some devices
> is not
> > acceptable.
> > As a test for what makes a high contrast logo a good one, just try
> printing and
> > small version (one centimeter square) of the logo in a black and white
> laser
> > printer with random text around it and you will see the problem with the
> low
> > contrast original logo. It will appear like a grey blob at best.
>
> This is true - but most docs are viewed on screen, and colour printing is
> common too.
>
> The word Boost in the logo will still stand out, and I think the whole
> result is 'good enough'.

Ok, I agree.

But remember somethings will be done *one way or another*. I needed to
have the logo in a printed report so I had to make the high contrast
version (the attached one). There was no other way around it.
If many boosters agree with you, then this is like saying "if you ever
need a high constrast logo, make your own". Which by the way I think
is a great policy.

> The text is the thing - I feel we only need the Boost logo as a minor
> detail.

BTW, talking about words, I think the same should be said about all
the accompanying phrases "Powered by", "Proposed", "Not quite", that
is 'make your own and don't bother'.

> So (while your comments are entirely convincing), I don't feel it is worth
> the complication.

I agree, that is a totally healthy approach. I was just checking.

Cheers,
Alfredo

PS: Everyone, (Unless the community complains in the future), feel
free to use the SVG file attached at the beginning of this thread.