Re: [Boost-users] Boost Logos

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Patrick Horgan wrote:

On 10/03/2010 02:31 AM, Alfredo Correa wrote:

...

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Patrick Horgan  wrote:

...

... elision by patrick ... It would be easy to map the blue to black but I'm not sure about the logo implications.

Patrick,

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* to convert this to high contrast. What should be replaced by black (or solid blue)? the hexagon filling? the hexagon borders? the background?

A possible high contrast is attached in the second file. By no means official or the best option, it is just an possibility, maybe the simplest one. 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.

Ok.  I get you now.  I had just thought to map the shades of blue to shades of grey, but I see that wouldn't solve the issue.  I understand you now, but this thread wasn't about redesigning the official logo, but about extending it.  The idea is to keep the original completely unchanged, and just add some subtext using the original font to specialize its usage for various things.   I completely support your idea that it would be good to have a high contrast version of the logo, and would be happy to work on that, but in the interest of having any hope of coming to any resolution on this I'd rather you start a separate thread if you want to push for that at this point.

Ok, I'll do that.

Last time we tried to come to agreement on these extensions of the boost logo we got almost to the finish line reducing to a few examples that made everyone that had joined the discussion at least mostly happy, when at the one yard line, others joined the discussion who didn't like anything (hyperbole mine) and had completely different ideas including ones that had been shot down earlier when they apparently weren't paying attention to the thread.  I suppose we could have used a moderator and a time limit or maybe a vote, but there's really no process in place for this.  As a result instead of heading toward consensus, we diverged, people became intransigent and the effort collapsed.

It is called the "bycicle shed effect" or "Parkinson's Law of Triviality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law_of_Triviality

I'm not an advocate particularly for any of the options.  There were several ways proposed to say that "I use boost" "I am trying to get my library to be a part of boost" "I extend boost but they didn't like me and I haven't fixed things so that they do" "I really am a part of boost".  I liked a lot of the variants and made examples so people could see them.  I still like the idea and hope that it can succeed.  The original impetus was to have a replacement icon for the documents developed for a proposed addition to boost.  It then became evident that a LOT of people wanted an icon that didn't claim to be boost, but just said that we use boost.  There was a lot of consensus on the powered by boost icon, which was the third or fourth try to express this idea, and whoever came up with that (sorry I'd have to go back and read the thread) was acknowledged as brilliant.

Look, that's crazy to me, it is web browser cargo culture, everyone wants an image with the boost icon that says "particular things": Powered, Developed with, Developed for, not part of, part of, proposed to. Stop, a logo is a logo, if you want to say something just write it. Cheers, Alfredo