Vladimir Prus wrote:
How can you rationally decide if a nice colored rocket is better than b/w logo from Joaquin that is beatifylly minimalistic? It's simply not possible.
I agree that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." But we may not be looking for beauty. Likely we are looking for a logo that meets a set of requirements, and further performs well versus a variety of useful tests. I do not think objective evaluation of a logo is any more impossible than objective evaluation of libraries to be included with Boost. I would suggest that, for each submission to the Wiki, a list is made of the logo's strengths and weaknesses. When Dominique remarks on the mailing list that a graphic looks "too busy," she should also record that fact on that Wiki so people later will be able to review each logo more effectively. A more thorough set of guidelines might also be helpful. Its difficult to make a good logo (and to decide which logo is good!) if we haven't defined what that is. Perhaps the short list of guidelines could be expanded (based on discussions on the mailing list) into slightly longer lists of "almost-requirements" and "recommendations." Perhaps, then, if or when a vote becomes necessary, the vote would be on how well each logo performs in each useful catagory, rather than a simple popularity contest. Aaron W. LaFramboise