"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> writes:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
I think the real issue here is discussion about preferences. Such discussions, might potentially have some influence on how people will vote. But we already agreed, from the start, that such discussions are ok. I personally do not see anything wrong with that.
So who's going to break the ice?
Here goes: One of the most important challenges for us to deal with in the next few years is raising Boost's level of professionalism, both in practice and in image (**). The logo should project solidity and refinement. In this department, number 67 stood head and shoulders above the rest for me. It is also memorable and easily iconifiable. The next most-likely candidate for me was 68a, closely followed by 75c, suitably modified. Most of the others didn't even come close in my opinion. Having given them a second look after noticing them in the upper ranks of the voting, 38 and 39 look better to me than they did initially, but they still have a fundamental problem: they project the connotation of a child's toy blocks. While that has a certain appeal in projecting "ease-of-use" and "component software," it has obvious negative overtones in my opinion. The 83 series, BTW, ranked fairly high on my professionalism scale, but seemed to be more appropriate for a photographic services or printing company or a music company, and the retro lettering, while pretty, perhaps makes too much of a statement. In my opinion, getting "C++" or "::" into the logo design as graphic elements is of very little importance (***). Most of the designs that do that seem to be too clever by half, which is distracting and looks somewhat amateurish in the end. I realize I was probably responsible for planting that seed. Sorry, but what can I say? I'm not a skilled logo designer, and I know it -- which is why I only made one submission, and that was only to stimulate thought. Probably the reason the FedEx logo works is that it's really subtle. (**) I believe it's neccessary in order to increase adoption, which I think is crucial for us. These are my values; of course you might disagree. (***) I do think it's important to have the words "Boost" and "C++ Libraries" in there somewhere, but not neccessarily as graphic elements. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com