On Monday, November 22, 2004, at 01:22 PM, Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
Daniel Frey ha escrito:
I like it. Although a version without the L-shapes might be interesting, too. Or maybe fill the edges, too? Hmm... it just looks a bit nervous to me with the "gaps" in two corners. With filled edges, it's more like a solid block. And "solid" is a good word to associate with boost, IMHO.
Well, here are all the possibilities so that we can compare them. My personal preference is, in this order:
1,3,4,2
The crosses alone (2) lose the solid look, while in the full square version (4), it looks like, instead of six pieces, the two crosses are depicted against a flat background, which ruins the lego metaphor. As for (1) and (2), the added little square at the bottom (2) renders the logo more stable, though in the other hand the result is not as clean as (1).
René Rivera wrote:
I think the L shapes are distracting from the ++ in this case because they are too similar to the ++. Using another framing element that doesn't resemble the ++ would likely work better.
I can't come up with another framing scheme that maintains the lego metaphor. To me, those L shapes do not really form a frame, but are supposed to be stacked along the cross pieces. Your anschauung may vary, of course :)
I like the stair-step imagery of the second .png- (the one with no backing field) It's a nice play on the use of building blocks. I think it still carries a blocky, solid/stable feel. Is there a single color restriction for ease of printing? If not adding a third '+' in a different color (or perhaps in outline) would further emphasize building on C++.