David Abrahams wrote:
Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> writes: [...] 1. I disagree that it is well-recognized. It's too busy to make a memorable visual statement.
2. Even if it is well-recognized, I think it would be terrible to be tied down to that logo forever just because people currently recognize it: it's not a very good logo. I mean that it doesn't do what a logo should. I remember what the Spirit logo looks like better than I remember the Boost logo, and I've had way more exposure to the latter. [...]
And I would say that both of these reasons are due to the fact that the simpler logos can be easily vectorized, while the current Boost logo is more like artwork than a logo. It's a nice image, but perhaps not a nice visual key, which is the purpose of a logo. Dave