-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Zoltan 'cad' Juhasz Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:42 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] Logo Contest
<snipped>
Although logo gives the face of the project, company, team etc., it does not determine the area of operation of the represented! I mean a logo doesn't need to reflect to all of the services a company provides and it's very hard to find a logo that looks great and tells everything about the company. Conclusion: sometimes that's good enough to have an impressive logo the emotional effect depends on the represented. However, I'm absolutely sure about the thing that the "user" will not spend any valuable minute on racking his brains about the very meaning of an abstract logo :).
Pepsi, Nike, Sun, Microsoft Windows, BMW, Toyota, Apple...
The logos of these companies are really impressive and stylish, aren't they? In my point of view Nike, Sun and perhaps Pepsi have those logos that are great just by being a logo the others mentioned need to have the background meaning to catch the attention.
Iconify: I share the opinion of those who think about the recognizability of a logo as a basic feature, especially by extremely tiny size... but I don`t think that we would need a sparated icon logo as well. Sometimes the logo itself can work as an icon: http://people.inf.elte.hu/cad/etc/boost/famous-logos.png
Although the logo of the Infiniti company is completely abstract, it`s incredible: http://people.inf.elte.hu/cad/etc/boost/infiniti.png
Spot on. I'd further add that most of the best commercial logos are pretty simple--not all, but it's a lot harder to make a complex one appealing. Without singling any of the entries out, I think that most of the currently-posted entries are too complex. As a side note, and not a very relevant one (maybe), it's pretty clear the list is populated by a mostly left-brained crowd; look at how many of the entries depend on word play, acrostics, and the like. Not saying that's bad, but again, the logos people tend to remember are more likely to be graphic than semiotic. Yeah, I guess that one deserves a smiley, on the grounds of self-referential irony. So here: <g>. Now, if there were just a way to make emoticons tail-recursive...come to think of it, I'm surprised no one used recursion as a means of indicating "boostness." If it weren't too late, I'd maybe have a go at that. Although most of my ideas were based around shapes, color use, and shading. Incidentally, I'm also surprised no one has tried to define a coherent color scheme, especially given that there *are* graphic designers present. Is it just that everyone unconsciously accepted the existing "cool" scheme? Only a couple of the entries even try to do much with color, and I can't find any consistency in the usage (possibly my fault; it's just a hobby with me). Okay, <\kibitz> Reid