From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com>
A) logos which have some sort of shading, or which employ several closely-related but not identical colors, look far better than logos which don't. The logos with shading make the others look flat and boring. This immediately eliminates many of the logos
Right.
B) logos with non-white backgrounds don't work well
Really? What didn't you like? I'll have to try that myself, I guess.
67 - This is clearly one of the best logos. Unfortunately, when I reduced it in size and inserted it in documentation, it looked, I'm sorry to say, just terrible. Against a pure white background, the logo's gray background made it look dirty. See B), above. The answer must be to change the background color, but I'm uncertain how to do this without destroying one of the logo's most beautiful features: the tiny white border along the bottom and left edges of the logo's main elements. Without this tiny detail, the logo looks pretty flat; see A), above.
I suggested a blue palette. The "tiny white border" is present simply as a highlight. It can easily be a very light blue alongside darker blues, for example. It merely needs to lighter than the background and the squares.
I think it's important to get some concrete suggestions on how to deal with this problem before the logo is accepted.
Perhaps Simeon will produce some variations for use to consider?
83 - This is also one of the more attractive logos, but like 38 it calls to my mind associations unrelated to Boost. In particular, I immediately think of looking at paint samples or carpet swatches.
I guess that means shades of the same color wouldn't help, which was my suggestion.
52 - This is nice but suffers from problem B)
I don't like the exploding plus sign. It doesn't seem to fit with the thinner, rounded letters. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;