Re: [boost] Re: Another logo proposal
At 01:11 PM 11/23/2004, Beman Dawes wrote:
At 06:18 PM 11/22/2004, Rich Johnson wrote:
On Monday, November 22, 2004, at 04:02 PM, JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
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++.
You mean, like the version attached? I don't know, it kind of looks too irregularly shaped. Not so blocky as the other designs.
Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo <boost.gif>
I was thinking more like:
Which yields two steps up.
I like that a bit. Is anyone keeping a list of the more likely candidates? --Beman
Beman Dawes wrote:
Is anyone keeping a list of the more likely candidates?
I've been saving all the posts, not that it does others much good :-) As you probably noticed rockets are the dominating concept so far. But to help keep track of things here's a wiki page... http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?BoostLogo Only some minor comments, and two of my own submissions on it (new ones). I can't rightfully post other peoples work, so others should add to the wiki their own images. And additional notes and ideas. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Rene Rivera ha escrito:
Beman Dawes wrote:
Is anyone keeping a list of the more likely candidates?
I've been saving all the posts, not that it does others much good :-) As you probably noticed rockets are the dominating concept so far.
But to help keep track of things here's a wiki page...
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?BoostLogo
Only some minor comments, and two of my own submissions on it (new ones). I can't rightfully post other peoples work, so others should add to the wiki their own images. And additional notes and ideas.
Two notes: * Editing seems to be blocked. The message is "Editing not allowed: user, ip, or network is blocked." * You suggest that entries be kept in aphabetical order, yet you name yours Rocket1, Rocket2. Its gonna be hard to maintain the entries both numbered and sorted by authors's name (one would have to renumber preexistent entries.) I suggest that entries bejust inserted at the end without regard to the author's name. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
� wrote:
Rene Rivera ha escrito:
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?BoostLogo
Two notes:
* Editing seems to be blocked. The message is "Editing not allowed: user, ip, or network is blocked."
I have no clue why that is. It lets me edit. Are you able to edit other wiki pages?
* You suggest that entries be kept in aphabetical order, yet you name yours Rocket1, Rocket2. Its gonna be hard to maintain the entries both numbered and sorted by authors's name (one would have to renumber preexistent entries.) I suggest that entries bejust inserted at the end without regard to the author's name.
I guess I wasn't clear enough... I meant one should sort by author name plus image name. So that all the submissions of one author stay together. I added a clarification. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
Beman Dawes wrote:
Is anyone keeping a list of the more likely candidates?
I've been saving all the posts, not that it does others much good :-) As you probably noticed rockets are the dominating concept so far.
But to help keep track of things here's a wiki page...
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?BoostLogo
Only some minor comments, and two of my own submissions on it (new ones). I can't rightfully post other peoples work, so others should add to the wiki their own images. And additional notes and ideas.
I think the requirement that "Logo should be recognizable in small 16x16 pixel size. It will eventually need to be a favicon." is overly restrictive. I note that even Microsoft, who invented favicons, isn't using them. It's possible to think of making some key element of the logo into favicon without fitting the whole thing in there, and 16x16 puts some severe limitations on what can be expressed. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?BoostLogo
I think the requirement that
"Logo should be recognizable in small 16x16 pixel size. It will eventually need to be a favicon."
is overly restrictive.
OK.. added a mention that a part of the logo as favicon is possible.
I note that even Microsoft, who invented favicons, isn't using them.
Microsoft loves "inventing" things.. And when they become popular but unrestricted, abandoning them ;-) PS. Others are welcome to make adjustments to the guidelines :-) -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Rene Rivera wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?BoostLogo
I think the requirement that
PS. None of the things I listed a requirements. They are guidelines people are free to ignore ;-) -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Rene Rivera wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?BoostLogo
I think the requirement that
PS. None of the things I listed a requirements. They are guidelines people are free to ignore ;-)
You should maybe clarify that on the site. If this is really going to be a widespread contest (and I think it should be), phrases like "It will eventually need to be a favicon." might lead people to think otherwise. AFAIK, the favicon thing is your own idea, and probably a good one, but there's been no consensus that it should have any bearing on logo design. Likewise the black and white thing: "Logo should be presentable in black and white limited print medium" Maybe it would work better to label these as "things that might give your logo an advantage over others, all other things being equal." As far as I'm concerned, we need most of all an effective design to replace the existing one in the role(s) it currently fills, and these other considerations are nice-to-have but secondary. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
Beman Dawes wrote:
Is anyone keeping a list of the more likely candidates?
I've been saving all the posts, not that it does others much good :-) As you probably noticed rockets are the dominating concept so far.
But to help keep track of things here's a wiki page...
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?BoostLogo
Only some minor comments, and two of my own submissions on it (new ones). I can't rightfully post other peoples work, so others should add to the wiki their own images. And additional notes and ideas.
I think the requirement that
"Logo should be recognizable in small 16x16 pixel size. It will eventually need to be a favicon."
is overly restrictive. I note that even Microsoft, who invented favicons, isn't using them.
It's possible to think of making some key element of the logo into favicon without fitting the whole thing in there, and 16x16 puts some severe limitations on what can be expressed.
In their .NET product, the Toolbox icons for components are all 16 x 16. I find this is extremely restrictive also. I do not think because Microsoft wants to set some sort of restriction for their own use that one should necessarily follow this at all, especially as I would not be surprised to see Microsoft change their viewpoint in the future. Putting out a larger and more artistically pleasing logo is not going to keep anyone, who is really interested in what Boost has to offer, from downloading Boost libraries .
Rene Rivera wrote:
[...] But to help keep track of things here's a wiki page...
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?BoostLogo [...]
I find the ++-as-rockets idea very intriguing. However, it's easy to confuse the rocket flames for inverted teardrops or water drops or something, so I wonder if there's a way to make it more obviously rocket-like? Perhaps if the "nozzle" of the + were more angular, it would look more like a rocket. Still, I think the concept has promise. Dave
David B. Held wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
[...] But to help keep track of things here's a wiki page...
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?BoostLogo [...]
I find the ++-as-rockets idea very intriguing. However, it's easy to confuse the rocket flames for inverted teardrops or water drops or something, so I wonder if there's a way to make it more obviously rocket-like? Perhaps if the "nozzle" of the + were more angular, it would look more like a rocket. Still, I think the concept has promise.
I stopped thinking about the logo for a few days and that popped into my head. It's interesting what happens when one stops thinking about something. OK, some minor mods and hopefully it looks less dropper like and more rocket like. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
participants (6)
-
Beman Dawes -
David Abrahams -
David B. Held -
Edward Diener -
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz -
Rene Rivera