I've been reading way more than I can possible write about, so here's what didn't make the entry cut (yet). Also, for those not aware, you can follow my sidenotes by subscribing to the RSS feed. Anyway, let me give you what you really came for . . .
Jeffrey Veen: "Users aren't stupid, they're efficient. They're spending the least amount of effort (i.e. intelligence) as they possible can on each step of the goal they're trying to achieve. If you make them spend more, they'll go somewhere else -- it's like intellectual bargain shopping."
A logo is a flag, a signature, an escutcheon.
A logo doesn't sell (directly), it identifies.
A logo is rarely a description of a business.
A logo derives its meaning from the quality of the thing it symbolizes, not the other way around.
A logo is less important than the product it signifies; what it means is more important that what it looks like.
Guardian Unlimited: "In the centuries since their freebooting peak, the reputation of Captain Kidd, Calico Jack and co has endured a remarkable transformation. In the 18th century, pirates were the baddest of the bad guys. They created a crisis in world trade: between 1718 and 1722, they captured and plundered more than 2,400 vessels on Atlantic trade routes. According to American preacher Cotton Mather, "all Nations agree to treat [pirates] as the Common Enemies of Mankind, and to extirpate them out of the world". The modern parallels are there, as playwright Simon Bent points out: "For pirates to take out merchant ships returning laden with gold from the New World would be like taking out the Twin Towers in our era." So will the Johnny Depps of the future play raffish versions of Osama bin Laden in Hollywood blockbusters?"