• karabuta (3/3) Jan 16 2016 How do you see it?
• anonymous (14/17) Jan 16 2016 Do you intend to propose this for the official logo?
• karabuta (2/10) Jan 16 2016 Nope. Just playing around. Why did they reject yours by the way?
• anonymous (7/8) Jan 16 2016 It's not been rejected outright. More like put on ice. Or maybe
• Karabuta (4/10) Jan 17 2016 Ohh! A great design is better seen by a designer. "Iron with
• anonymous (2/4) Jan 17 2016 I don't understand.
• Dylan Allbee (3/6) Jan 16 2016 In all honesty I like the current one better. The binary
• Jacob Carlborg (6/9) Jan 16 2016 I think any new logo should have a base form, with only two colors,
• Guillaume Piolat (4/7) Jan 18 2016 The current logo is very good and there is value in keeping it.
• Adrian Matoga (4/13) Jan 18 2016 +1
• karabuta (6/20) Jan 18 2016 Do not make assumption on peoples opinion on "the need for
• Brad Anderson (9/18) Jan 18 2016 I've long wished the D and moons were what was considered the
• Bastiaan Veelo (2/3) Jan 18 2016 It does.
• DaveG (19/38) Jan 18 2016 I completely agree. The most recognisable symbols I can think of
• Jacob Carlborg (7/22) Jan 18 2016 I completely agree. I could even go so far to say that the default
• Jacob Carlborg (4/6) Jan 18 2016 +1. Simple and elegant.
• Zoadian (2/3) Jan 19 2016 +1
• karabuta (6/16) Jan 20 2016 Waw!! I never new the thing at the top was a moon when I was
• Simen Kjaeraas (5/12) Jan 20 2016 Actually, the D is Mars. The other shapes are Phobos and Deimos,
• karabuta (3/19) Jan 21 2016 Haha! So that the story :)
• Brad Anderson (3/8) Jan 20 2016 If I remember correctly the D is Mars and the two circles are
• Brad Anderson (3/13) Jan 20 2016 Oh, someone already replied with this. Oops.
• Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eg==?= (4/7) Jan 18 2016 This URL redirects me to that Google page:
• Chris Wright (6/17) Jan 18 2016 I didn't see a logo either; I just saw a white background and large text...

karabuta <karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:

How do you see it?

http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png

Many variants are on the way.

anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:

On 16.01.2016 18:55, karabuta wrote:
 How do you see it?

 http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png

 Many variants are on the way.

Do you intend to propose this for the official logo?

If so, be aware that the logo is a delicate matter. There have been 
various proposals to change it from the current one, and all have been 
rejected. It's Walter himself who is rather strictly against any changes.

I have been pushing for this variant:

https://gist.github.com/aG0aep6G/0803ec5ae49f6afb0196

You see it's very, very similar to the current one. To the point that 
you could say it's really the same logo. Yet, it was the one part of the 
red-top-bar redesign that didn't fly with the powers that be. I haven't 
given up yet, though.

By the way, I'm not sure if this is announcement material. If you're 
looking for feedback, I think the General group would have been a better 
fit.

karabuta <karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 18:15:06 UTC, anonymous wrote:
 On 16.01.2016 18:55, karabuta wrote:
 [...]

 Do you intend to propose this for the official logo?

 If so, be aware that the logo is a delicate matter. There have 
 been various proposals to change it from the current one, and 
 all have been rejected. It's Walter himself who is rather 
 strictly against any changes.

 [...]



Nope. Just playing around. Why did they reject yours by the way?

anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:

On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 18:56:36 UTC, karabuta wrote:
 Nope. Just playing around. Why did they reject yours by the way?

It's not been rejected outright. More like put on ice. Or maybe 
I'm just not getting the hints :)

Andrei said: "Can we defer any changes to the logo so we don't 
get sidetracked in this? Just scale the existing logo to fit and 
defer any changes to it to later."
-- http://forum.dlang.org/post/n591ec$aqv$1 digitalmars.com

Karabuta <Karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 20:13:07 UTC, anonymous wrote:
 It's not been rejected outright. More like put on ice. Or maybe 
 I'm just not getting the hints :)

 Andrei said: "Can we defer any changes to the logo so we don't 
 get sidetracked in this? Just scale the existing logo to fit 
 and defer any changes to it to later."
 -- http://forum.dlang.org/post/n591ec$aqv$1 digitalmars.com

Ohh! A great design is better seen by a designer. "Iron with 
steal, steel with gold, gold with diamond". Always room for 
improvement.

anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:

On 17.01.2016 18:55, Karabuta wrote:
 Ohh! A great design is better seen by a designer. "Iron with steal,
 steel with gold, gold with diamond". Always room for improvement.

I don't understand.

Dylan Allbee <dylan linux.com> writes:

On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 17:55:13 UTC, karabuta wrote:
 How do you see it?

 http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png

 Many variants are on the way.

In all honesty I like the current one better. The binary 
background feels gimmicky.

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 2016-01-16 18:55, karabuta wrote:
 How do you see it?

 http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png

 Many variants are on the way.

I think any new logo should have a base form, with only two colors, 
black and white. This allows for further variations without loosing the 
identity and recognizability.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Guillaume Piolat <contact gam3sfrommars.fr> writes:

On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 17:55:13 UTC, karabuta wrote:
 How do you see it?

 http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png

 Many variants are on the way.

The current logo is very good and there is value in keeping it. 
Now if it didn't have this extremely 90s-looking borders, it 
would be even better.

Adrian Matoga <dlang.spam matoga.info> writes:

On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 10:28:48 UTC, Guillaume Piolat 
wrote:
 On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 17:55:13 UTC, karabuta wrote:
 How do you see it?

 http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png

 Many variants are on the way.

 The current logo is very good and there is value in keeping it. 
 Now if it didn't have this extremely 90s-looking borders, it 
 would be even better.

+1

Also, change just for the sake of change is just bad strategy.

karabuta <karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 10:37:42 UTC, Adrian Matoga wrote:
 On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 10:28:48 UTC, Guillaume Piolat 
 wrote:
 On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 17:55:13 UTC, karabuta wrote:
 How do you see it?

 http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png

 Many variants are on the way.

 The current logo is very good and there is value in keeping 
 it. Now if it didn't have this extremely 90s-looking borders, 
 it would be even better.

 +1

 Also, change just for the sake of change is just bad strategy.

Do not make assumption on peoples opinion on "the need for 
change". The word here is not change as in literal "change", it 
means improvement :)

"Iron with steal, steel with gold, gold with diamond". Always 
room for improvement.

Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> writes:

On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 10:28:48 UTC, Guillaume Piolat 
wrote:
 On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 17:55:13 UTC, karabuta wrote:
 How do you see it?

 http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png

 Many variants are on the way.

 The current logo is very good and there is value in keeping it. 
 Now if it didn't have this extremely 90s-looking borders, it 
 would be even better.

I've long wished the D and moons were what was considered the 
logo[1]. The current one has three borders, a drop shadow, and 
gradients up the wazoo. Anything tacked on beyond the iconic 
shape should just be done based on context (like using red or 
white for the logo, a background color, etc.)

http://i.imgur.com/RSBLFDJ.png

Doesn't it look so much better: http://i.imgur.com/QlrbCou.png

Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan Veelo.net> writes:

On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 22:48:52 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
 Doesn't it look so much better: http://i.imgur.com/QlrbCou.png

It does.

DaveG <noreply inter.net> writes:

On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 22:48:52 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
 On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 10:28:48 UTC, Guillaume Piolat 
 wrote:
 On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 17:55:13 UTC, karabuta wrote:
 How do you see it?

 http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png

 Many variants are on the way.

 The current logo is very good and there is value in keeping 
 it. Now if it didn't have this extremely 90s-looking borders, 
 it would be even better.

 I've long wished the D and moons were what was considered the 
 logo[1]. The current one has three borders, a drop shadow, and 
 gradients up the wazoo. Anything tacked on beyond the iconic 
 shape should just be done based on context (like using red or 
 white for the logo, a background color, etc.)

 http://i.imgur.com/RSBLFDJ.png

 Doesn't it look so much better: http://i.imgur.com/QlrbCou.png

I completely agree. The most recognisable symbols I can think of 
are characters. An "A" is clearly an "A" regardless of color, 
shading, or its surroundings. I think a logo should be 
recognisable in silhouette - this tends to keep it simple, 
portable, and customisable. This could include an official 
default color to enhance recognition/association. The default 
would just be there when there is not a strong reason to use 
something else, but if you want to incorporate the logo into some 
other artwork (slides, t-shirts, etc.) you have much greater 
flexibility.

The official logo should just be the D with the moons, not the 
entire box. The default color seems to have become that red color 
so the default logo would either be a red D (with moons) or, 
using negative space, a white D surrounded by red (as shown in 
the proposed header). There may be a time the shiny stylized box 
version fits the design, but the new site is certainly the place. 
The box feels like other design elements that crept into a logo 
and got stuck there.

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 2016-01-19 06:48, DaveG wrote:

 I completely agree. The most recognisable symbols I can think of are
 characters. An "A" is clearly an "A" regardless of color, shading, or
 its surroundings. I think a logo should be recognisable in silhouette -
 this tends to keep it simple, portable, and customisable. This could
 include an official default color to enhance recognition/association.
 The default would just be there when there is not a strong reason to use
 something else, but if you want to incorporate the logo into some other
 artwork (slides, t-shirts, etc.) you have much greater flexibility.

 The official logo should just be the D with the moons, not the entire
 box. The default color seems to have become that red color so the
 default logo would either be a red D (with moons) or, using negative
 space, a white D surrounded by red (as shown in the proposed header).
 There may be a time the shiny stylized box version fits the design, but
 the new site is certainly the place. The box feels like other design
 elements that crept into a logo and got stuck there.

I completely agree. I could even go so far to say that the default 
should be black and white. It gives more freedom to do customizations 
and different versions. I have several Apple products and the logo 
doesn't have the same color on any of them.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 2016-01-18 23:48, Brad Anderson wrote:

 http://i.imgur.com/RSBLFDJ.png

 Doesn't it look so much better: http://i.imgur.com/QlrbCou.png

+1. Simple and elegant.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Zoadian <no no.no> writes:

On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 22:48:52 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
 Doesn't it look so much better: http://i.imgur.com/QlrbCou.png

+1

karabuta <karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 22:48:52 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
 On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 10:28:48 UTC, Guillaume Piolat 
 wrote:
 On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 17:55:13 UTC, karabuta wrote:


 I've long wished the D and moons were what was considered the 
 logo[1]. The current one has three borders, a drop shadow, and 
 gradients up the wazoo. Anything tacked on beyond the iconic 
 shape should just be done based on context (like using red or 
 white for the logo, a background color, etc.)

 http://i.imgur.com/RSBLFDJ.png

 Doesn't it look so much better: http://i.imgur.com/QlrbCou.png



Waw!! I never new the thing at the top was a moon when I was 
doing my version :) Is that a moon on the "D" and Mars below the 
D? :) I now get it.

I agree it should be simple. You cannot embroid the depth and 
shadow in the current logo.

Simen Kjaeraas <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 at 14:09:53 UTC, karabuta wrote:
 On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 22:48:52 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
 http://i.imgur.com/RSBLFDJ.png

 Doesn't it look so much better: http://i.imgur.com/QlrbCou.png



 Waw!! I never new the thing at the top was a moon when I was 
 doing my version :) Is that a moon on the "D" and Mars below 
 the D? :) I now get it.

Actually, the D is Mars. The other shapes are Phobos and Deimos,
Mars' two moons. And of course two important D libraries.

--
   Simen

karabuta <karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 at 15:43:16 UTC, Simen Kjaeraas 
wrote:
 On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 at 14:09:53 UTC, karabuta wrote:
 On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 22:48:52 UTC, Brad Anderson 
 wrote:
 http://i.imgur.com/RSBLFDJ.png

 Doesn't it look so much better: http://i.imgur.com/QlrbCou.png



 Waw!! I never new the thing at the top was a moon when I was 
 doing my version :) Is that a moon on the "D" and Mars below 
 the D? :) I now get it.

 Actually, the D is Mars. The other shapes are Phobos and Deimos,
 Mars' two moons. And of course two important D libraries.

 --
   Simen

Haha! So that the story :)

Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> writes:

On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 at 14:09:53 UTC, karabuta wrote:
 Waw!! I never new the thing at the top was a moon when I was 
 doing my version :) Is that a moon on the "D" and Mars below 
 the D? :) I now get it.

 I agree it should be simple. You cannot embroid the depth and 
 shadow in the current logo.

If I remember correctly the D is Mars and the two circles are 
Phobos and Deimos.

Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> writes:

On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 at 18:39:14 UTC, Brad Anderson 
wrote:
 On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 at 14:09:53 UTC, karabuta wrote:
 Waw!! I never new the thing at the top was a moon when I was 
 doing my version :) Is that a moon on the "D" and Mars below 
 the D? :) I now get it.

 I agree it should be simple. You cannot embroid the depth and 
 shadow in the current logo.

 If I remember correctly the D is Mars and the two circles are 
 Phobos and Deimos.

Oh, someone already replied with this. Oops.

Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eg==?= <schuetzm gmx.net> writes:

On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 17:55:13 UTC, karabuta wrote:
 How do you see it?

 http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png

 Many variants are on the way.

This URL redirects me to that Google page:
https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/61416

No, I'm not going to enable cookies.

Chris Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:01:08 +0000, Marc Schütz wrote:

 On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 17:55:13 UTC, karabuta wrote:
 How do you see it?

 http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png

 Many variants are on the way.

 
 This URL redirects me to that Google page:
 https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/61416
 
 No, I'm not going to enable cookies.

I didn't see a logo either; I just saw a white background and large text 
telling me to enable javascript. Now I'm getting the impression it would 
take a solid ten minutes futzing about with RequestPolicy and NoScript to 
see the logo.

This is why I just self-host images.