www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Worrying attitudes to the branding of the D language

reply "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
There is currently an effort made by w0rp to redesign the D 
website. This is a good thing and i applaud his efforts. The 
website really does need an overhaul. However i find it extremely 
alarming that there is a casual disregard for any sort of 
consistency of the D brand.

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mmoxalewsvwcgeaasvri forum.dlang.org

Here are some quotes:

On Saturday, 31 May 2014 at 19:49:22 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 * The logo is something I quickly put together with InkScape. 
 Look at it as "please insert better logo here."


On Sunday, 1 June 2014 at 10:03:09 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 Branding does need to be worked on. Speaking of the site I'm 
 working on... I would love to see something like the current D 
 logo, but flatter.


On Monday, 30 June 2014 at 21:23:59 UTC, David Gileadi wrote:

 My opinion is that the redesign preserves the spirit of the 
 current logo while fitting in well with the flatter look. I 
 think someone who sees the one logo will recognize the other in 
 it (unlike some of the recent proposed logos).



 On Sunday, 29 June 2014 at 22:15:48 UTC, w0rp wrote:
 The old logo is a bit too fat and round to fit with the new 
 design, so I'd like something which is obviously still the same 
 brand, but looks a bit flatter.


On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 08:58:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 Doing logo restyling together with web site update is not 
 unheard of. Why do you see this a big deal? As long as it is 
 recognizable and not fundamentally different of course. Having 
 logo that simply does not fit into new design is worse.


On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 10:04:50 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:

 I'd say your zeal is a bit misdirected. "Professional" brands 
 are relaunched all the time.


On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 10:53:56 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 Some companies also use different versions of their logo for 
 different purposes. One on the website, one on print and so on.


On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 12:38:39 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 Generally for the logo, I'm looking for someone who does know
 what they are doing with Inkscape or similar tools to produce
 something which fits instead.


These quotes are from people who are terribly misguided and lack 
any sort of sensibilty about what branding means and it's impact 
on perceptions of products. They show a complete lack of 
understanding what the brand is for and what it represents. 
Especially when dealing with users perceptions.

Yes logo changes do occur but they can be incredibly hurtful for 
companies and products if they don't get it exactly right. All 
logo changes of established entities should be managed with 
utmost care and respect. Simply by changing the icon for which 
you are recognised internationally, you pay an immediate cost of 
non recognition but it's the perception of users that create the 
biggest fallout.

Change for change sake is madness and something which should be 
considered very carefully. The current D logo has spread and is 
now associated with D. It appears on the website, t-shirts, 
slides, videos, etc. Heck i even use it for all the evangelism i 
do at work.

Before writing software i spent 20 years working as a 
professional graphic artist and the attitudes above not only 
incense me but make me dispair. D is a language i care about and 
use daily and to see this totally unprofessional side of the 
community leaves me speechless.

* D is a brand, whether you like it or not
* The logo is the essence of that brand
* D has a history of poorly managed change
* D's community has been destroyed once before (Tango)
* D has the preception of unreliability
* D is not seen as a professional offering
* D is perceved as half finished

This is something we need to remedy and updating the website is a 
good first step. Changing the logo however is not! Changing the 
logo is adding to the history of D's poorly managed change in a 
period when we are starting to see real interest and usage.

People need to have the perception that the brand is strong and 
that the product is stable. The logo reflects this. The logo is 
an icon of D as a product. Just casually tossing it aside is 
allowing further extension of user perceptions of 
unprofessionalism. We need to nuture the brand to create the 
perception and feeling of security, stability and professionalism.

Please re-watch the Quo Vadis talk given by Andrei at Dconf 2013 
about being corporate and professional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M-0LFBP9AU#t=1h0m30s

Then tell me again that we need to quickly rehash the logo in 
inkscape?

I want that talk to become a reality as i am sure the community 
does too. Please think hard about your actions!

We need to design a robust, user focused site that nurtures the 
brand but also focused on giving people information quickly. A 
site that is immediately recognisable to users, that exudes 
professionalism and stabiliy.

Here is the present and official D logo:

http://media.sukimashita.com/d/d-5.svg

I suggest we keep it.
Jul 01 2014
next sibling parent reply "w0rp" <devw0rp gmail.com> writes:
No.
Jul 01 2014
parent reply "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 17:49:57 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 No.


This is the attitude i am expressly writing about.
Jul 01 2014
next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
You are blowing everything out of proportion. There seems to be an
abundance of drama creators recently.

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014, Gary Willoughby via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 17:49:57 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 No.


 This is the attitude i am expressly writing about.
Jul 01 2014
prev sibling parent reply "John" <john.joyus gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 18:02:16 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 17:49:57 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 No.


 This is the attitude i am expressly writing about.


I guess everybody has some attitude problems. For example, you 
won't capitalize the i in your writings, no matter how many 
people told you that it's odd and distracting while reading your 
posts or articles.
Jul 01 2014
parent "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 19:20:34 UTC, John wrote:

 I guess everybody has some attitude problems. For example, you 
 won't capitalize the i in your writings, no matter how many 
 people told you that it's odd and distracting while reading 
 your posts or articles.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Jul 01 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 17:45:02 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 There is currently an effort made by w0rp to redesign the D 
 website. This is a good thing and i applaud his efforts. The 
 website really does need an overhaul. However i find it 
 extremely alarming that there is a casual disregard for any 
 sort of consistency of the D brand.

 http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mmoxalewsvwcgeaasvri forum.dlang.org

 Here are some quotes:

 On Saturday, 31 May 2014 at 19:49:22 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 * The logo is something I quickly put together with InkScape. 
 Look at it as "please insert better logo here."


 On Sunday, 1 June 2014 at 10:03:09 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 Branding does need to be worked on. Speaking of the site I'm 
 working on... I would love to see something like the current D 
 logo, but flatter.


 On Monday, 30 June 2014 at 21:23:59 UTC, David Gileadi wrote:

 My opinion is that the redesign preserves the spirit of the 
 current logo while fitting in well with the flatter look. I 
 think someone who sees the one logo will recognize the other 
 in it (unlike some of the recent proposed logos).



 On Sunday, 29 June 2014 at 22:15:48 UTC, w0rp wrote:
 The old logo is a bit too fat and round to fit with the new 
 design, so I'd like something which is obviously still the 
 same brand, but looks a bit flatter.


 On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 08:58:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 Doing logo restyling together with web site update is not 
 unheard of. Why do you see this a big deal? As long as it is 
 recognizable and not fundamentally different of course. Having 
 logo that simply does not fit into new design is worse.


 On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 10:04:50 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:

 I'd say your zeal is a bit misdirected. "Professional" brands 
 are relaunched all the time.


 On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 10:53:56 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 Some companies also use different versions of their logo for 
 different purposes. One on the website, one on print and so on.


 On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 12:38:39 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 Generally for the logo, I'm looking for someone who does know
 what they are doing with Inkscape or similar tools to produce
 something which fits instead.


 These quotes are from people who are terribly misguided and 
 lack any sort of sensibilty about what branding means and it's 
 impact on perceptions of products. They show a complete lack of 
 understanding what the brand is for and what it represents. 
 Especially when dealing with users perceptions.


You could have been less insulting while sharing your thoughts.


 Yes logo changes do occur but they can be incredibly hurtful 
 for companies and products if they don't get it exactly right. 
 All logo changes of established entities should be managed with 
 utmost care and respect. Simply by changing the icon for which 
 you are recognised internationally, you pay an immediate cost 
 of non recognition but it's the perception of users that create 
 the biggest fallout.

 Change for change sake is madness and something which should be 
 considered very carefully. The current D logo has spread and is 
 now associated with D. It appears on the website, t-shirts, 
 slides, videos, etc. Heck i even use it for all the evangelism 
 i do at work.

 Before writing software i spent 20 years working as a 
 professional graphic artist and the attitudes above not only 
 incense me but make me dispair. D is a language i care about 
 and use daily and to see this totally unprofessional side of 
 the community leaves me speechless.

 * D is a brand, whether you like it or not
 * The logo is the essence of that brand
 * D has a history of poorly managed change
 * D's community has been destroyed once before (Tango)
 * D has the preception of unreliability
 * D is not seen as a professional offering
 * D is perceved as half finished

 This is something we need to remedy and updating the website is 
 a good first step. Changing the logo however is not! Changing 
 the logo is adding to the history of D's poorly managed change 
 in a period when we are starting to see real interest and usage.

 People need to have the perception that the brand is strong and 
 that the product is stable. The logo reflects this. The logo is 
 an icon of D as a product. Just casually tossing it aside is 
 allowing further extension of user perceptions of 
 unprofessionalism. We need to nuture the brand to create the 
 perception and feeling of security, stability and 
 professionalism.

 Please re-watch the Quo Vadis talk given by Andrei at Dconf 
 2013 about being corporate and professional.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M-0LFBP9AU#t=1h0m30s


Walter does not own the copyright to the current logo. It 
probably won't but that could bite us in the ass in the future. 
Better to switch to a new but familiar one now with copyright 
assignment to Walter. A corporation would never, ever use a logo 
they don't own.

I just happen the like the flat version better so I think 
switching to it is an improvement in both style and legalities.
Jul 01 2014
parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 17:53:28 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:

 Walter does not own the copyright to the current logo. It 
 probably won't but that could bite us in the ass in the future. 
 Better to switch to a new but familiar one now with copyright 
 assignment to Walter.


This is not how copyright works. If you base a new logo on the 
old one it is a derived work and the old author will have partial 
ownership in the new logo, so you cannot publish it without 
consent.

If there is a copyright or trademark issue you need a clean break 
(a completely unrelated logo).

Other than that, I agree with Gary.

(And I still think that the "new" design looks like an adobe.com 
rip-off…)
Jul 01 2014
parent reply "Tofu Ninja" <emmons0 purdue.edu> writes:
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 19:48:13 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:

 (And I still think that the "new" design looks like an 
 adobe.com rip-off…)


Isn't that what we want? We want the website to look more 
professional so what better way than to make it look like all the 
other professional websites?
Jul 01 2014
parent "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 19:58:03 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:

 Isn't that what we want? We want the website to look more 
 professional so what better way than to make it look like all 
 the other professional websites?


Not if you want a recognizable identity. Adobe are too big, if 
you want to copy, copy someone outside your own domain.

Anyway here is a sketch of the logo in svg format, but it needs 
some tweaks:

<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1" viewBox="0 
0 36 25" style\
="fill:#fff
<circle cx="27.2" cy="8.7" r="5.8"/>
<circle cx="34.1" cy="2.4" r="1.9"/>
<g transform="translate(0,0)">
<path transform="scale(1 -1.04)translate(0 -31)"  d="M 
0.745,6.162 C 0.3725,6.1\
62 0,6.534 0,6.907 L 0,29.255 C 0,29.63 0.37,30 0.745,30 L 
10.057,30 C 21.6,30 \
26.445,24.04 26.45,17.92 26.45,11.8 21.59,6.17 10,6.16 L 
0.74,6.16 z M 5.59,10.\
63 11.92,10.63 C 15.64,10.6 20.86,13.24 20.86,18.08 20.86,22.92 
15.64,25.53 11.\
92,25.53 L 5.59,25.53 5.59,10.63 z"/>
</g>
</svg>
Jul 01 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent =?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= <sludwig rejectedsoftware.com> writes:
While I agree with your reasoning, I don't agree with your target of 
attack. The logo basically has two attributes that are important to 
keep: shape and color. The rest of the logo just consists of "chrome" 
and a button-like border. I'd always consider this part of the context 
into which the logo is embedded rather than part of the logo itself. 
Anything else would be rather bad logo design in my eyes.

In this sense, just removing the chrome, but keeping the shape and color 
is perfectly fine, IMO. The current website draft doesn't match the 
shape properly, but it's just a draft after all.
Jul 01 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "David Nadlinger" <code klickverbot.at> writes:
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 17:45:02 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 Yes logo changes do occur but they can be incredibly hurtful 
 for companies and products if they don't get it exactly right. 
 All logo changes of established entities should be managed with 
 utmost care and respect. Simply by changing the icon for which 
 you are recognised internationally, you pay an immediate cost 
 of non recognition but it's the perception of users that create 
 the biggest fallout.


I certainly didn't imply that we wouldn't need to exercise care 
in my earlier reply.


 Before writing software i spent 20 years working as a 
 professional graphic artist […]


Care to share any work samples/your la(te)st portfolio?

David
Jul 01 2014
parent reply "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 19:50:15 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:

 Care to share any work samples/your la(te)st portfolio?

 David


In the past i worked on purely traditional packaging so 
everything you saw in the supermarkets i had a hand in. Food, 
clothing, magazines, etc. Now i've moved into software. Here's my 
current employers and our public client list:

http://www.9xb.com/digital-agency/client-list/

Believe me branding is everything do not take this stuff so 
lightly.
Jul 01 2014
next sibling parent reply "David Nadlinger" <code klickverbot.at> writes:
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 21:15:10 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 In the past i worked on purely traditional packaging so 
 everything you saw in the supermarkets i had a hand in. Food, 
 clothing, magazines, etc.


I just asked because I was genuinely interested in your 
background, not because it would be particularly relevant for 
this discussion. However, please understand that when your answer 
to a question for design references is "everything you saw in the 
supermarkets" and a shop you do software engineering for, I have 
somewhat of a hard time taking you seriously. You probably 
wouldn't talk like that to (former) colleagues, would you?


 Believe me branding is everything do not take this stuff so 
 lightly.


I'm not taking it lightly. The big issue I see with the current 
state is that D simply doesn't have a consistent brand at this 
point, and never had (D Man, anyone?). Frantically clinging to 
the current bits and pieces doesn't help us at all, and neither 
do alarmist and inflammatory sweeping blows directed at a honest 
(and only partially related) volunteer effort.

Instead, we should try to channel what we currently have into a 
appealing and recognizable brand. Even if that means slightly 
touching up the logo to adapt some of the elements that might 
have been hip a while ago, but would seem rather quaint in a 
current design. I completely agree that this can't be a matter of 
somebody toying around with Inkscape a bit (no offense!), but 
discouraging everybody from addressing the issue at all while at 
the same time not bringing anything to the table yourself also 
isn't particularly productive.

David
Jul 01 2014
next sibling parent "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 22:02:19 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:

 Instead, we should try to channel what we currently have into a 
 appealing and recognizable brand. Even if that means slightly 
 touching up the logo to adapt some of the elements that might 
 have been hip a while ago, but would seem rather quaint in a 
 current design.


Adding serifs is really not the right thing to do. Usually what 
happens during logo redesign is that they simplify the visual 
design to make the recognizable visual traits stand out more. The 
most famous example is probably Nike, but you can only go that 
far after having achieved a strong brand…


 I completely agree that this can't be a matter of somebody 
 toying around with Inkscape a bit (no offense!),


Good, because what happens when you remove the "horizon line 
shine" is that the logo becomes graphically unbalanced and will 
need tweaking.

I wish the dots were circles and not ellipses, though.
Jul 01 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "David Nadlinger" <code klickverbot.at> writes:
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 22:02:19 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:

 On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 21:15:10 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
 […]


Even though my message probably doesn't stand out in the context 
of this discussion, that came across as quite a bit more 
offensive than I intended, and I apologize for that.

However, I indeed think that if you care about design and 
branding, the best way is to get involved with improving the 
situation by making your own concrete suggestions and proposals – 
D desperately needs somebody skilled who "owns" design –, and not 
to try and educate the world assuming that all the others are 
clueless. ;)

And besides, design by committee works even less in graphics than 
it does in software, which is also why I decided not to comment 
on any of the early-stage proposals so far. I firmly believe that 
by continuing to discuss for the sake of it and throwing around 
blanket statements – something this community seems to be 
particularly adept at, unfortunately –, we'll only dissuade the 
people we really want to have working on these issues from 
stepping forward. I mean, we both know how annoying clients who 
don't give you the freedom you need to work while changing their 
"vision" all the time are.

Cheers,
David
Jul 01 2014
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 7/1/2014 3:02 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:

 I'm not taking it lightly. The big issue I see with the current state is that D
 simply doesn't have a consistent brand at this point, and never had (D Man,
 anyone?). Frantically clinging to the current bits and pieces doesn't help us
at
 all, and neither do alarmist and inflammatory sweeping blows directed at a
 honest (and only partially related) volunteer effort.


The only thing that we have that is consistent is the current D logo. I do not 
understand the rationale for changing it.



 Instead, we should try to channel what we currently have into a appealing and
 recognizable brand. Even if that means slightly touching up the logo to adapt
 some of the elements that might have been hip a while ago, but would seem
rather
 quaint in a current design. I completely agree that this can't be a matter of
 somebody toying around with Inkscape a bit (no offense!), but discouraging
 everybody from addressing the issue at all while at the same time not bringing
 anything to the table yourself also isn't particularly productive.


There's so much that can be done to improve the website, I'm reluctant to put 
time and energy into redesigning the logo.
Jul 01 2014
next sibling parent reply Shammah Chancellor <anonymous coward.com> writes:
On 2014-07-02 02:32:18 +0000, Walter Bright said:


 On 7/1/2014 3:02 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:

 I'm not taking it lightly. The big issue I see with the current state is that D
 simply doesn't have a consistent brand at this point, and never had (D Man,
 anyone?). Frantically clinging to the current bits and pieces doesn't 
 help us at
 all, and neither do alarmist and inflammatory sweeping blows directed at a
 honest (and only partially related) volunteer effort.


 
 The only thing that we have that is consistent is the current D logo. I 
 do not understand the rationale for changing it.


The change that w0rt put together as a showcase is not a redesign of 
the logo.   All he did was stylize it for the design of the website he 
put together -- which looks fantastic!


 

 Instead, we should try to channel what we currently have into a appealing and
 recognizable brand. Even if that means slightly touching up the logo to adapt
 some of the elements that might have been hip a while ago, but would 
 seem rather
 quaint in a current design. I completely agree that this can't be a matter of
 somebody toying around with Inkscape a bit (no offense!), but discouraging
 everybody from addressing the issue at all while at the same time not bringing
 anything to the table yourself also isn't particularly productive.


 
 There's so much that can be done to improve the website, I'm reluctant 
 to put time and energy into redesigning the logo.


Nobody is asking you to put any time or effort into redesigning the 
logo.   I realize you may not think so, but the current logo is not 
very attractive.    Unfortunately, having a modern website with 
attractive graphics goes a long way toward garnering support for a 
project.

Walter, I've been involved with D since 2001 (iirc? 0.064 i think?)  I 
absolutely love your language and the project.   The D Programming 
Languages deserves more usage and notoriety since it *is* the best 
programming language available.   To do this, we need as many people 
working on whatever niches they care about the most.    Can we please 
delegate some control of the website to someone who's already put a 
substantial amount of work into making a modern and attractive version 
(w0rt) of it.

-Shammah
Jul 02 2014
next sibling parent "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:56:39 UTC, Shammah Chancellor 
wrote:

 <snip>
 Walter, I've been involved with D since 2001 (iirc? 0.064 i 
 think?)  I absolutely love your language and the project.   The 
 D Programming Languages deserves more usage and notoriety since 
 it *is* the best programming language available.   To do this, 
 we need as many people working on whatever niches they care 
 about the most.    Can we please delegate some control of the 
 website to someone who's already put a substantial amount of 
 work into making a modern and attractive version (w0rt) of it.

 -Shammah


It's w0rp. :P
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 7/2/2014 4:58 AM, Shammah Chancellor wrote:

 On 2014-07-02 02:32:18 +0000, Walter Bright said:

 There's so much that can be done to improve the website, I'm reluctant to put
 time and energy into redesigning the logo.


 Nobody is asking you to put any time or effort into redesigning the logo.


Look at all the time and effort just in these threads.



 I realize you may not think so, but the current logo is not very attractive.
 Unfortunately, having a modern website with attractive graphics goes a long way
 toward garnering support for a project.


I very much understand and agree with the reasons for a distinctive logo. Not 
everyone is going to like every logo, but that doesn't really subtract from its 
effectiveness.

BTW, Apple's site last time I looked at it was clearly designed for aesthetic 
appeal, but its use of grey text on a white background with a small font made
it 
literally painful for me to read their developer documentation. That's a great 
way to beat developers away with a stick.

What I'm saying is that above all the site has to be usable for developers - 
that means fast loading, easy navigation, well organized information content, 
and readable fonts.



 Walter, I've been involved with D since 2001 (iirc? 0.064 i think?)  I
 absolutely love your language and the project.   The D Programming Languages
 deserves more usage and notoriety since it *is* the best programming language
 available.   To do this, we need as many people working on whatever niches they
 care about the most.    Can we please delegate some control of the website to
 someone who's already put a substantial amount of work into making a modern and
 attractive version (w0rt) of it.


Andrei is in charge of the web site. That doesn't necessarily mean he is doing 
the work, but he reviews and approves changes.
Jul 02 2014
parent reply "w0rp" <devw0rp gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 18:32:44 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 BTW, Apple's site last time I looked at it was clearly designed 
 for aesthetic appeal, but its use of grey text on a white 
 background with a small font made it literally painful for me 
 to read their developer documentation. That's a great way to 
 beat developers away with a stick.

 What I'm saying is that above all the site has to be usable for 
 developers - that means fast loading, easy navigation, well 
 organized information content, and readable fonts.


I completely agree with that. Grey on white was a bad choice. I'm 
not sure how I feel now about their Objective C documentation. I 
think it got the information across quickly enough at least.

https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Classes/NSString_Class/Reference/NSString.html#//apple_ref/occ/instm/NSString/initWithBytes:length:encoding:

I've been aiming for making text readable, using headings and 
navigation to make documents easier to jump through, sticking 
with things which will render quickly, etc. A lot of work so far 
has just been for formatting text.
Jul 02 2014
parent "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 19:51:29 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 I've been aiming for making text readable, using headings and 
 navigation to make documents easier to jump through, sticking 
 with things which will render quickly, etc. A lot of work so 
 far has just been for formatting text.


A very nice improvement would be to use nested elements for 
formatting indentation in code examples. Then it will line wrap 
correctly when reducing the width of the browser window. I like 
to have my editor and the browser window side by side on a single 
screen, so it should render well on narrow widths.

I remember making a XSLT stylesheet for transforming generic XML 
code formatting into nested HTML once, it isn't all that 
difficult (but a bit tedious). Maybe the dparser can be used 
since it can generate XML from D code. It might be possible to 
achieve this with just dparser+XSLT.

I generally think one should consider specifying a unifying XML 
format for the site documentation and compile down other formats 
(markdown, ddoc etc) to that format before generating either 
webpages, docbook, open office, or whatever.
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling parent "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 02:32:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 7/1/2014 3:02 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:

 I'm not taking it lightly. The big issue I see with the 
 current state is that D
 simply doesn't have a consistent brand at this point, and 
 never had (D Man,
 anyone?). Frantically clinging to the current bits and pieces 
 doesn't help us at
 all, and neither do alarmist and inflammatory sweeping blows 
 directed at a
 honest (and only partially related) volunteer effort.


 The only thing that we have that is consistent is the current D 
 logo. I do not understand the rationale for changing it.


That do not make any sense. Element are consistent as a ensemble.
Each element taken separately will be consistent with itself.


 There's so much that can be done to improve the website, I'm 
 reluctant to put time and energy into redesigning the logo.


Someone did. It is agreed by most that it is better looking and
more usable than what we currently have.
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On 7/1/2014 5:15 PM, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 19:50:15 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:

 Care to share any work samples/your la(te)st portfolio?

 David


 In the past i worked on purely traditional packaging so everything you
 saw in the supermarkets i had a hand in. Food, clothing, magazines, etc.
 Now i've moved into software. Here's my current employers and our public
 client list:

 http://www.9xb.com/digital-agency/client-list/

 Believe me branding is everything do not take this stuff so lightly.


I do easily believe that such companies are convinced branding is 
everything (although, as I'm sure you well know, "branding" encompasses 
far, far more than whether or not a logo gets modified), but I'm 
unconvinced that such beliefs, while certainly prevalent, are actually 
valid.

Keep in mind, too, a lot of those brands are mass-market brands aimed at 
everyday "Average Joes". The thing is, a LOT of Average Joes are 
SEVERELY stupid and easily swayed by nonsensical reasons. D isn't a 
mass-market brand, it's a programmer brand. Still some dumb people in 
programming of course, but not to the extent of, for example, Pepsi's 
overall target market.

But that said, I think we have far better things to do (even within the 
site redesign) than waste time debating and rejiggering the logo to hop 
onboard silicon valley's "*this* week, tech stylings should be *flat*" 
train.

Seriously, mark my words: Within a few months after Android "L" drops 
(thus unifying the last major brand under the "flat" bandwagon), 
somebody in Apple, MS, or other west-coast-US firm is going to make yet 
another "now it must be all rounded/gradients/shading" push, and for 
about the tenth time (that I can remember) the whole damn industry will 
switch right back to what we had a couple years ago (*cough* Win3), and 
"flat" (*cough* Win2/Win95) will become "passe" and "old fashioned" for 
the umpteenth time. Then we'll have to hop onboard that shit too.

Just pick a logo and leave it. Leave the neverending "sharp vs 
round"/"flat vs shaded" bullcrap for Silicon Valley to continue jerking 
themselves into red ink with.
Jul 01 2014
parent reply "ed" <growlercab gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 03:15:20 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On 7/1/2014 5:15 PM, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 19:50:15 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:

 Care to share any work samples/your la(te)st portfolio?

 David


 In the past i worked on purely traditional packaging so 
 everything you
 saw in the supermarkets i had a hand in. Food, clothing, 
 magazines, etc.
 Now i've moved into software. Here's my current employers and 
 our public
 client list:

 http://www.9xb.com/digital-agency/client-list/

 Believe me branding is everything do not take this stuff so 
 lightly.


 I do easily believe that such companies are convinced branding 
 is everything (although, as I'm sure you well know, "branding" 
 encompasses far, far more than whether or not a logo gets 
 modified), but I'm unconvinced that such beliefs, while 
 certainly prevalent, are actually valid.

 Keep in mind, too, a lot of those brands are mass-market brands 
 aimed at everyday "Average Joes". The thing is, a LOT of 
 Average Joes are SEVERELY stupid and easily swayed by 
 nonsensical reasons. D isn't a mass-market brand, it's a 
 programmer brand. Still some dumb people in programming of 
 course, but not to the extent of, for example, Pepsi's overall 
 target market.

 But that said, I think we have far better things to do (even 
 within the site redesign) than waste time debating and 
 rejiggering the logo to hop onboard silicon valley's "*this* 
 week, tech stylings should be *flat*" train.

 Seriously, mark my words: Within a few months after Android "L" 
 drops (thus unifying the last major brand under the "flat" 
 bandwagon), somebody in Apple, MS, or other west-coast-US firm 
 is going to make yet another "now it must be all 
 rounded/gradients/shading" push, and for about the tenth time 
 (that I can remember) the whole damn industry will switch right 
 back to what we had a couple years ago (*cough* Win3), and 
 "flat" (*cough* Win2/Win95) will become "passe" and "old 
 fashioned" for the umpteenth time. Then we'll have to hop 
 onboard that shit too.

 Just pick a logo and leave it. Leave the neverending "sharp vs 
 round"/"flat vs shaded" bullcrap for Silicon Valley to continue 
 jerking themselves into red ink with.


+1

Maybe it's just me but quite frankly I don't care what the logo 
or web site looks like as long as I can read content and navigate 
the links easily.


bye,
uri
Jul 01 2014
parent reply Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 03:57 +0000, ed via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]

 Maybe it's just me but quite frankly I don't care what the logo 
 or web site looks like as long as I can read content and navigate 
 the links easily.


[…]

Having chipped in early on in this debate I have avoided becoming
embroiled since I think it has all been too detailed and in the wrong
direction, and I have little time just now for any email. A few points:

– Branding is important.

– I heard Walter's comment early on, that he has repeated a number of
times: he likes the current logo and doesn't want to change it.

– Constructive effort needs to go into a D brand to set it up to compete
for hearts and minds of programmers and their managers against C++, Go,
Rust, etc.

– Discussing a new logo is not constructive at this time, since it is
not part of a whole brand discussion.

– A new website is being proposed, it is an opportunity to create a
brand, based on the current logo.

I have to get back to Python stuff now. Also I am not a brand designer,
just a somewhat experienced brand evaluator.

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Jul 01 2014
parent reply "Wanderer" <no-reply no-reply.org> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 05:01:44 UTC, Russel Winder via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:

 – Branding is important.


...

 – A new website is being proposed, it is an opportunity to 
 create a
 brand, based on the current logo.


All this "branding" sounds like branding cows. ;) Not the most 
pleasant procedure.

My humble opinion is while even D's syntax is so far away from 
being settled, not to mention the absense of RTL or IDE, it's way 
too early to brand anything.

Look at Java, PHP, or, say, Linux - all have pretty simple, or 
even weird, logos (fat penguin with tits? wtf?) and they never 
really cared about "branding" their creations, but they had 
tremendous success because they concentrated on the code quality 
instead.
Jul 01 2014
parent reply "w0rp" <devw0rp gmail.com> writes:
This is getting really out of hand. I never intended to propose a 
new logo designed by me. I just implemented what was in 
Aleksandar Ruzicic's mockup enough to show that it was feasible 
and started working from there. I'm waiting for someone with 
honest graphic design experience to find a way to fit a logo 
which both fits the brand and the new site design. Bearing in 
mind that brand identity is often evolving to fit the world 
around it.

As always, I encourage others to contribute to the new design. 
Nothing I'm working on should be considered a finished product, 
and I'm working on it in what time I have available during 
evenings and weekends, and responding to feedback, in the hope 
that I can contribute to a site redesign for the purpose of 
generating more site traffic. I would greatly appreciate any pull 
requests for the project, including good changes in design, new 
(maybe from old) pages, improvements to the framework, and so on. 
If you feel strongly enough to talk about how much you hate a 
logo for hours, your energy would be better spent designing a 
logo to replace it.
Jul 01 2014
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 7/1/2014 11:53 PM, w0rp wrote:

 This is getting really out of hand. I never intended to propose a new logo
 designed by me. I just implemented what was in Aleksandar Ruzicic's mockup
 enough to show that it was feasible and started working from there. I'm waiting
 for someone with honest graphic design experience to find a way to fit a logo
 which both fits the brand and the new site design. Bearing in mind that brand
 identity is often evolving to fit the world around it.

 As always, I encourage others to contribute to the new design. Nothing I'm
 working on should be considered a finished product, and I'm working on it in
 what time I have available during evenings and weekends, and responding to
 feedback, in the hope that I can contribute to a site redesign for the purpose
 of generating more site traffic. I would greatly appreciate any pull requests
 for the project, including good changes in design, new (maybe from old) pages,
 improvements to the framework, and so on. If you feel strongly enough to talk
 about how much you hate a logo for hours, your energy would be better spent
 designing a logo to replace it.


I do appreciate the effort you've put into this, despite my liking the existing 
logo.
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 06:53:42 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 If you feel strongly enough to talk about how much you hate a 
 logo for hours, your energy would be better spent designing a 
 logo to replace it.


I did. I posted a flat SVG version that use a minimal amount of 
beziers and circles to approximate the current design without 
gradients. The advantage is that you can inline it in the HTML 
and get automatic retina resolution and fast loading. It needs 
tweaking, though.

One advantage of using a flat look is that gradients are more 
heavy to render and creates problems if you try to do animation. 
So yes, getting rid of the gradients is a good idea.
Jul 02 2014
parent reply "w0rp" <devw0rp gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 07:30:11 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 06:53:42 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 If you feel strongly enough to talk about how much you hate a 
 logo for hours, your energy would be better spent designing a 
 logo to replace it.


 I did. I posted a flat SVG version that use a minimal amount of 
 beziers and circles to approximate the current design without 
 gradients. The advantage is that you can inline it in the HTML 
 and get automatic retina resolution and fast loading. It needs 
 tweaking, though.

 One advantage of using a flat look is that gradients are more 
 heavy to render and creates problems if you try to do 
 animation. So yes, getting rid of the gradients is a good idea.


Thanks! Is there a chance you could upload the SVG somewhere I 
can download it? I tried copy and pasting the XML into a file and 
loading that, but I messed something up somewhere and it came out 
looking very wrong.
Jul 02 2014
parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 07:44:14 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 Thanks! Is there a chance you could upload the SVG somewhere I 
 can download it? I tried copy and pasting the XML into a file 
 and loading that, but I messed something up somewhere and it 
 came out looking very wrong.


My fault, it was late at night and I did a cut'n'paste from emacs 
that retained the "\" at the line-wrapping. This should work in 
your browser. You can tweak the location of the circles using cx, 
cy, and stretch the "D" using scale(), and move it using 
translate(). The viewBox should probably be redefined to be 
tighter.

The cool thing about having it inlined is that you can animate 
the colour of each element using CSS (like having the circles 
fade in first).

<!DOCTYPE html>
<title>D logo test</title>

<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1" viewBox="0 
0 36 25" style="fill:#fff;">
<circle cx="27.2" cy="8.7" r="5.8"/>
<circle cx="34.1" cy="2.4" r="1.9"/>
<path transform="scale(1 -1.04)translate(0 -31)"  d="M 
0.745,6.162 C 0.3725,6.162 0,6.534 0,6.907 L 0,29.255 C 0,29.63 
0.37,30 0.745,30 L 10.057,30 C 21.6,30 26.445,24.04 26.45,17.92 
26.45,11.8 21.59,6.17 10,6.16 L 0.74,6.16 z M 5.59,10.63 
11.92,10.63 C 15.64,10.6 20.86,13.24 20.86,18.08 20.86,22.92 
15.64,25.53 11.92,25.53 L 5.59,25.53 5.59,10.63 z"/>
</svg>
</div>
Jul 02 2014
parent reply "w0rp" <devw0rp gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 08:00:59 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 07:44:14 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 Thanks! Is there a chance you could upload the SVG somewhere I 
 can download it? I tried copy and pasting the XML into a file 
 and loading that, but I messed something up somewhere and it 
 came out looking very wrong.


 My fault, it was late at night and I did a cut'n'paste from 
 emacs that retained the "\" at the line-wrapping. This should 
 work in your browser. You can tweak the location of the circles 
 using cx, cy, and stretch the "D" using scale(), and move it 
 using translate(). The viewBox should probably be redefined to 
 be tighter.

 The cool thing about having it inlined is that you can animate 
 the colour of each element using CSS (like having the circles 
 fade in first).

 <!DOCTYPE html>
 <title>D logo test</title>

 <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1" 
 viewBox="0 0 36 25" style="fill:#fff;">
 <circle cx="27.2" cy="8.7" r="5.8"/>
 <circle cx="34.1" cy="2.4" r="1.9"/>
 <path transform="scale(1 -1.04)translate(0 -31)"  d="M 
 0.745,6.162 C 0.3725,6.162 0,6.534 0,6.907 L 0,29.255 C 0,29.63 
 0.37,30 0.745,30 L 10.057,30 C 21.6,30 26.445,24.04 26.45,17.92 
 26.45,11.8 21.59,6.17 10,6.16 L 0.74,6.16 z M 5.59,10.63 
 11.92,10.63 C 15.64,10.6 20.86,13.24 20.86,18.08 20.86,22.92 
 15.64,25.53 11.92,25.53 L 5.59,25.53 5.59,10.63 z"/>
 </svg>
 </div>


Ah, thank you. I think that looks pretty good.

I know what you're saying about drawing gradients being a bit 
slow. I tried using a linear gradient in the background coming 
out from the logo, so it looked a bit like light reflecting from 
a Martian moon or something, but it very negatively impacted the 
smoothness of scrolling through a page on every browser I tried. 
Rasterising the logo to fit a gradient in like the current logo I 
think is an acceptable option though. It stays at one fixed size 
pretty much.
Jul 02 2014
parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 08:27:06 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 Ah, thank you. I think that looks pretty good.


I can redo it so that the lines are pixel aligned for sharp edges 
when the design is final. It depends on the actual size of the 
logo so it should be the last step in the redesign.


 I know what you're saying about drawing gradients being a bit 
 slow.


They can be, especially on low-power machines. Though, I suspect 
CSS gradients are faster than SVG gradients on some browsers.

Getting fast reflow of the layout is important for how people 
perceive a website like this, I think. So simple is sometimes 
better than fancy.


 I tried using a linear gradient in the background coming out 
 from the logo, so it looked a bit like light reflecting from a 
 Martian moon or something, but it very negatively impacted the 
 smoothness of scrolling through a page on every browser I 
 tried. Rasterising the logo to fit a gradient in like the 
 current logo I think is an acceptable option though. It stays 
 at one fixed size pretty much.


Yes, unfortunately SVG and image fills are buggy in some 
browsers, but scaling up a blurry gradient is of course not a big 
issue either. It is possible to get some of the same visual 
feeling with flat shading and a modified design.

However, I'd rather suggest doing a layout redesign where you 
avoid the rectangle and thus don't need the same kind of 
balancing act. Like having an off-white page with a dark colour 
side bar on the left and impose the white logo on top of it. Or 
embed the the D logo in a red circle (a very powerful symbol, 
think of how recognizable Lucky Strike branding is).

I'll come up with a suggestion later.
Jul 02 2014
next sibling parent reply "w0rp" <devw0rp gmail.com> writes:
I was talking to the designer I work with at my day job about my 
working on a new D site, and he actually put together a logo for 
me over lunch.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/g7htvw3q61nas5z/D-logo.svg

What does everyone think of that? I basically asked, "I'd like 
something similar to the current logo, but flatter." So that's 
what I got.
Jul 02 2014
next sibling parent Shammah Chancellor <anonymous coward.com> writes:
On 2014-07-02 11:56:40 +0000, w0rp said:


 I was talking to the designer I work with at my day job about my 
 working on a new D site, and he actually put together a logo for me 
 over lunch.
 
 http://www.mediafire.com/download/g7htvw3q61nas5z/D-logo.svg
 
 What does everyone think of that? I basically asked, "I'd like 
 something similar to the current logo, but flatter." So that's what I 
 got.


I think it looks awesome and would fit the new dlang.org design.  Keep 
up the good work.

-Shammah
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:56:43 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 What does everyone think of that? I basically asked, "I'd like 
 something similar to the current logo, but flatter." So that's 
 what I got.


I guess it is possible to make the horizon circular, but it seems 
a bit unbalanced, like it needs more space above and below since 
the D shape is more vertical now. I think I like the original D 
shape a bit better, with rounded corners and a bit prolonged, 
gives a hint of horizontal motion.

If you blend the logo into the page layout you can make the 
horizon be the divisor between the left side bar and the top bar. 
E.g. the logo space is what you get from intersecting the left 
bar with the top bar.
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:56:43 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 I was talking to the designer I work with at my day job about 
 my working on a new D site, and he actually put together a logo 
 for me over lunch.

 http://www.mediafire.com/download/g7htvw3q61nas5z/D-logo.svg

 What does everyone think of that? I basically asked, "I'd like 
 something similar to the current logo, but flatter." So that's 
 what I got.


I still think a wider counter for the "D" looks better.  I'm 
honestly curious about the choice of shortening the radius of the 
horizon arc; is there rationale there or is it just a gut thing?  
I like what he did with the gradient weighting, though. Subtle, 
but effective.

-Wyatt
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling parent "Mattcoder" <fromtheotherside mail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:56:43 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 I was talking to the designer I work with at my day job about 
 my working on a new D site, and he actually put together a logo 
 for me over lunch.

 http://www.mediafire.com/download/g7htvw3q61nas5z/D-logo.svg

 What does everyone think of that? I basically asked, "I'd like 
 something similar to the current logo, but flatter." So that's 
 what I got.


Looks like the current logo but flatter! :)

Matheus.
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling parent "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 10:18:29 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:

 However, I'd rather suggest doing a layout redesign where you 
 avoid the rectangle and thus don't need the same kind of 
 balancing act. Like having an off-white page with a dark colour 
 side bar on the left and impose the white logo on top of it. Or 
 embed the the D logo in a red circle (a very powerful symbol, 
 think of how recognizable Lucky Strike branding is).

 I'll come up with a suggestion later.


Ok, here is my take on this:

http://d.progdocu.appspot.com/

I tried the red circle first, which looks much better, but takes 
up too much space.
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 7/1/2014 10:45 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 Here is the present and official D logo:

 http://media.sukimashita.com/d/d-5.svg

 I suggest we keep it.



All excellent points, and I agree with you on all of them. And I like the 
current logo, and want to keep it.
Jul 01 2014
parent reply Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 01/07/2014 10:29 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 7/1/2014 10:45 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 Here is the present and official D logo:

 http://media.sukimashita.com/d/d-5.svg

 I suggest we keep it.



 All excellent points, and I agree with you on all of them. And I like
 the current logo, and want to keep it.


So what counts as the current logo? That exact image and no other?

Which of the colours from the gradient fills do we match the colour 
scheme of a refreshed website to?

If there is going to be "no change" to the branding, can we at least 
have a definitive statement of what the current brand is that isn't just 
a link to a single image.

[Incidentally, I found the copyright notice that goes with the current 
logo at the bottom of this page: http://media.sukimashita.com/d/ (the 
gallery of designs that the current logo was chosen from)]

A...
Jul 02 2014
parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 08:59:06 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:

 [Incidentally, I found the copyright notice that goes with the 
 current logo at the bottom of this page: 
 http://media.sukimashita.com/d/ (the gallery of designs that 
 the current logo was chosen from)]


Yeah:
«ALL FREE TO USE. ONLY SELLING THESE IMAGES IS PROHIBITED.»

I guess that is good enough for adapting the logo to flat shading 
and a new web design with minor visual tweaks. The original 
author appears to be Martin Szulecki, so he can probably be 
reached by e-mail.
Jul 02 2014
next sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= <sludwig rejectedsoftware.com> writes:
Am 02.07.2014 12:23, schrieb "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>":

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 08:59:06 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:

 [Incidentally, I found the copyright notice that goes with the current
 logo at the bottom of this page: http://media.sukimashita.com/d/ (the
 gallery of designs that the current logo was chosen from)]


 Yeah:
 «ALL FREE TO USE. ONLY SELLING THESE IMAGES IS PROHIBITED.»

 I guess that is good enough for adapting the logo to flat shading and a
 new web design with minor visual tweaks. The original author appears to
 be Martin Szulecki, so he can probably be reached by e-mail.


Although an interesting question would be, if for example the logo is 
allowed to be sold as part of a t-shirt. If not, that would be a pretty 
big deal. It would be much better to have a standard license with proper 
legal terminology. So contacting the author seems to be an imperative if 
this is the design to base the brand upon.
Jul 02 2014
parent "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 13:05:31 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

 Although an interesting question would be, if for example the 
 logo is allowed to be sold as part of a t-shirt. If not, that 
 would be a pretty big deal.


Yeah, or use it on a book cover… An even bigger deal.
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 10:23:12 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 08:59:06 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:

 [Incidentally, I found the copyright notice that goes with the 
 current logo at the bottom of this page: 
 http://media.sukimashita.com/d/ (the gallery of designs that 
 the current logo was chosen from)]


 Yeah:
 «ALL FREE TO USE. ONLY SELLING THESE IMAGES IS PROHIBITED.»

 I guess that is good enough for adapting the logo to flat 
 shading and a new web design with minor visual tweaks. The 
 original author appears to be Martin Szulecki, so he can 
 probably be reached by e-mail.


He should be contacted and asked if he'd be willing to assign 
copyright to Walter. Does anyone have his email address? I've 
found his Github page[1]. It links to his business website[2] 
which has email addresses but I'm not sure if those reach him 
directly.


1. https://github.com/FunkyM
2. http://mirell.com/
Jul 02 2014
parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:53:52 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:

 He should be contacted and asked if he'd be willing to assign 
 copyright to Walter. Does anyone have his email address?


Walter and I have attempted to reach out to Martin a while ago 
with regards to logo licensing (triggered by the logo's deletion 
on Wikipedia - it was taken down once, but since then someone 
reuploaded it again). As far as I know, so far there has been no 
reply.

Here's the information I have:

Original post:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/e3j72u$16n7$1 digitaldaemon.com

GitHub profile:
https://github.com/FunkyM

Professional website:
http://mirell.de/
Jul 02 2014
parent reply Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 02/07/2014 6:13 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:53:52 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:

 He should be contacted and asked if he'd be willing to assign
 copyright to Walter. Does anyone have his email address?


 Walter and I have attempted to reach out to Martin a while ago with
 regards to logo licensing (triggered by the logo's deletion on Wikipedia
 - it was taken down once, but since then someone reuploaded it again).
 As far as I know, so far there has been no reply.

 Here's the information I have:

 Original post:
 http://forum.dlang.org/post/e3j72u$16n7$1 digitaldaemon.com

 GitHub profile:
 https://github.com/FunkyM

 Professional website:
 http://mirell.de/


The site where the original logo is hosted has a "mail me" link on its 
landing page...

heyitsallok sukimashita.com

A...
Jul 02 2014
parent Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 02/07/2014 10:10 PM, Alix Pexton wrote:

 On 02/07/2014 6:13 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:53:52 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:

 He should be contacted and asked if he'd be willing to assign
 copyright to Walter. Does anyone have his email address?


 Walter and I have attempted to reach out to Martin a while ago with
 regards to logo licensing (triggered by the logo's deletion on Wikipedia
 - it was taken down once, but since then someone reuploaded it again).
 As far as I know, so far there has been no reply.

 Here's the information I have:

 Original post:
 http://forum.dlang.org/post/e3j72u$16n7$1 digitaldaemon.com

 GitHub profile:
 https://github.com/FunkyM

 Professional website:
 http://mirell.de/


 The site where the original logo is hosted has a "mail me" link on its
 landing page...

 heyitsallok sukimashita.com

 A...


Has anyone made a new attempt to reach out to Martin yet?

A...
Jul 09 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
We don't have any recognizable branding worth fighting for. I 
can't even remember how current D logo looks like without 
checking the website, it is just some image in the corner of the 
page. "Branding" is something bigger than that.
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Jared" <jared economicmodeling.com> writes:
 However i find it extremely alarming that there is a casual 
 disregard for any sort of consistency of the D brand.



 Yes logo changes do occur but they can be incredibly hurtful 
 for companies and products if they don't get it exactly right. 
 All logo changes of established entities should be managed with 
 utmost care and respect. Simply by changing the icon for which 
 you are recognised internationally, you pay an immediate cost 
 of non recognition but it's the perception of users that create 
 the biggest fallout.


I understand and sympathize where you're coming from, but I think 
it's less important than one might think. Golang's logo is a 
stupid-looking gopher that looks like it was drawn by a 
4-year-old. Python also has IMO an ugly, amateurish logo (but 
better than the truly hideous one it had until 2005). Julia has a 
non-logo (three colored dots over the word "Julia"). R's logo is 
just horrid. AFAIK, C++ doesn't even have a logo or any branding 
whatsoever.

Developers are a very different customer than the mass market -- 
they just want to know, "what can it do for me? In particular, 
how can this programming language make my life easier and land me 
a six-figure job offer?"

D's community & recognition is still very small, comparatively. 
If anything,  now or near-future is the perfect time to rebrand & 
relaunch.


 * D is a brand, whether you like it or not


Yes, but frankly not yet widely recognized.


 * The logo is the essence of that brand


Disagree. The essence of a brand is the customers' history and 
experience of interactions with the entity behind it -- the value 
they find in it (or not). In other words, the brand value of D is 
precisely how pleasant it makes software development for 
professional programmers, such that they can convince their PHBs 
of its corresponding value to the business. Yes, a sketchy 
website will scare off a lot of people from trying the language, 
but basically in this domain there's a *very low bar* for 
marketing -- you just have to be *not* sketchy-looking.


 * D has a history of poorly managed change


Hmmm... perhaps, but it can afford to "break stuff" still since 
there likely aren't more than a couple dozen companies with 
large, critical D projects in production.


 * D's community has been destroyed once before (Tango)


For substantive reasons, not branding.


 * D has the preception of unreliability
 * D is not seen as a professional offering
 * D is perceved as half finished


Then those underlying problems (usability, reliability, general 
quality) insofar as they are real issues need to be to be fixed, 
and current D users need to evangelize -- otherwise any branding 
efforts will be ineffective. Again, languages have a pretty low 
bar from a marketing perspective -- the big hurdles are 
elsewhere. I agree that some basic aura of professionalism and 
stability are necessary.


 We need to design a robust, user focused site that nurtures the 
 brand but also focused on giving people information quickly. A 
 site that is immediately recognisable to users, that exudes 
 professionalism and stabiliy.


Again, this point is mainly about usability (search, navigation, 
quality of content). Branding really has a minimal role -- it 
just has to stay in the background and *not* scare people off.

Ideally a "Design & Web Czar" would just make behind-the-scenes 
executive decisions about all this stuff, no NG discussion needed.
Jul 02 2014
next sibling parent reply "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:

 Python also has IMO an ugly, amateurish logo.


And look at the zeal with which they protect it.
https://www.python.org/community/logos/
https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks

It means more than you realise.
Jul 02 2014
parent reply "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
Here is one of my all time favourite talks from Steve Yegge 
(Senior Engineer at Google) at OSCON 2007 entitled "How to Ignore 
Marketing and Become Irrelevant in Two Easy Steps".

This is sage advice:

http://tvuol.uol.com.br/video/oscon--how-to-ignore-marketing--0402D0C90386/
Jul 02 2014
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 7/2/2014 11:08 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 Here is one of my all time favourite talks from Steve Yegge (Senior Engineer at
 Google) at OSCON 2007 entitled "How to Ignore Marketing and Become Irrelevant
in
 Two Easy Steps".

 This is sage advice:

 http://tvuol.uol.com.br/video/oscon--how-to-ignore-marketing--0402D0C90386/


Yes, Steve has a way of pointing out the obvious that the rest of us miss.
Jul 02 2014
parent reply "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 19:05:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 7/2/2014 11:08 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 Here is one of my all time favourite talks from Steve Yegge 
 (Senior Engineer at
 Google) at OSCON 2007 entitled "How to Ignore Marketing and 
 Become Irrelevant in
 Two Easy Steps".

 This is sage advice:

 http://tvuol.uol.com.br/video/oscon--how-to-ignore-marketing--0402D0C90386/


 Yes, Steve has a way of pointing out the obvious that the rest 
 of us miss.


Is there the complete video somewhere ? This one cut before the
end, and that is very frustrating.
Jul 02 2014
parent Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 03/07/2014 12:40 AM, deadalnix wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 19:05:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 7/2/2014 11:08 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 Here is one of my all time favourite talks from Steve Yegge (Senior
 Engineer at
 Google) at OSCON 2007 entitled "How to Ignore Marketing and Become
 Irrelevant in
 Two Easy Steps".

 This is sage advice:

 http://tvuol.uol.com.br/video/oscon--how-to-ignore-marketing--0402D0C90386/


 Yes, Steve has a way of pointing out the obvious that the rest of us
 miss.


 Is there the complete video somewhere ? This one cut before the
 end, and that is very frustrating.


Ditto, however given the GTE -> Verizon anecdote and this...

On 01/07/2014 6:45 PM, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 * D is a brand, whether you like it or not
 * The logo is the essence of that brand
 * D has a history of poorly managed change
 * D's community has been destroyed once before (Tango)
 * D has the preception of unreliability
 * D is not seen as a professional offering
 * D is perceved as half finished


A...
Jul 03 2014
prev sibling parent Lionello Lunesu <lionello lunesu.remove.com> writes:
On 03/07/14 02:08, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 Here is one of my all time favourite talks from Steve Yegge (Senior
 Engineer at Google) at OSCON 2007 entitled "How to Ignore Marketing and
 Become Irrelevant in Two Easy Steps".

 This is sage advice:

 http://tvuol.uol.com.br/video/oscon--how-to-ignore-marketing--0402D0C90386/


Great share. Thanks.
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling parent "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:

 is just horrid. AFAIK, C++ doesn't even have a logo or any 
 branding whatsoever.


Actually, I think C++ has had the most hyped branding any 
language can achieve, even more than Java. I remember how the 
shelves were flooding with books and magazines with "C++" in big 
bold letters on the covers around 1991. "C++" is actually a very 
strong visual mark that is unique and easy to recognize. Much 
stronger than "C" of "D" alone and certainly much more appealing 
than "objective-C". I sincerely doubt C++ would have caught on 
without all that hype, because the language and the compilers 
weren't all that great…
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 22:02:19 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:

 I just asked because I was genuinely interested in your 
 background, not because it would be particularly relevant for 
 this discussion. However, please understand that when your 
 answer to a question for design references is "everything you 
 saw in the supermarkets" and a shop you do software engineering 
 for, I have somewhat of a hard time taking you seriously. You 
 probably wouldn't talk like that to (former) colleagues, would 
 you?


It's pointless naming brands i've worked on because there have 
been so many over the years and the gamut is so wide. Also i 
guarantee you will of never heard of them because many groups use 
different brand names for each country. This is part of my 
argument. When these large groups take over smaller brands they 
homogenise them but keep the brand identities as they were, there 
is simply too much at stake in changing them.

See this chart: http://i.imgur.com/k0pv0.jpg

I've been involved in most of the brands from all of those 
international groups.

On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 22:02:19 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:

 You probably wouldn't talk like that to (former) colleagues,
 would you?


Yes we do because we're all in the same boat. It's no big deal 
after so much time.

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:02:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 We don't have any recognizable branding worth fighting for. I 
 can't even remember how current D logo looks like without 
 checking the website, it is just some image in the corner of 
 the page. "Branding" is something bigger than that.


But you recognise it when you see it!



On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:56:39 UTC, Shammah Chancellor 
wrote:

 The change that w0rt put together as a showcase is not a 
 redesign of the logo.   All he did was stylize it for the 
 design of the website he put together -- which looks fantastic!


But it's completely the wrong way of going about it. The website 
should be designed to a specification and part of that 
specification will be to respect the identity of D, including the 
logo. Just saying i needed to redesign the logo because it didn't 
fit with my website design is total poppycock. If we as a 
COMMUNITY are going to redesign the site it should be done by 
people who already know this! I applaud w0rp's efforts but to be 
honest we need it doing properly.

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:56:39 UTC, Shammah Chancellor 
wrote:
I realize you may not think so, but the current logo is not
very attractive.

In your opinion but that still doesn't matter, it is the official 
D brand!

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:56:39 UTC, Shammah Chancellor 
wrote:

 Can we please delegate some control of the website to someone 
 who's already put a substantial amount of work into making a 
 modern and attractive version (w0rt) of it.


I don't think that's a good idea as i honestly think his attitude 
and the design are both very amateurish. (See the first reply of 
this thread.)

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:

 I understand and sympathize where you're coming from, but I 
 think it's less important than one might think. Golang's logo 
 is a stupid-looking gopher that looks like it was drawn by a 
 4-year-old.


That is a homage to plan9 and immediately recognisable further 
supporting my stance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language)#Mascot

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:

 D's community & recognition is still very small, comparatively. 
 If anything,  now or near-future is the perfect time to rebrand 
 & relaunch.


This is for Walter and Andrei to okay not some amateur rolling 
his own because it just so happens to go with a site design he's 
working on and without any input from the community.

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:

 * D is a brand, whether you like it or not


 Yes, but frankly not yet widely recognized.


But it is recognised and been in use since 2006!
http://media.sukimashita.com/d/

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:

 * D has a history of poorly managed change


 Hmmm... perhaps, but it can afford to "break stuff" still since 
 there likely aren't more than a couple dozen companies with 
 large, critical D projects in production.


It is never ok to "break stuff" and this attitude needs to start 
being re-examined not only as it pertains to the logo but through 
the entire community. As for users and how they use D, this is 
such an poorly reasoned argument in fact you've probably just 
made those figures up. All we know at present is that the *vast* 
majority of D users are unknown in what they do. Another reason 
to keep things stable and recognisable.

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:

 * D's community has been destroyed once before (Tango)


 For substantive reasons, not branding.


Maybe not but i'm highlighting how vast damage can be done by 
doing something without thinking of the consequences to the 
community.

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:

 Then those underlying problems (usability, reliability, general 
 quality) insofar as they are real issues need to be to be 
 fixed, and current D users need to evangelize -- otherwise any 
 branding efforts will be ineffective. Again, languages have a 
 pretty low bar from a marketing perspective -- the big hurdles 
 are elsewhere. I agree that some basic aura of professionalism 
 and stability are necessary.


The product and brand are one. They are not separate as you have 
remarked. Thought needs to be put into both.

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:

 Ideally a "Design & Web Czar" would just make behind-the-scenes 
 executive decisions about all this stuff, no NG discussion 
 needed.


I agree but with a title like that they better have the 
experience and professionalism to carry that task well.

I think people are completely missing the main point here in that 
D needs to grow up and start being professional about everything. 
Gone are the days when we can mess around with the compiler and 
standard lib and now increasingly we have to settle on a brand 
and stick to it!

Let's face it D is an awesome language, i know that, you know 
that but it's not gaining traction as fast as it should. The 
reason behind this is user perception as most devs have heard of 
it but decide not to use it.

The only way D is going to succeed is through better marketing. 
Marketing of its features and strengths all backed up by a strong 
web presence and brand!
Jul 02 2014
next sibling parent reply "Tofu Ninja" <emmons0 purdue.edu> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 17:34:46 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:

*wall'o'text*


You are right, we need to be much more professional in the way we 
deal with things regarding branding, but I also think that you 
are fighting the wrong fight here. I think there is a bit of a 
misunderstanding regarding what is meant by redesign.

Unless I am wrong(I haven't been keeping up 100% on all the 
website redesign stuff), we don't really want a new logo, just a 
reinterpretation that better fits with the planned website theme.

For example look at google, compare the logo from a few years[1] 
ago to the one now[2]. Same logo, just slightly different to keep 
up with the times.

You are vary right in that we need to worry a lot about our 
branding, but I think what you are not taking into account is 
that branding works a little bit different in tech industries. 
Because of the vary fast pace of change in tech, it is important 
to give off a feeling of newness and freshness. If it *appears* 
that the brand is older due to website design or logo design, 
that will have a large impact on the perceived relevancy of the 
product.

It has been commented on in this thread that major tech companies 
seem to always be following a fad, in that the prevalent theme 
seems to change quite often. For example going from high 
gloss(win7 era) to flat(win8 era). I don't think this is by 
accident(how could it be). To stay relevant, they must be 
perceived as having innovation even if that innovation only comes 
in the form of a face lift.

I vary much agree with you that we need to be more professional 
in they way branding is being dealt with. But I also agree that 
the direction that w0rp is going is also the right direction.


[1] 
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100520131746/logopedia/images/5/5c/Google_logo.png
[2] https://www.google.com/images/srpr/logo11w.png
Jul 02 2014
parent reply "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 18:49:49 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:

 It has been commented on in this thread that major tech 
 companies seem to always be following a fad, in that the 
 prevalent theme seems to change quite often. For example going 
 from high gloss(win7 era) to flat(win8 era). I don't think this 
 is by accident(how could it be). To stay relevant, they must be 
 perceived as having innovation even if that innovation only 
 comes in the form of a face lift.


The problem with chasing the latest trend is that you're *always* 
changing and it's change for change sake. Yes the website needs 
an overhaul but i honestly think it can be done to look fresh and 
current, respecting the current D logo and identity (using reds) 
and as Walter said to serve developers with accurate and well 
presented text.

The 'new' design by w0rp (http://w0rp.com:8010/) does none of 
those things. He's well intentioned but even things like basic 
text layout and white space usage are completely lacking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_space_(visual_arts)

We can do better.
Jul 02 2014
next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
Then provide something?

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014, Gary Willoughby via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 18:49:49 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:

 It has been commented on in this thread that major tech companies seem




to always be following a fad, in that the prevalent theme seems to change
quite often. For example going from high gloss(win7 era) to flat(win8 era).
I don't think this is by accident(how could it be). To stay relevant, they
must be perceived as having innovation even if that innovation only comes
in the form of a face lift.

 The problem with chasing the latest trend is that you're *always*


changing and it's change for change sake. Yes the website needs an overhaul
but i honestly think it can be done to look fresh and current, respecting
the current D logo and identity (using reds) and as Walter said to serve
developers with accurate and well presented text.

 The 'new' design by w0rp (http://w0rp.com:8010/) does none of those


things. He's well intentioned but even things like basic text layout and
white space usage are completely lacking.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typography
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_space_(visual_arts)

 We can do better.
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Tofu Ninja" <emmons0 purdue.edu> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 20:04:50 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 18:49:49 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:

 It has been commented on in this thread that major tech 
 companies seem to always be following a fad, in that the 
 prevalent theme seems to change quite often. For example going 
 from high gloss(win7 era) to flat(win8 era). I don't think 
 this is by accident(how could it be). To stay relevant, they 
 must be perceived as having innovation even if that innovation 
 only comes in the form of a face lift.


 The problem with chasing the latest trend is that you're 
 *always* changing and it's change for change sake. Yes the 
 website needs an overhaul but i honestly think it can be done 
 to look fresh and current, respecting the current D logo and 
 identity (using reds) and as Walter said to serve developers 
 with accurate and well presented text.

 The 'new' design by w0rp (http://w0rp.com:8010/) does none of 
 those things. He's well intentioned but even things like basic 
 text layout and white space usage are completely lacking.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typography
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_space_(visual_arts)

 We can do better.


I honestly don't understand your critiques, the proposal seems to 
keep with the general D theme pretty well. Yes its not perfect 
but its a work in progress.
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 20:04:50 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 <snip>

 The 'new' design by w0rp (http://w0rp.com:8010/) does none of 
 those things. He's well intentioned but even things like basic 
 text layout and white space usage are completely lacking.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typography
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_space_(visual_arts)

 We can do better.


I'm sure we can do better. Right now it's just one guy 
(Aleksandar Ruzicic) doing an initial conceptual redesign, 
another guy (w0rp) trying to implement it, and a hell of a lot of 
people arguing over the minutiae of a redesign that has only just 
started. w0rp has said he welcomes any help offered. I'm sure 
he'd love to have some pull requests from someone with extensive 
experience like yourself.

Vague criticisms like, "basic text layout and white space usage 
are completely lacking" and then linking to wikipedia isn't 
helping. It's just being insulting and I don't understand at all 
why you are being so aggressive and directing so much anger at 
people who are all just volunteering their time trying to help 
build up D.

I can't take you seriously if all you are going to do is talk 
about how you've been a designer for a long time and worked with 
the best brands and this design sucks. Offer an alternative or 
offer to help (whether through pull requests or specific, 
concrete suggestions).
Jul 02 2014
parent reply "Israel Rodriguez" <tl12000 live.com> writes:
Or you know...you could rename D to maybe something like....The 
Mars programming language? The name isnt taken, and im sure it 
would make it seem more interesting to people.

The reason i would like to see a complete change in the name is 
because these simple "One Letter" names is getting kind of old, 
dont you think? D is ok, but at times it just feels kind of, 
"Meh..."

Ive been keeping an eye on this project for a while now and alot 
of the comments ive read on here do speak quite a bit of truth. 
Not many people take D seriously mostly because it looks and 
feels like its still a simple "One Man Project" from a couple of 
years back.

The website isnt so bad, maybe a change in fonts and positioning 
of items and it could look a bit better. A more modern site is 
definitely welcome.

The standard library could also use some serious love...Although 
this is understandable since its alot more work for just 1 man. 
But hey, hes gotten this far right?
Jul 02 2014
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/2/14, 4:00 PM, Israel Rodriguez wrote:

 Or you know...you could rename D to maybe something like....The Mars
 programming language?


I think we should have an FAQ for that stuff. -- Andrei
Jul 02 2014
parent reply "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 23:16:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 On 7/2/14, 4:00 PM, Israel Rodriguez wrote:

 Or you know...you could rename D to maybe something 
 like....The Mars
 programming language?


 I think we should have an FAQ for that stuff. -- Andrei


I actually added a FAQ entry for this awhile back.

http://dlang.org/faq.html#q1_1
Jul 02 2014
next sibling parent reply "w0rp" <devw0rp gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 23:18:13 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 23:16:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 wrote:

 On 7/2/14, 4:00 PM, Israel Rodriguez wrote:

 Or you know...you could rename D to maybe something 
 like....The Mars
 programming language?


 I think we should have an FAQ for that stuff. -- Andrei


 I actually added a FAQ entry for this awhile back.

 http://dlang.org/faq.html#q1_1


I've been searching "dlang" for as long as I can remember now,
and it works pretty well for finding results. ... Except when
Google sometimes corrects you to "golang." (Conspiracy!?)
Jul 02 2014
parent "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 23:25:13 UTC, w0rp wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 23:18:13 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 23:16:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 wrote:

 On 7/2/14, 4:00 PM, Israel Rodriguez wrote:

 Or you know...you could rename D to maybe something 
 like....The Mars
 programming language?


 I think we should have an FAQ for that stuff. -- Andrei


 I actually added a FAQ entry for this awhile back.

 http://dlang.org/faq.html#q1_1


 I've been searching "dlang" for as long as I can remember now,
 and it works pretty well for finding results. ... Except when
 Google sometimes corrects you to "golang." (Conspiracy!?)


My trick which I use to sound really smart in IRC when people ask 
questions was to add a Search Engine to Chrome with a keyword 
which uses a Google "I'm Feeling Lucky" search on dlang.org.

If you go into Chrome's Settings then Manage Search Engines you 
can scroll to the bottom of the list and add a new one.

I added one with these settings:

Name:    D
Keyword: d
URL:     http://www.google.com/search?q=site:dlang.org+%s&btnI

Whenever I want to look something up I just go to my search/url 
bar and type "d <whatever>" and it takes me directly what I'm 
looking for in less than a second. It searches the main site and 
the forums so it even works with discussion topics. You can add 
another keyword search that doesn't use "I'm Feeling Lucky" for 
cases where it takes you to the wrong page or you want a results 
list.

Name:    D (google search)
Keyword: dg
URL:     http://www.google.com/search?q=site:dlang.org+%s

Firefox supports keyword searches too (though I can't remember 
how to set them up, I think you use a bookmark or something).
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 7/2/2014 4:18 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 23:16:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 7/2/14, 4:00 PM, Israel Rodriguez wrote:

 Or you know...you could rename D to maybe something like....The Mars
 programming language?


 I think we should have an FAQ for that stuff. -- Andrei


 I actually added a FAQ entry for this awhile back.

 http://dlang.org/faq.html#q1_1


That page could use some serious updating. The GDC link is out of date, no 
mention of LDC, ...
Jul 02 2014
parent "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 00:17:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 7/2/2014 4:18 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 23:16:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 wrote:

 On 7/2/14, 4:00 PM, Israel Rodriguez wrote:

 Or you know...you could rename D to maybe something 
 like....The Mars
 programming language?


 I think we should have an FAQ for that stuff. -- Andrei


 I actually added a FAQ entry for this awhile back.

 http://dlang.org/faq.html#q1_1


 That page could use some serious updating. The GDC link is out 
 of date, no mention of LDC, ...


Yeah, I think it might actually be best just to move the entire 
page to the wiki.
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 11:00:52PM +0000, Israel Rodriguez via Digitalmars-d
wrote:

 Or you know...you could rename D to maybe something like....The Mars
 programming language? The name isnt taken, and im sure it would make
 it seem more interesting to people.


AFAIK, "Mars" was one of the names Walter originally wanted to use, but
somehow "D" started to spread and "Mars" never gained traction among the
community. In any case, it's far too late to change the name now... that
ship has sailed a long time ago.


[...]

 The standard library could also use some serious love...Although this
 is understandable since its alot more work for just 1 man. But hey,
 hes gotten this far right?


I don't know where you got that impression from, but Phobos is far from
being the work of one man. It does need more work, though. Care to pitch
in?


T

-- 
One reason that few people are aware there are programs running the
internet is that they never crash in any significant way: the free
software underlying the internet is reliable to the point of
invisibility. -- Glyn Moody, from the article "Giving it all away"
Jul 02 2014
parent reply "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 23:33:33 UTC, H. S. Teoh via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 11:00:52PM +0000, Israel Rodriguez via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:

 Or you know...you could rename D to maybe something 
 like....The Mars
 programming language? The name isnt taken, and im sure it 
 would make
 it seem more interesting to people.


 AFAIK, "Mars" was one of the names Walter originally wanted to 
 use, but
 somehow "D" started to spread and "Mars" never gained traction 
 among the
 community. In any case, it's far too late to change the name 
 now... that
 ship has sailed a long time ago.


It is. main() is still in mars.c.


 [...]

 I don't know where you got that impression from, but Phobos is 
 far from
 being the work of one man. It does need more work, though. Care 
 to pitch
 in?


Indeed. Phobos has had at least 151 contributors.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/graphs/contributors
Jul 02 2014
parent "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 11:37:04PM +0000, Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 23:33:33 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
 wrote:

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 11:00:52PM +0000, Israel Rodriguez via
Digitalmars-d wrote:

Or you know...you could rename D to maybe something like....The Mars
programming language? The name isnt taken, and im sure it would make
it seem more interesting to people.


AFAIK, "Mars" was one of the names Walter originally wanted to use,
but somehow "D" started to spread and "Mars" never gained traction
among the community. In any case, it's far too late to change the
name now... that ship has sailed a long time ago.


 
 It is. main() is still in mars.c.


Not to mention, somebody else has taken the name too:

	http://ww2.cs.mu.oz.au/~mgiuca/mars/


T

-- 
Caffeine underflow. Brain dumped.
Jul 02 2014
prev sibling parent "Mattcoder" <fromtheotherside mail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 20:04:50 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 The 'new' design by w0rp (http://w0rp.com:8010/) does none of 
 those things. He's well intentioned but even things like basic 
 text layout and white space usage are completely lacking.


I didn't notice that link before, and if on the one hand it's not 
seems a "big" improvement over the original site,  on the other 
hand it looks like (IMHO) more clean and professional.

Couldn't you fix those problems that you said about text layout 
and white space usage and show us (people which are not designers 
"like me") what you meant.

Matheus.
Jul 03 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 17:34:46 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:02:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 We don't have any recognizable branding worth fighting for. I 
 can't even remember how current D logo looks like without 
 checking the website, it is just some image in the corner of 
 the page. "Branding" is something bigger than that.


 But you recognise it when you see it!


I recognize the updated one too. Actually I won't be able to tell 
the difference unless looking at both at the same time.

My point is that there is nothing very distinctive with current 
logo to be that concerned. Anything with similarly styled "D" 
letter will be as recognizable as current one.
Jul 03 2014
next sibling parent Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 03/07/2014 10:40 AM, Dicebot wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 17:34:46 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:02:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 We don't have any recognizable branding worth fighting for. I can't
 even remember how current D logo looks like without checking the
 website, it is just some image in the corner of the page. "Branding"
 is something bigger than that.


 But you recognise it when you see it!


 I recognize the updated one too. Actually I won't be able to tell the
 difference unless looking at both at the same time.

 My point is that there is nothing very distinctive with current logo to
 be that concerned. Anything with similarly styled "D" letter will be as
 recognizable as current one.


I agree!

I started working on this little document last night while angry and 
tired, maybe it should find its way to the wiki.

Its the last time I'm going to post any work related to D branding or 
logo design unless someone specifically asks me to.

A...
Jul 03 2014
prev sibling parent reply Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 03/07/2014 10:40 AM, Dicebot wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 17:34:46 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:02:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 We don't have any recognizable branding worth fighting for. I can't
 even remember how current D logo looks like without checking the
 website, it is just some image in the corner of the page. "Branding"
 is something bigger than that.


 But you recognise it when you see it!


 I recognize the updated one too. Actually I won't be able to tell the
 difference unless looking at both at the same time.

 My point is that there is nothing very distinctive with current logo to
 be that concerned. Anything with similarly styled "D" letter will be as
 recognizable as current one.


I agree!

I started working on this little document last night while angry and 
tired, maybe it should find its way to the wiki.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sb4xnZUbzVRIicsfnxBFhTvRH4EOYq88wZexAuGcnaE/edit

Its the last time I'm going to post any work related to D branding or 
logo design unless someone specifically asks me to.

A...
Jul 03 2014
next sibling parent reply Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On 3 July 2014 12:40, Alix Pexton via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On 03/07/2014 10:40 AM, Dicebot wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 17:34:46 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:02:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

 We don't have any recognizable branding worth fighting for. I can't
 even remember how current D logo looks like without checking the
 website, it is just some image in the corner of the page. "Branding"
 is something bigger than that.



 But you recognise it when you see it!



 I recognize the updated one too. Actually I won't be able to tell the
 difference unless looking at both at the same time.

 My point is that there is nothing very distinctive with current logo to
 be that concerned. Anything with similarly styled "D" letter will be as
 recognizable as current one.



 I agree!

 I started working on this little document last night while angry and tired,
 maybe it should find its way to the wiki.

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sb4xnZUbzVRIicsfnxBFhTvRH4EOYq88wZexAuGcnaE/edit


 Its the last time I'm going to post any work related to D branding or logo
 design unless someone specifically asks me to.

 A...



You mispelt "Useage"

/spelling troll
Jul 03 2014
parent Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 03/07/2014 1:00 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:


 You mispelt "Useage"

 /spelling troll


There is no red underline this end and invoking the spell checker is 
only finding the hex colour codes at the moment. But means nothing as I 
discovered just this morning that the google docs spell checker ignores 
words that appear before a full-stop, so its entirely possibly it skips 
orphans or single word titles or single capitalised words or something too.

A...
Jul 03 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 11:40:34 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:

 I started working on this little document last night while 
 angry and tired, maybe it should find its way to the wiki.

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sb4xnZUbzVRIicsfnxBFhTvRH4EOYq88wZexAuGcnaE/edit

 Its the last time I'm going to post any work related to D 
 branding or logo design unless someone specifically asks me to.

 A...


Yes, yes and yes! This is much better! This needs finalising and 
approving by the chiefs before any work on the website starts. 
This looks great!

Once the logo is officially approved then we can move onto a 
vision for D and what the requirements for the website are. In 
fact a specification should be drawn up. In Andrei's Quo Vadis 
talk he mentioned his vision for D. This needs to be quantified 
and put into writing which can then be referred to in the future 
when discussions like this take place. Even though they are 
cheesy a mission statement couldn't hurt either.

Look at Rust's release announcement:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2014-July/010655.html

The first line reads:
"Mozilla and the Rust community are pleased to announce version 
0.11.0 of
the Rust compiler and tools. Rust is a systems programming 
language with a
focus on safety, performance and concurrency."

That conveys exactly what they are about and where they are 
going. We need to do the same.
Jul 03 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 11:40:34 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:

 I agree!

 I started working on this little document last night while 
 angry and tired, maybe it should find its way to the wiki.

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sb4xnZUbzVRIicsfnxBFhTvRH4EOYq88wZexAuGcnaE/edit


Very nice; thank you.  Though, having thought on it some more, I 
would suggest the capital D and the two moons are the most 
important aspect in terms of a distinctive mark.

The red background is currently an element of the logo design, 
but I don't think it lends much potential for iconified forms.  
Casting outward, I can't think of many logos that depend heavily 
on their background either, and I think there are merits to 
pursuing similar.  Isolating the glyph and moons is pretty easy, 
too!

But this then calls attention to the implied horizon of Mars.  
How essential is it to the mark?  I'm really not sure, but my gut 
is telling me it needs to be given consideration for at least the 
more ornate levels of the design.  So would emulating that 
boundary with a thin crescent work?  I don't have any good tools 
on-hand, but I managed to scrape together this stupidly rough 
wireframe that hopefully illustrates the basic idea well enough: 
http://radiusic.com/imagedump/dwire2.png

This allows for dark-on-light or light-on-dark equally, with the 
horizon some value in the red area; possibly a gradient.

-Wyatt
Jul 03 2014
next sibling parent Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 03/07/2014 3:44 PM, Wyatt wrote:

 On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 11:40:34 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:

 I agree!

 I started working on this little document last night while angry and
 tired, maybe it should find its way to the wiki.

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sb4xnZUbzVRIicsfnxBFhTvRH4EOYq88wZexAuGcnaE/edit


 Very nice; thank you.  Though, having thought on it some more, I would
 suggest the capital D and the two moons are the most important aspect in
 terms of a distinctive mark.

 The red background is currently an element of the logo design, but I
 don't think it lends much potential for iconified forms. Casting
 outward, I can't think of many logos that depend heavily on their
 background either, and I think there are merits to pursuing similar.
 Isolating the glyph and moons is pretty easy, too!

 But this then calls attention to the implied horizon of Mars. How
 essential is it to the mark?  I'm really not sure, but my gut is telling
 me it needs to be given consideration for at least the more ornate
 levels of the design.  So would emulating that boundary with a thin
 crescent work?  I don't have any good tools on-hand, but I managed to
 scrape together this stupidly rough wireframe that hopefully illustrates
 the basic idea well enough: http://radiusic.com/imagedump/dwire2.png

 This allows for dark-on-light or light-on-dark equally, with the horizon
 some value in the red area; possibly a gradient.

 -Wyatt


I swear it was just before I read this, that I added a paragraphlette 
saying that in some contexts it may be appropriate to reduce the logo 
further to just the D and moons in red for use on light coloured 
backgrounds. I hadn't considered having the horizon a just a line or 
swoosh, but I like the look of it ^^

A...
Jul 03 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 14:44:06 UTC, Wyatt wrote:

 [...]
 Very nice; thank you.  Though, having thought on it some more, 
 I would suggest the capital D and the two moons are the most 
 important aspect in terms of a distinctive mark.

 The red background is currently an element of the logo design, 
 but I don't think it lends much potential for iconified forms.  
 Casting outward, I can't think of many logos that depend 
 heavily on their background either, and I think there are 
 merits to pursuing similar.  Isolating the glyph and moons is 
 pretty easy, too!

 But this then calls attention to the implied horizon of Mars.  
 How essential is it to the mark?  I'm really not sure, but my 
 gut is telling me it needs to be given consideration for at 
 least the more ornate levels of the design.  So would emulating 
 that boundary with a thin crescent work?  I don't have any good 
 tools on-hand, but I managed to scrape together this stupidly 
 rough wireframe that hopefully illustrates the basic idea well 
 enough: http://radiusic.com/imagedump/dwire2.png


That would improve the idea of there being a horizon in the 
background but I believe the curvature of the D is intended to be 
Mars with the two circles being Phobos and Deimos. The background 
curve does look like a horizon but the background is just a 
stylistic flourish and I think should just be dropped to focus on 
the main element. The version with it doesn't look terrible 
though so if people have some sort of attachment to it I wouldn't 
be upset if it stayed.


 This allows for dark-on-light or light-on-dark equally, with 
 the horizon some value in the red area; possibly a gradient.

 -Wyatt
Jul 03 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 14:44:06 UTC, Wyatt wrote:

 Very nice; thank you.  Though, having thought on it some more, 
 I would suggest the capital D and the two moons are the most 
 important aspect in terms of a distinctive mark.

 The red background is currently an element of the logo design, 
 but I don't think it lends much potential for iconified forms.  
 Casting outward, I can't think of many logos that depend 
 heavily on their background either, and I think there are 
 merits to pursuing similar.  Isolating the glyph and moons is 
 pretty easy, too!

 But this then calls attention to the implied horizon of Mars.  
 How essential is it to the mark?  I'm really not sure, but my 
 gut is telling me it needs to be given consideration for at 
 least the more ornate levels of the design.  So would emulating 
 that boundary with a thin crescent work?  I don't have any good 
 tools on-hand, but I managed to scrape together this stupidly 
 rough wireframe that hopefully illustrates the basic idea well 
 enough: http://radiusic.com/imagedump/dwire2.png

 This allows for dark-on-light or light-on-dark equally, with 
 the horizon some value in the red area; possibly a gradient.

 -Wyatt


I completely disagree. The logo is the whole and provides 
recognition using not only form but also in colour. The red 
background is essential and the planet horizon make this logo 
what it is. Removing those elements decrease the recognition of 
the mark and practically destroy the feel of the brand.

The wireframe you've created looks odd. Immediately, the horizon 
just looks tacked on and wonky. I understand what you are trying 
to do in that you are trying to keep the horizon without keeping 
it but you've run into the age old trap of killing the design.

On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 15:52:34 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:

 The background curve does look like a horizon but the 
 background is just a stylistic flourish and I think should just 
 be dropped to focus on the main element.


No, no, no... we shouldn't be redesigning the logo now. This is 
what you are effectively doing.

Follow Alix Pexton's observation of the following:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sb4xnZUbzVRIicsfnxBFhTvRH4EOYq88wZexAuGcnaE/edit

Quote:
The following elements of the current logo may be considered to 
be artifacts of the image and removed without lessening its 
recognisability.

a. The triple border with rounded corners.
b. The drop-shadow.
c. The glossy sheen.

I completely agree, this way we can work with the logo and 
preserve its integrity while keeping recognition high. I don't 
think we ought to remove anything else. Removing more is going 
too far and removing elements for its own sake.
Jul 03 2014
next sibling parent "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
Also the current colour scheme is equally as important.
Jul 03 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Wyatt" <wyatt.epp gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 17:08:12 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:

 I completely disagree. The logo is the whole and provides 
 recognition using not only form but also in colour. The red 
 background is essential and the planet horizon make this logo 
 what it is. Removing those elements decrease the recognition of 
 the mark and practically destroy the feel of the brand.


I wouldn't recognise the Apple logo without the familiar rainbow 
bands, either.  Setting that aside, I explicitly chose a 
wireframe because the question of background colour was out of 
scope.

I get that you're passionate, and I respect that.  In fact, I'm 
posting here because I'm willing to take this topic seriously.  
But some of your assertions fly in the face of a lot of 
observable reality, so rather than shouting "no, no, no!", could 
you please make some attempt at substantiating them without 
flippantly linking to Wikipedia?


 The wireframe you've created looks odd. Immediately, the 
 horizon just looks tacked on and wonky. I understand what you 
 are trying to do in that you are trying to keep the horizon 
 without keeping it but you've run into the age old trap of 
 killing the design.


Yes the whole thing is awful.  It's a mockup made with a 
Javascript SVG editor in ten minutes because it was intended as a 
visual aide to go with my text, not a candidate proposal.  Though 
I'd like more detail on how you think this concept categorically 
"kills" the design.  That rings false, given it's literally 
traced (albeit sloppily) from the current design. (This isn't to 
say I'm satisfied with the position, length, arc, or width of the 
lune in my sketch.)


 Follow Alix Pexton's observation of the following:
 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sb4xnZUbzVRIicsfnxBFhTvRH4EOYq88wZexAuGcnaE/edit

 Quote:
 The following elements of the current logo may be considered to 
 be artifacts of the image and removed without lessening its 
 recognisability.

 a. The triple border with rounded corners.
 b. The drop-shadow.
 c. The glossy sheen.

 I completely agree, this way we can work with the logo and 
 preserve its integrity while keeping recognition high. I don't 
 think we ought to remove anything else. Removing more is going 
 too far and removing elements for its own sake.


Actually, stepping back a bit: maybe you can explain, concretely, 
why you believe the horizon line is essential to the point that 
removing it fundamentally alters the form?  That may be more 
productive.

-Wyatt
Jul 03 2014
next sibling parent "Gary Willoughby" <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 19:06:42 UTC, Wyatt wrote:

 Actually, stepping back a bit: maybe you can explain, 
 concretely, why you believe the horizon line is essential to 
 the point that removing it fundamentally alters the form?  That 
 may be more productive.

 -Wyatt


I think i've already explained myself fully. Please read all of 
my comments again.
Jul 03 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 19:06:42 UTC, Wyatt wrote:

 Actually, stepping back a bit: maybe you can explain, 
 concretely, why you believe the horizon line is essential to 
 the point that removing it fundamentally alters the form?  That 
 may be more productive.


I don't agree with Gary that the horizon/reflection is essential 
to the form, but I think  but if you remove it you get an 
imbalance that you need to compensate for because you get a big 
red area in the bottom right and a diagonal move that goes from 
bottom left to top right. That means you either have to change 
the logo or change the space around it.
Jul 03 2014
parent reply Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 03/07/2014 8:30 PM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>" wrote:

 On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 19:06:42 UTC, Wyatt wrote:

 Actually, stepping back a bit: maybe you can explain, concretely, why
 you believe the horizon line is essential to the point that removing
 it fundamentally alters the form?  That may be more productive.


 I don't agree with Gary that the horizon/reflection is essential to the
 form, but I think  but if you remove it you get an imbalance that you
 need to compensate for because you get a big red area in the bottom
 right and a diagonal move that goes from bottom left to top right. That
 means you either have to change the logo or change the space around it.


I agree, it may be a happy accident that a shape that was meant to be 
part of the glossy sheen on the image got interpreted as the distant 
Martian horizon, but the D and moons look unbalanced without it.

A...
Jul 03 2014
parent reply "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 19:46:18 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:

 I agree, it may be a happy accident that a shape that was meant 
 to be part of the glossy sheen on the image got interpreted as 
 the distant Martian horizon, but the D and moons look 
 unbalanced without it.


Yep, I think it is a reflection, but used to balance the image. 
If you look at the other designs by Martin on his d-logo page it 
is kind of revealing.

I also think you can ignore the importance of the background 
colour. The white D and cirlcle(s) have a pretty strong visual 
impact. Take a look at these variations:

http://d.progdocu.appspot.com/test1

I think they are all easily recognizable.

Besides, you should be able to represent the logo in monochrome 
for print. (E.g. light on dark background)
Jul 03 2014
next sibling parent reply "Tofu Ninja" <emmons0 purdue.edu> writes:
On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 21:02:53 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:

 On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 19:46:18 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:

 I agree, it may be a happy accident that a shape that was 
 meant to be part of the glossy sheen on the image got 
 interpreted as the distant Martian horizon, but the D and 
 moons look unbalanced without it.


 Yep, I think it is a reflection, but used to balance the image. 
 If you look at the other designs by Martin on his d-logo page 
 it is kind of revealing.

 I also think you can ignore the importance of the background 
 colour. The white D and cirlcle(s) have a pretty strong visual 
 impact. Take a look at these variations:

 http://d.progdocu.appspot.com/test1

 I think they are all easily recognizable.

 Besides, you should be able to represent the logo in monochrome 
 for print. (E.g. light on dark background)


Oh those all look good, personally I like the first one the best. 
I agree that the horizon/sheen is not necessary, I never even saw 
it as a horizon until it was brought up.
Jul 03 2014
parent reply "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:42:48PM +0000, Tofu Ninja via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 21:02:53 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 19:46:18 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:

I agree, it may be a happy accident that a shape that was meant to
be part of the glossy sheen on the image got interpreted as the
distant Martian horizon, but the D and moons look unbalanced without
it.


Yep, I think it is a reflection, but used to balance the image. If
you look at the other designs by Martin on his d-logo page it is kind
of revealing.

I also think you can ignore the importance of the background colour.
The white D and cirlcle(s) have a pretty strong visual impact. Take a
look at these variations:

http://d.progdocu.appspot.com/test1

I think they are all easily recognizable.




I have to admit that only the first one, and perhaps the second one, is
recognizable to me. The ones with black don't register in my brain
unless I consciously look for the D logo in them.



Besides, you should be able to represent the logo in monochrome for
print.  (E.g. light on dark background)


 
 Oh those all look good, personally I like the first one the best. I
 agree that the horizon/sheen is not necessary, I never even saw it as
 a horizon until it was brought up.


Actually, I have a hard time recognizing the logo without the horizon /
sheen. I'm not sure if this is bias caused by prior interpretation, but
none of the black & white variations make me associate them with the
current D logo.


T

-- 
Let's not fight disease by killing the patient. -- Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
Jul 03 2014
parent reply "Tofu Ninja" <emmons0 purdue.edu> writes:
On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 21:55:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:42:48PM +0000, Tofu Ninja via 
 Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 21:02:53 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
 wrote:

On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 19:46:18 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:

I agree, it may be a happy accident that a shape that was 
meant to
be part of the glossy sheen on the image got interpreted as 
the
distant Martian horizon, but the D and moons look unbalanced 
without
it.


Yep, I think it is a reflection, but used to balance the 
image. If
you look at the other designs by Martin on his d-logo page it 
is kind
of revealing.

I also think you can ignore the importance of the background 
colour.
The white D and cirlcle(s) have a pretty strong visual 
impact. Take a
look at these variations:

http://d.progdocu.appspot.com/test1

I think they are all easily recognizable.




 I have to admit that only the first one, and perhaps the second 
 one, is
 recognizable to me. The ones with black don't register in my 
 brain
 unless I consciously look for the D logo in them.



Besides, you should be able to represent the logo in 
monochrome for
print.  (E.g. light on dark background)


 
 Oh those all look good, personally I like the first one the 
 best. I
 agree that the horizon/sheen is not necessary, I never even 
 saw it as
 a horizon until it was brought up.


 Actually, I have a hard time recognizing the logo without the 
 horizon /
 sheen. I'm not sure if this is bias caused by prior 
 interpretation, but
 none of the black & white variations make me associate them 
 with the
 current D logo.


 T


Hmmm... thats interesting. Maybe because I never saw it as a 
horizon, just as a sheen, I never really interpreted it as 
actually apart of the logo. If this is true then it might be 
beneficial to take a poll for who thinks it looks like a horizon 
or who thinks it looks like a sheen.
Jul 03 2014
parent "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:10:04PM +0000, Tofu Ninja via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 21:55:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
 wrote:

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:42:48PM +0000, Tofu Ninja via Digitalmars-d
wrote:

On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 21:02:53 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 19:46:18 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:








[...]

http://d.progdocu.appspot.com/test1








[...]

Oh those all look good, personally I like the first one the best. I
agree that the horizon/sheen is not necessary, I never even saw it
as a horizon until it was brought up.


Actually, I have a hard time recognizing the logo without the horizon
/ sheen. I'm not sure if this is bias caused by prior interpretation,
but none of the black & white variations make me associate them with
the current D logo.


T


 Hmmm... thats interesting. Maybe because I never saw it as a horizon,
 just as a sheen, I never really interpreted it as actually apart of
 the logo. If this is true then it might be beneficial to take a poll
 for who thinks it looks like a horizon or who thinks it looks like a
 sheen.


TBH I didn't even know it was a horizon (or that some people see it as a
horizon) until recently when somebody pointed it out. But the 2-part
balance that it imparts to the current logo is quite distinctive to me,
which is lacking in the above sketches.

In any case, the white on red combo to me is a distinguishing
characteristic of the current logo, so I have a hard time recognizing
the black & white versions unless I consciously look for the D logo in
them.

(Then again, I'm no graphic designer, so take my opinions with a
suitably-sized grain of salt. :P)


T

-- 
Computers are like a jungle: they have monitor lizards, rams, mice, c-moss,
binary trees... and bugs.
Jul 03 2014
prev sibling parent reply "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 21:02:53 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:

 On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 19:46:18 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:

 I agree, it may be a happy accident that a shape that was 
 meant to be part of the glossy sheen on the image got 
 interpreted as the distant Martian horizon, but the D and 
 moons look unbalanced without it.


 Yep, I think it is a reflection, but used to balance the image. 
 If you look at the other designs by Martin on his d-logo page 
 it is kind of revealing.

 I also think you can ignore the importance of the background 
 colour. The white D and cirlcle(s) have a pretty strong visual 
 impact. Take a look at these variations:

 http://d.progdocu.appspot.com/test1

 I think they are all easily recognizable.

 Besides, you should be able to represent the logo in monochrome 
 for print. (E.g. light on dark background)


I've had this .svg of the flat version of the logo around for a
few years that is a bit cleaner than the one you quickly put
together (sharper edges, and I think your bottom is truncated a
bit). Feel free to use it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx3n3LnLsNBzUzZYWFRLdWszaHM/edit?usp=sharing
Jul 03 2014
next sibling parent reply "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Friday, 4 July 2014 at 00:11:25 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:

 [...]
 I've had this .svg of the flat version of the logo around for a
 few years that is a bit cleaner than the one you quickly put
 together (sharper edges, and I think your bottom is truncated a
 bit). Feel free to use it.

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx3n3LnLsNBzUzZYWFRLdWszaHM/edit?usp=sharing


Actually, mine is less accurate than I thought (I made it by
tracing before I knew an SVG was available).

Here's some variations made from the original SVG by just
deleting paths but leaving them all unaltered:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bx3n3LnLsNBzNngyZ055eDhTbGs&usp=sharing


Just the D and moons:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx3n3LnLsNBzN1didmlWZmtQQTQ/edit?usp=sharing

They show up as pixilated in the Google Drive preview because
they are being rendered at the specified page size of 125x125px
but they are SVGs so they actually look fine when viewed natively
(or rasterized into arbitrary sized bitmaps).
Jul 03 2014
next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 01:17:37AM +0000, Brad Anderson via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]

 Here's some variations made from the original SVG by just
 deleting paths but leaving them all unaltered:
 
 https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bx3n3LnLsNBzNngyZ055eDhTbGs&usp=sharing


[...]

Hmm. I actually like the non-shiny leftmost one in this set
(d-flat-border.svg). It's nice and simple, and still instantly
recognizable.


T

-- 
Real men don't take backups. They put their source on a public FTP-server and
let the world mirror it. -- Linus Torvalds
Jul 03 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 4 July 2014 at 01:17:39 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:

 Just the D and moons:

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx3n3LnLsNBzN1didmlWZmtQQTQ/edit?usp=sharing

 They show up as pixilated in the Google Drive preview because
 they are being rendered at the specified page size of 125x125px
 but they are SVGs so they actually look fine when viewed 
 natively
 (or rasterized into arbitrary sized bitmaps).


I think we should stick with that, even remove some.

We need various logos, as they'll be more or less readable at 
various scales. The flat-minimal is especially important as this 
is the only one that is going to scale down without become 
unrecognizable.
Jul 04 2014
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 05/07/14 05:00, deadalnix wrote:


 We need various logos, as they'll be more or less readable at various
 scales. The flat-minimal is especially important as this is the only one
 that is going to scale down without become unrecognizable.


I agree. We need something that can be used for icons. Something that 
can be used on a D source code file.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 07 2014
parent reply Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 07/07/2014 8:29 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 05/07/14 05:00, deadalnix wrote:


 We need various logos, as they'll be more or less readable at various
 scales. The flat-minimal is especially important as this is the only one
 that is going to scale down without become unrecognizable.


 I agree. We need something that can be used for icons. Something that
 can be used on a D source code file.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3i8FWPuOpryM0VJQlU5ZDJNcFk/edit

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3i8FWPuOpryRW9PODBMUUZyMlE/edit

A...
Jul 07 2014
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 07/07/14 10:05, Alix Pexton wrote:


 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3i8FWPuOpryM0VJQlU5ZDJNcFk/edit

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3i8FWPuOpryRW9PODBMUUZyMlE/edit


I don't think that looks so nice.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 07 2014
parent reply Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 07/07/2014 9:17 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 07/07/14 10:05, Alix Pexton wrote:


 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3i8FWPuOpryM0VJQlU5ZDJNcFk/edit

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3i8FWPuOpryRW9PODBMUUZyMlE/edit


 I don't think that looks so nice.


Which one, Package or Sourcefile or both?

These are what I'm currently using myself, but I'm not 100% happy with 
how they appear when small. I'm trying to work with in the constraints 
that that seem to have emerged over what elements of the logo must be 
retained in order to preserve the D Brand.

A...
Jul 07 2014
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 07/07/14 12:20, Alix Pexton wrote:


 Which one, Package or Sourcefile or both?


Both, actually.


 These are what I'm currently using myself, but I'm not 100% happy with
 how they appear when small. I'm trying to work with in the constraints
 that that seem to have emerged over what elements of the logo must be
 retained in order to preserve the D Brand.


Yeah, that's the problem. Actually, looking at the document icons on OS 
X, for a file containing C code it's just a document with some code and 
a large "C" on the document. Nothing that has anything to do with a 
logo. I just thought that I would be nice if we had a logo that could 
work as a document icon as well. But perhaps it's just better to follow 
the system or text editor conventions.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 07 2014
parent reply Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 07/07/2014 12:26 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 07/07/14 12:20, Alix Pexton wrote:


 Which one, Package or Sourcefile or both?


 Both, actually.


Shame, I kinda liked the cardboard box, I surprised myself with how 
quickly it came together.


 These are what I'm currently using myself, but I'm not 100% happy with
 how they appear when small. I'm trying to work with in the constraints
 that that seem to have emerged over what elements of the logo must be
 retained in order to preserve the D Brand.


 Yeah, that's the problem. Actually, looking at the document icons on OS
 X, for a file containing C code it's just a document with some code and
 a large "C" on the document. Nothing that has anything to do with a
 logo. I just thought that I would be nice if we had a logo that could
 work as a document icon as well. But perhaps it's just better to follow
 the system or text editor conventions.


I was surprised when I found my mother's Ubuntu net book had an icon for 
D files that matched the default theme, while my vertualised Debian 
install doesn't even have them for C.

There doesn't seem to be a standard file icon on Windows any more 
either, C files on my machine get their icon from visual studio (simple 
page with a big letter C) the page element is common to all the 
filetypes registered by VS, but different to ones registered by IE and 
bundled ones like text files. It is something that everyone seems to 
have to reinvent!

There is a generic page icon, but that doesn't seem to have been updated 
to the windows 7 theme.

I'll try and find generic page icons for for as many systems as I can 
and see if I can make one overlay that works well with them all.

I was wondering if it was worth making separate icons for .di .dd and 
.ddoc files too, and I wanted to have a special icon for package.d but 
there doesn't seem to be a way to specify an icon based on anything 
other than the last element of the extension.

A...
Jul 07 2014
next sibling parent Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 07/07/2014 1:09 PM, Alix Pexton wrote:

 On 07/07/2014 12:26 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 07/07/14 12:20, Alix Pexton wrote:





 There is a generic page icon, but that doesn't seem to have been updated
 to the windows 7 theme.


Oh wait, yes it is, my bad ><

A...
Jul 07 2014
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 07/07/14 14:09, Alix Pexton wrote:


 Shame, I kinda liked the cardboard box, I surprised myself with how
 quickly it came together.


What I don't like is that it looks like a standard icon with the D logo 
just added on top.

Have a look at this icon from Adium [1]. This icon is used for plugins 
for Adium. It uses the standard OS X icon for plugins with the Adium 
logo on.


 I was surprised when I found my mother's Ubuntu net book had an icon for
 D files that matched the default theme, while my vertualised Debian
 install doesn't even have them for C.

 There doesn't seem to be a standard file icon on Windows any more
 either, C files on my machine get their icon from visual studio (simple
 page with a big letter C) the page element is common to all the
 filetypes registered by VS, but different to ones registered by IE and
 bundled ones like text files. It is something that everyone seems to
 have to reinvent!


The C icon probably comes from Xcode. BTW, here's how it looks like [2]. 
The corresponding icon from TextMate looks like this [3]. Just the 
TextMate logo with a name of the language at the bottom.


 There is a generic page icon, but that doesn't seem to have been updated
 to the windows 7 theme.

 I'll try and find generic page icons for for as many systems as I can
 and see if I can make one overlay that works well with them all.

 I was wondering if it was worth making separate icons for .di .dd and
 .ddoc files too, and I wanted to have a special icon for package.d but
 there doesn't seem to be a way to specify an icon based on anything
 other than the last element of the extension.


That depends on how they look like. For icons like this [2], it's pretty 
easy to create one for each extension.

[1] 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7UtafxGD9vEQy0wQVhaMEFWa1U/edit?usp=sharing

[2] 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7UtafxGD9vEV2JCMk5jSjMyNnc/edit?usp=sharing

[3] 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7UtafxGD9vENFFZNVFSMHJ6Qjg/edit?usp=sharing

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 07 2014
parent Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 07/07/2014 3:40 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 The C icon probably comes from Xcode. BTW, here's how it looks like [2].
 The corresponding icon from TextMate looks like this [3]. Just the
 TextMate logo with a name of the language at the bottom.


So it comes down to where the logo gets positioned.

On windows its left of centre, on mac its at the bottom. I think its 
might be going a bit far to produce an icon per editor, so I'll 
concentrate on making something that looks good as an overlay in 
multiple positions and make sure that it is easy for others to incorporate.

I have made several versions of the logo with reversed colours (I added 
a couple of them to the branding strategy document I posted [1]). I 
prefer them to the versions without horizons, but I'm not sure I like 
any of them enough to really support them.

A...

[1]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sb4xnZUbzVRIicsfnxBFhTvRH4EOYq88wZexAuGcnaE/edit
Jul 07 2014
prev sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 04/07/14 03:17, Brad Anderson wrote:


 Actually, mine is less accurate than I thought (I made it by
 tracing before I knew an SVG was available).

 Here's some variations made from the original SVG by just
 deleting paths but leaving them all unaltered:

 https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bx3n3LnLsNBzNngyZ055eDhTbGs&usp=sharing


I like "d-flat-minimal.svg" and "d-flat.svg".

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 07 2014
prev sibling parent "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:
On Friday, 4 July 2014 at 00:11:25 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:

 I've had this .svg of the flat version of the logo around for a
 few years that is a bit cleaner than the one you quickly put
 together (sharper edges, and I think your bottom is truncated a
 bit).


I didn't put it together quickly, but rebuilt it by hand to get 
the XML shorter for mockup purposes which made it less accurate. 
The Inkscape output is awful.

It has to be redrawn to math pixel edges once the exact size is 
known, so no point in polishing a mockup ;-)
Jul 04 2014
prev sibling next sibling parent "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 11:40:34 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:

 I agree!

 I started working on this little document last night while 
 angry and tired, maybe it should find its way to the wiki.

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sb4xnZUbzVRIicsfnxBFhTvRH4EOYq88wZexAuGcnaE/edit

 Its the last time I'm going to post any work related to D 
 branding or logo design unless someone specifically asks me to.

 A...


This is a great start.


 It should also be used as a splash screen when the compiler is 
 installed via the installer program, which should also 
 associate the .d and .di extensions used by d with an icon 
 based on the logo.


Jordi just did this for Debian just the other day. I'll find some 
time to do it on Windows (and incorporate some features Jordi 
asked me to add a long time ago). I won't add a splash screen but 
I'll update the header graphics to match whatever the branding 
guide says.
Jul 03 2014
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 7/3/2014 4:40 AM, Alix Pexton wrote:

 I agree!

 I started working on this little document last night while angry and tired,
 maybe it should find its way to the wiki.

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sb4xnZUbzVRIicsfnxBFhTvRH4EOYq88wZexAuGcnaE/edit


 Its the last time I'm going to post any work related to D branding or logo
 design unless someone specifically asks me to.


It's a well written document. Thank you for doing this!
Jul 03 2014
parent reply Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 03/07/2014 8:50 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 7/3/2014 4:40 AM, Alix Pexton wrote:

 I agree!

 I started working on this little document last night while angry and
 tired,
 maybe it should find its way to the wiki.

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sb4xnZUbzVRIicsfnxBFhTvRH4EOYq88wZexAuGcnaE/edit



 Its the last time I'm going to post any work related to D branding or
 logo
 design unless someone specifically asks me to.


 It's a well written document. Thank you for doing this!


I've created a pull request on dlang.org to add a brief page on 
branding. I wasn't sure if I should put a link in to this report or not.

A...
Jul 07 2014
parent Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 07/07/2014 11:35 AM, Alix Pexton wrote:

 On 03/07/2014 8:50 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 7/3/2014 4:40 AM, Alix Pexton wrote:

 I agree!

 I started working on this little document last night while angry and
 tired,
 maybe it should find its way to the wiki.

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sb4xnZUbzVRIicsfnxBFhTvRH4EOYq88wZexAuGcnaE/edit




 Its the last time I'm going to post any work related to D branding or
 logo
 design unless someone specifically asks me to.


 It's a well written document. Thank you for doing this!


 I've created a pull request on dlang.org to add a brief page on
 branding. I wasn't sure if I should put a link in to this report or not.

 A...


This PR doesn't seem to have attracted a lot of attention yet, please 
take a look.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/609

A...
Jul 15 2014
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 01/07/14 19:45, Gary Willoughby wrote:


 People need to have the perception that the brand is strong and that the
 product is stable. The logo reflects this. The logo is an icon of D as a
 product. Just casually tossing it aside is allowing further extension of
 user perceptions of unprofessionalism. We need to nuture the brand to
 create the perception and feeling of security, stability and
 professionalism.


BTW, have a look at this Scala website [1]. In the top left corner there 
is a Scala logo. It's flat and quite simple design with no colors. In 
the middle there's a big logo, more complex with shades, colors, shadows 
and so on. You can instantly see that both are the same logo, but at the 
same time they're quite different. I think it's good idea to have 
multiple versions of a logo, used in different context. Oh, I just found 
a third version of their logo, in the bottom right corner. It's like the 
first one but with some colors.

[1] http://www.scala-lang.org/

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 10 2014
parent reply Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 10/07/2014 9:18 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:


 BTW, have a look at this Scala website [1]. In the top left corner there
 is a Scala logo. It's flat and quite simple design with no colors. In
 the middle there's a big logo, more complex with shades, colors, shadows
 and so on. You can instantly see that both are the same logo, but at the
 same time they're quite different. I think it's good idea to have
 multiple versions of a logo, used in different context. Oh, I just found
 a third version of their logo, in the bottom right corner. It's like the
 first one but with some colors.

 [1] http://www.scala-lang.org/


Shame the spiral staircase in the picture of the office isn't left 
handed, otherwise that would be their logo too ^^

A...
Jul 10 2014
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2014-07-10 13:51, Alix Pexton wrote:


 Shame the spiral staircase in the picture of the office isn't left
 handed, otherwise that would be their logo too ^^


Hehe, yeah. It looks like it's designed after the logo.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 10 2014