www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [dlang.org] Let's talk about the logo

reply anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:
The logo is repeatedly being called out as a weak spot of the D brand. 
But so far Walter has been adamant about keeping it the way it is.

I agree with him that changing it to a completely different one would 
probably not be a good move, losing whatever brand recognition we have. 
But I think we should adapt the logo to the needs at hand.

It's obvious to me that the D and the moons (the two circles to the 
upper right of the D) make the recognizable core of the logo. I know 
that others see it the same way. That means, the D and the moons should 
be kept intact. Their shapes and positions should not change.

However, I believe we can take away a lot of the decorations of the 
current logo, and it will still be recognized immediately as the same brand.

Here's a little progression of simplifications, in the context of dlang.org:

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

The first one is the current logo. The last one shows just the core 
shape (D + moons), of course.

I'm not nearly the first one to do this, but I'd like to propose 
adopting the core shape as the official logo. Then specify some specific 
shade of red as the official brand color. (We're using #B03931 on 
dlang.org.)

We could provide multiple variants of the logo for different use cases, 
and with varying levels of decoration:

* Core shape in different color combinations (black one white, red on 
white, white on red).
* Versions that include the background arc (I'm interpreting that as 
Mars), possibly in different colors.
* The full version with border and shadow. I.e. the current logo with 
adjusted colors, and maybe some details changed, like number of borders 
or amount of shininess.

For dlang.org, I'd choose the version with the wide background arc. I 
think it looks nice on the menu bar, and it puts a little more emphasis 
there than just the core shape. But just the core shape looks fine, too.
Jan 21 2016
next sibling parent reply cym13 <cpicard openmailbox.org> writes:
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 23:46:26 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 The logo is repeatedly being called out as a weak spot of the D 
 brand. But so far Walter has been adamant about keeping it the 
 way it is.

 [...]


I love the third one from the top, it is close enough from the 
official logo to identify it with no difficulty and yet fits 
really well in the bar.
Jan 21 2016
parent reply tsbockman <thomas.bockman gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 23:49:39 UTC, cym13 wrote:

 On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 23:46:26 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 The logo is repeatedly being called out as a weak spot of the 
 D brand. But so far Walter has been adamant about keeping it 
 the way it is.

 [...]


 I love the third one from the top, it is close enough from the 
 official logo to identify it with no difficulty and yet fits 
 really well in the bar.


Yes, the third is the best. The Martian horizon in the background 
is also a part of the core design of the logo; please don't drop 
it.
Jan 21 2016
next sibling parent Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 00:04:33 UTC, tsbockman wrote:

 On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 23:49:39 UTC, cym13 wrote:

 On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 23:46:26 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 The logo is repeatedly being called out as a weak spot of the 
 D brand. But so far Walter has been adamant about keeping it 
 the way it is.

 [...]


 I love the third one from the top, it is close enough from the 
 official logo to identify it with no difficulty and yet fits 
 really well in the bar.


 Yes, the third is the best. The Martian horizon in the 
 background is also a part of the core design of the logo; 
 please don't drop it.


Another vote for third.
Jan 22 2016
prev sibling parent Wyatt <wyatt.epp gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 00:04:33 UTC, tsbockman wrote:

 On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 23:49:39 UTC, cym13 wrote:

 On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 23:46:26 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 The logo is repeatedly being called out as a weak spot of the 
 D brand. But so far Walter has been adamant about keeping it 
 the way it is.

 [...]


 I love the third one from the top, it is close enough from the 
 official logo to identify it with no difficulty and yet fits 
 really well in the bar.


 Yes, the third is the best. The Martian horizon in the 
 background is also a part of the core design of the logo; 
 please don't drop it.


I'm certain I've made this same argument in the past.  For the 
website, the third one, without a doubt.  For an application 
icon? Hm, I might prefer the second.

-Wyatt
Jan 22 2016
prev sibling next sibling parent Bubbasaur <bubba gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 23:46:26 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 ...


For me the last one. It's simple and clear. I really don't think 
the currently Logo is good for the new layout, I really dislike 
the black border.

I don't know what the big deal with changing the Logo, since any 
big company out there change theirs from time to time (Coca-Cola, 
Microsoft, HP, Google and so on).

Bubbasaur.
Jan 21 2016
prev sibling next sibling parent rsw0x <anonymous anonymous.com> writes:
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 23:46:26 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 ...


bottom two are the best.
mixing matte and glossy is just *ugly*
Jan 21 2016
prev sibling next sibling parent WebFreak001 <janju007 web.de> writes:
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 23:46:26 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 For dlang.org, I'd choose the version with the wide background 
 arc. I think it looks nice on the menu bar, and it puts a 
 little more emphasis there than just the core shape. But just 
 the core shape looks fine, too.


For me its a tie between the last two. Both look much better than 
the current one in my opinion.

If the decoration should be kept I think the second one is a 
better replacement to the current one. However the shadow opacity 
on the second one could be reduced a bit, because that is a bit 
too black.
Jan 22 2016
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eg==?= <schuetzm gmx.net> writes:
For the website, definitely number 3. As a standalone version, 
the fourth one can be used. Or if we insist on the "horizon" arc, 
maybe a version can be made that fades out the arc much closer to 
the "D", so that the entire logo fits into a nearly-square 
rectangle.
Jan 22 2016
parent reply WebFreak001 <janju007 web.de> writes:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 14:26:21 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:

 For the website, definitely number 3. As a standalone version, 
 the fourth one can be used. Or if we insist on the "horizon" 
 arc, maybe a version can be made that fades out the arc much 
 closer to the "D", so that the entire logo fits into a 
 nearly-square rectangle.


Made the third one into a logo you could use on white background 
in case you need it:

https://i.imgur.com/TXocm6E.png

However I dont have an SVG for that and I basically just used the 
logo from the imgur screenshot, cut of a rounded rectangle (5px 
border radius) and added a simple box shadow (0px 1px 3px 
rgba(0,0,0,0.3))
Jan 22 2016
parent reply anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:
On 22.01.2016 15:44, WebFreak001 wrote:

 However I dont have an SVG for that and I basically just used the logo
 from the imgur screenshot, cut of a rounded rectangle (5px border
 radius) and added a simple box shadow (0px 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.3))


Here's the SVG. Go crazy.

https://gist.github.com/anonymous/421e80748f1c885f7620
Jan 22 2016
parent reply WebFreak001 <janju007 web.de> writes:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 15:25:25 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 Here's the SVG. Go crazy.

 https://gist.github.com/anonymous/421e80748f1c885f7620


(First I have fixed these weird curves on the D's bottom left and 
top left corner.)

OK I have cropped it now and also tried to add a slight box 
shadow to it.

https://i.imgur.com/r9WPvEX.png

At the top left its just the cropped version on a "D-red" 
background. On the other 3 corners its the cropped version with a 
slight box shadow on various backgrounds. The version with the 
box shadow could be used as application icon for example.
Jan 22 2016
next sibling parent Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 15:48:04 UTC, WebFreak001 wrote:

 On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 15:25:25 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 Here's the SVG. Go crazy.

 https://gist.github.com/anonymous/421e80748f1c885f7620


 (First I have fixed these weird curves on the D's bottom left 
 and top left corner.)

 OK I have cropped it now and also tried to add a slight box 
 shadow to it.

 https://i.imgur.com/r9WPvEX.png

 At the top left its just the cropped version on a "D-red" 
 background. On the other 3 corners its the cropped version with 
 a slight box shadow on various backgrounds. The version with 
 the box shadow could be used as application icon for example.


I think the padding on the top and bottom need to be the same as 
on the left and right. Looks good otherwise. I don't like the 
top-left option but all three of the others look good on their 
backgrounds.
Jan 22 2016
prev sibling parent reply anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:
On 22.01.2016 16:48, WebFreak001 wrote:

 (First I have fixed these weird curves on the D's bottom left and top
 left corner.)


What's weird about them? As far as I see, you made the corners more 
pointed, though it's hard to tell at that size. I'm not sure if that's 
an improvement.
Jan 22 2016
parent reply WebFreak001 <janju007 web.de> writes:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 19:00:41 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 On 22.01.2016 16:48, WebFreak001 wrote:

 (First I have fixed these weird curves on the D's bottom left 
 and top
 left corner.)


 What's weird about them? As far as I see, you made the corners 
 more pointed, though it's hard to tell at that size. I'm not 
 sure if that's an improvement.


Original: https://i.imgur.com/6M1Eoy2.png

Fixed: https://i.imgur.com/uLuUgJY.png
Jan 22 2016
next sibling parent anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:
On 22.01.2016 20:08, WebFreak001 wrote:

 Original: https://i.imgur.com/6M1Eoy2.png

 Fixed: https://i.imgur.com/uLuUgJY.png


:D

Yeah, uhm, that's totally an improvement, of course.
Jan 22 2016
prev sibling parent anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:
On 22.01.2016 20:08, WebFreak001 wrote:

 Original: https://i.imgur.com/6M1Eoy2.png

 Fixed: https://i.imgur.com/uLuUgJY.png


Can you post the fixed SVG code, so that I can update my stuff?
Jan 22 2016
prev sibling next sibling parent Gary Willoughby <dev nomad.so> writes:
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 23:46:26 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 The logo is repeatedly being called out as a weak spot of the D 
 brand. But so far Walter has been adamant about keeping it the 
 way it is.

 I agree with him that changing it to a completely different one 
 would probably not be a good move, losing whatever brand 
 recognition we have. But I think we should adapt the logo to 
 the needs at hand.

 It's obvious to me that the D and the moons (the two circles to 
 the upper right of the D) make the recognizable core of the 
 logo. I know that others see it the same way. That means, the D 
 and the moons should be kept intact. Their shapes and positions 
 should not change.

 However, I believe we can take away a lot of the decorations of 
 the current logo, and it will still be recognized immediately 
 as the same brand.

 Here's a little progression of simplifications, in the context 
 of dlang.org:

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

 The first one is the current logo. The last one shows just the 
 core shape (D + moons), of course.

 I'm not nearly the first one to do this, but I'd like to 
 propose adopting the core shape as the official logo. Then 
 specify some specific shade of red as the official brand color. 
 (We're using #B03931 on dlang.org.)

 We could provide multiple variants of the logo for different 
 use cases, and with varying levels of decoration:

 * Core shape in different color combinations (black one white, 
 red on white, white on red).
 * Versions that include the background arc (I'm interpreting 
 that as Mars), possibly in different colors.
 * The full version with border and shadow. I.e. the current 
 logo with adjusted colors, and maybe some details changed, like 
 number of borders or amount of shininess.

 For dlang.org, I'd choose the version with the wide background 
 arc. I think it looks nice on the menu bar, and it puts a 
 little more emphasis there than just the core shape. But just 
 the core shape looks fine, too.


This is something I've been vocal about before. The logo should 
stay the same but you do have artistic license to play with the 
structure. For example the third from the top of this image

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

is perfectly acceptable because the logo is intact, it's just 
used in a slightly different way.

Think of the nike tick and how it has changed and been used over 
the years but it's always a tick.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_9F9_RUESS2E/SxploMIEQjI/AAAAAAAABuc/EcOJ2hPM7PY/s800/logo-evolution-brand-companies-nike-swoosh.jpg
Jan 22 2016
prev sibling next sibling parent ixid <nuaccount gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 23:46:26 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 The logo is repeatedly being called out as a weak spot of the D 
 brand. But so far Walter has been adamant about keeping it the 
 way it is.


I certainly agree the logo is weak, to me the planets look more 
like a bad lens flare effect unfortunately. The bottom reflection 
bit needs to be removed but I think the planets/moons need to be 
spaced away from the D. The bigger dot overlapping the D just 
looks messy, like a misplaced paint blotch.
Jan 22 2016
prev sibling next sibling parent reply ronaldmc <r rmc.com> writes:
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 23:46:26 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 The logo is repeatedly being called out as a weak spot of the D 
 brand. But so far Walter has been adamant about keeping it the 
 way it is.


I don't want to start a war, but this isn't community? I mean 
aren't we trying to make things better, because the way you said 
it seems like a dictatorship.
Jan 22 2016
next sibling parent ixid <nuaccount gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 19:53:32 UTC, ronaldmc wrote:

 On Thursday, 21 January 2016 at 23:46:26 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 The logo is repeatedly being called out as a weak spot of the 
 D brand. But so far Walter has been adamant about keeping it 
 the way it is.


 I don't want to start a war, but this isn't community? I mean 
 aren't we trying to make things better, because the way you 
 said it seems like a dictatorship.


I think a fair explanation would be that it's a meritocracy of 
effort and ability. Walter has put an enormous amount of effort 
into D over a long period and therefore his view holds great 
sway. It's a good system for a project like this generally though 
it falls down a bit on issues that are more personal preference 
than technical.
Jan 22 2016
prev sibling parent reply anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:
On 22.01.2016 20:53, ronaldmc wrote:

 I don't want to start a war, but this isn't community? I mean aren't we
 trying to make things better, because the way you said it seems like a
 dictatorship.


It's dictatorship insofar as Walter and Andrei have veto power. If they 
don't want something in, it doesn't go in. I don't think this is a 
problem in practice. If it was, the community could always fork the 
project and then play by their own rules.

And of all things, the logo wouldn't be a good reason to divide over, in 
my opinion.
Jan 22 2016
next sibling parent rsw0x <anonymous anonymous.com> writes:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 20:28:57 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 On 22.01.2016 20:53, ronaldmc wrote:

 I don't want to start a war, but this isn't community? I mean 
 aren't we
 trying to make things better, because the way you said it 
 seems like a
 dictatorship.


 It's dictatorship insofar as Walter and Andrei have veto power. 
 If they don't want something in, it doesn't go in. I don't 
 think this is a problem in practice. If it was, the community 
 could always fork the project and then play by their own rules.

 And of all things, the logo wouldn't be a good reason to divide 
 over, in my opinion.


Walter's "No" often gets bent a little bit by Andrei when he sees 
a good idea ;)
Jan 22 2016
prev sibling next sibling parent sclytrack <sclytrack fake.com> writes:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 20:28:57 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 On 22.01.2016 20:53, ronaldmc wrote:

 I don't want to start a war, but this isn't community? I mean 
 aren't we
 trying to make things better, because the way you said it 
 seems like a
 dictatorship.


 It's dictatorship insofar as Walter and Andrei have veto power. 
 If they don't want something in, it doesn't go in. I don't 
 think this is a problem in practice. If it was, the community 
 could always fork the project and then play by their own rules.

 And of all things, the logo wouldn't be a good reason to divide 
 over, in my opinion.


Just use all 4 logos. Change them at every new D release or 
something.
I like a bit change. My desktop background also changes a bit.
Jan 22 2016
prev sibling next sibling parent reply ronaldmc <r dmc.com> writes:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 20:28:57 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 And of all things, the logo wouldn't be a good reason to divide 
 over, in my opinion.


No, of course not. But I've saw something like this with features 
to be added on the language, like for example 300+ discussion 
thread with similar trend of being interposed by the "heads".

In this case, this is not something critical by any means. But 
what I'm seeing here is the lack of vote for example, someone say 
Walter is against and that remains. So this is not the way a 
"Community" should be driven.
Jan 22 2016
parent reply "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 09:26:12PM +0000, ronaldmc via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 20:28:57 UTC, anonymous wrote:

And of all things, the logo wouldn't be a good reason to divide over,
in my opinion.


 
 No, of course not. But I've saw something like this with features to
 be added on the language, like for example 300+ discussion thread with
 similar trend of being interposed by the "heads".
 
 In this case, this is not something critical by any means. But what
 I'm seeing here is the lack of vote for example, someone say Walter is
 against and that remains. So this is not the way a "Community" should
 be driven.


[...]

Huh? I thought we were designing a programming language, not running a
democratic government. I don't understand where you got this strange
notion from.  Walter is the one who invented this language, and he has
been generous enough to let the rest of us participate in its
development. There is no bill of rights that says we have any say in
anything at all, except that he has chosen to take heed to what we say
as a mutual benefit. (And there shouldn't be such a thing as a bill of
rights here either -- this is a programming language, not the governance
of a country.)

Plenty of successful software projects do not run "democratically"
either (whatever that even means in a software project!), e.g. the Linux
kernel where Linus basically has the final say in everything. Yet the
Linux community is thriving just fine.  I don't understand this fixation
that everything must be voted on. What ought to rule in a programming
language is technical merit, not popularity.


T

-- 
May you live all the days of your life. -- Jonathan Swift
Jan 22 2016
next sibling parent reply ronaldmc <r dmc.com> writes:
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 at 00:30:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 ... What ought to rule in a programming language is technical 
 merit, not popularity.


What happens if a technical feature is vetoed by someone is 
charge even if it has merit?

And you're comparing Apples vs Oranges with the rest of your 
answer. Even when you talk about Linux (Org) and Linus, currently 
the Linux Foundation has a board members to approve or not new 
features or changes, and finally after that it goes to Linus, and 
overall after passed by the board it's almost approved by Linus 
too.

And by the way let this talk about dictatorship go away, because 
I think It will do more harm than anything else.
Jan 22 2016
next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d" <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 01:11:20AM +0000, ronaldmc via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Saturday, 23 January 2016 at 00:30:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

... What ought to rule in a programming language is technical merit,
not popularity.


 
 What happens if a technical feature is vetoed by someone is charge
 even if it has merit?


This is not the governance of a country. If you don't like the way the
decisions are being made, you always have the freedom to take the source
code (except for the proprietary backend), fork it, and build your own
community. There will be no army sent after you to force you to comply
with the "dictator's" decisions, since this is a programming language,
not a government.  If your technical merit is superior, your community
will eventually prevail.

And besides, calling something a "dictatorship" is again confusing the
development of a programming language with running a government. I still
fail to see the connection between the two.

(And BTW, I do not speak for this community either. What I express here
are just my own opinions. If you really have an issue with how things
are run, you ought to be talking directly to Walter & Andrei, not
wasting your breath arguing with me.)


--T
Jan 22 2016
next sibling parent Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 at 01:23:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 This is not the governance of a country. If you don't like the 
 way the decisions are being made, you always have the freedom 
 to take the source code (except for the proprietary backend), 
 fork it, and build your own community. There will be no army 
 sent after you to force you to comply with the "dictator's" 
 decisions, since this is a programming language, not a 
 government.  If your technical merit is superior, your 
 community will eventually prevail.

 And besides, calling something a "dictatorship" is again 
 confusing the development of a programming language with 
 running a government. I still fail to see the connection 
 between the two.

 (And BTW, I do not speak for this community either. What I 
 express here are just my own opinions. If you really have an 
 issue with how things are run, you ought to be talking directly 
 to Walter & Andrei, not wasting your breath arguing with me.)


+1 many times over.

And back to the original topic, my vote goes for the third one.
Jan 22 2016
prev sibling parent reply ronaldmc <r dmc.com> writes:
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 at 01:23:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 ...
 And besides, calling something a "dictatorship" is again 
 confusing the development of a programming language with 
 running a government. I still fail to see the connection 
 between the two.


Because maybe you don't read too much (outside programming), you 
can easily find the term being used on open source. i.e:

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/dictators_free_and_open_source_software

And it's not new, there are old articles like from 2004:

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2004-08-17/linus-torvalds-benevolent-dictatorship



 (And BTW, I do not speak for this community either. What I 
 express here are just my own opinions...


You don't need to draw for me that you're an user as much I am 
and if you're writing something of course it's your opinion.

I'm out for now, I'll don't reply anymore.
Jan 23 2016
parent rsw0x <anonymous anonymous.com> writes:
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 at 15:41:43 UTC, ronaldmc wrote:

 On Saturday, 23 January 2016 at 01:23:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 [...]


 Because maybe you don't read too much (outside programming), 
 you can easily find the term being used on open source. i.e:

 http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/dictators_free_and_open_source_software

 And it's not new, there are old articles like from 2004:

 http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2004-08-17/linus-torvalds-benevolent-dictatorship



[...]


 You don't need to draw for me that you're an user as much I am 
 and if you're writing something of course it's your opinion.

 I'm out for now, I'll don't reply anymore.


It's actually a very common term in FOSS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life

D is indeed Walter's ambition, and D2 is Walter/Andrei's. They 
have put the most effort into the project which is why their word 
gets the most weight, but I disagree with the notion that 
everyone else is shut out.
Jan 23 2016
prev sibling parent reply Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On 01/23/16 02:11, ronaldmc via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 
 What happens if a technical feature is vetoed by someone is charge even if it
has merit?


Every wrong decision affects the project negatively.



 Linux Foundation has a board members to approve or not new features or
changes, and finally after that it goes to Linus, and overall after passed by
the board it's almost approved by Linus too.


I'd just ignore this, but somebody might actually believe it's true...

Linux development works because Linus is right often enough.
It really is that simple.


artur
Jan 23 2016
parent Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= writes:
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 at 18:58:21 UTC, Artur Skawina wrote:

 On 01/23/16 02:11, ronaldmc via Digitalmars-d wrote:
 Linux development works because Linus is right often enough. It 
 really is that simple.


But I also think Linus weighs different solutions (and 
implementations and performance) before landing on a decision? So 
the "democratic" aspect is:

1. Being able to put forth different implementations for 
evaluation.

2. Being able to fork the project (SELinux?) and merge back the 
proven solutions.

Anyway, it is important that one person feel responsible for 
every single aspect of the design and is able to defend status 
quo of the whole.

Otherwise you get a blame game instead: "Oh, I didn't really 
agree with 50% of the features we added so I don't really know 
why they are there or if they should be there. You know, I told 
you guys it was a bad idea to have those features, so I think the 
ones that voted for them should fix it."
Jan 24 2016
prev sibling parent reply Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= writes:
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 at 00:30:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 got this strange notion from.  Walter is the one who invented 
 this language, and he has been generous enough to let the rest 
 of us participate in its development.


Yes, I agree with this. If anything, bringing too much democracy 
into a design process makes things bloated and inconsistent. 
Walter has probably been too accepting of suggestions to new 
features in the past. But if someone steps up as a committed 
graphic designer it would be a good idea to give that person free 
hands. That's very motivating.

Meritocracy is not a horrible concept though. Implementing bad 
ideas and refusing good ideas based on who suggested it is just 
dumb. You need a lead designer that plots out what needs to be 
done and brings it all together as a whole.

That said, it would be downright silly to not accept the two 
bottom logos ;-).
Jan 24 2016
parent Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= writes:
On Sunday, 24 January 2016 at 13:03:36 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:

 Meritocracy is not a horrible concept though.


Err, type. I meant to say that is a horrible concept. It is 
better than seniority, but makes no sense outside a hierarchical 
power structure IMO.
Jan 24 2016
prev sibling parent karabuta <karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 at 20:28:57 UTC, anonymous wrote:

 On 22.01.2016 20:53, ronaldmc wrote:

 I don't want to start a war, but this isn't community? I mean 
 aren't we
 trying to make things better, because the way you said it 
 seems like a
 dictatorship.


 It's dictatorship insofar as Walter and Andrei have veto power. 
 If they don't want something in, it doesn't go in. I don't 
 think this is a problem in practice. If it was, the community 
 could always fork the project and then play by their own rules.

 And of all things, the logo wouldn't be a good reason to divide 
 over, in my opinion.



I am yet to see any good come from such decisions. Disagreement 
should not be a reason for division. YOU CAN NEVER GET WHAT YOU 
WANT IN ALL SITUATIONS (whether your are right or wrong). So 
please learn from people's mistakes like what happened between 
nodejs and iojs :)

Just a logo? Come on!!

D is the created programming language I have ever used.
Jan 23 2016
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
I always wanted it to be a gif so the planet would appear to be subtly rotating 
and the edge of Deimos might twinkle slightly :-)
Jan 23 2016
parent reply karabuta <karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 23 January 2016 at 08:25:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 I always wanted it to be a gif so the planet would appear to be 
 subtly rotating and the edge of Deimos might twinkle slightly 
 :-)


If it was meant to be a git then it makes more sense why it was 
as it is originally (but without the borders). I always thought 
the circles on the D was confusing since very few people will 
recognize without being told what it is.

But when the rotation is added, it will be awesome!! (That is 
design).
Jan 23 2016
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 1/23/2016 11:47 AM, karabuta wrote:

 On Saturday, 23 January 2016 at 08:25:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 I always wanted it to be a gif so the planet would appear to be subtly
 rotating and the edge of Deimos might twinkle slightly :-)


 If it was meant to be a git then it makes more sense why it was as it is
 originally (but without the borders). I always thought the circles on the D was
 confusing since very few people will recognize without being told what it is.

 But when the rotation is added, it will be awesome!! (That is design).


Something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou6JNQwPWE0&feature=player_detailpage#t=348
Jan 23 2016
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2016-01-22 00:46, anonymous wrote:


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

 The first one is the current logo. The last one shows just the core
 shape (D + moons), of course.


I vote the last one as the official out of context logo. I vote the 
third one for the web site.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jan 23 2016
prev sibling parent anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:
On 22.01.2016 00:46, anonymous wrote:

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


[...]

 For dlang.org, I'd choose the version with the wide background arc. I
 think it looks nice on the menu bar, and it puts a little more emphasis
 there than just the core shape. But just the core shape looks fine, too.


I made a pull request for the wide one (the third one from the top):

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/1212
Jan 24 2016