On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 17:55:13 UTC, karabuta wrote:
> How do you see it?
>
> http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png
>
> Many variants are on the way.

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

No, I'm not going to enable cookies.

On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 10:37:42 UTC, Adrian Matoga wrote:
> On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 10:28:48 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
>> On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 17:55:13 UTC, karabuta wrote:
>>> How do you see it?
>>>
>>> http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png
>>>
>>> Many variants are on the way.
>>
>> The current logo is very good and there is value in keeping it. Now if it didn't have this extremely 90s-looking borders, it would be even better.
>
> +1
>
> Also, change just for the sake of change is just bad strategy.

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

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

On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 10:28:48 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 17:55:13 UTC, karabuta wrote:
>> How do you see it?
>>
>> http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png
>>
>> Many variants are on the way.
>
> The current logo is very good and there is value in keeping it. Now if it didn't have this extremely 90s-looking borders, it would be even better.

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

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

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

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

It does.

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

> On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 17:55:13 UTC, karabuta wrote:
>> How do you see it?
>>
>> http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png
>>
>> Many variants are on the way.
> 
> This URL redirects me to that Google page: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/61416
> 
> No, I'm not going to enable cookies.

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

This is why I just self-host images.

On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 22:48:52 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
> On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 10:28:48 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
>> On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 17:55:13 UTC, karabuta wrote:
>>> How do you see it?
>>>
>>> http://amazingws.0fees.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/dlang2.png
>>>
>>> Many variants are on the way.
>>
>> The current logo is very good and there is value in keeping it. Now if it didn't have this extremely 90s-looking borders, it would be even better.
>
> I've long wished the D and moons were what was considered the logo[1]. The current one has three borders, a drop shadow, and gradients up the wazoo. Anything tacked on beyond the iconic shape should just be done based on context (like using red or white for the logo, a background color, etc.)
>
> http://i.imgur.com/RSBLFDJ.png
>
> Doesn't it look so much better: http://i.imgur.com/QlrbCou.png

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

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

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

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

+1. Simple and elegant.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

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

> I completely agree. The most recognisable symbols I can think of are
> characters. An "A" is clearly an "A" regardless of color, shading, or
> its surroundings. I think a logo should be recognisable in silhouette -
> this tends to keep it simple, portable, and customisable. This could
> include an official default color to enhance recognition/association.
> The default would just be there when there is not a strong reason to use
> something else, but if you want to incorporate the logo into some other
> artwork (slides, t-shirts, etc.) you have much greater flexibility.
>
> The official logo should just be the D with the moons, not the entire
> box. The default color seems to have become that red color so the
> default logo would either be a red D (with moons) or, using negative
> space, a white D surrounded by red (as shown in the proposed header).
> There may be a time the shiny stylized box version fits the design, but
> the new site is certainly the place. The box feels like other design
> elements that crept into a logo and got stuck there.

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

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

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

+1

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

> I've long wished the D and moons were what was considered the logo[1]. The current one has three borders, a drop shadow, and gradients up the wazoo. Anything tacked on beyond the iconic shape should just be done based on context (like using red or white for the logo, a background color, etc.)
>
> http://i.imgur.com/RSBLFDJ.png
>
> Doesn't it look so much better: http://i.imgur.com/QlrbCou.png



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

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