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.

No.

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.

On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 17:49:57 UTC, w0rp wrote:
> No.

This is the attitude i am expressly writing about.

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.
>

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.

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.

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

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…)

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