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!

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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 ;-)