July 01, 2014
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?
July 01, 2014
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.
July 01, 2014
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;background:#800">
<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>


July 01, 2014
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.
July 01, 2014
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
July 01, 2014
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.

July 01, 2014
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
July 02, 2014
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.

July 02, 2014
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.

July 02, 2014
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