On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:56:39 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote:
> <snip>
> Walter, I've been involved with D since 2001 (iirc? 0.064 i think?)  I absolutely love your language and the project.   The D Programming Languages deserves more usage and notoriety since it *is* the best programming language available.   To do this, we need as many people working on whatever niches they care about the most.    Can we please delegate some control of the website to someone who's already put a substantial amount of work into making a modern and attractive version (w0rt) of it.
>
> -Shammah

It's w0rp. :P

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 10:23:12 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 08:59:06 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:
>> [Incidentally, I found the copyright notice that goes with the current logo at the bottom of this page: http://media.sukimashita.com/d/ (the gallery of designs that the current logo was chosen from)]
>
> Yeah:
> «ALL FREE TO USE. ONLY SELLING THESE IMAGES IS PROHIBITED.»
>
> I guess that is good enough for adapting the logo to flat shading and a new web design with minor visual tweaks. The original author appears to be Martin Szulecki, so he can probably be reached by e-mail.

He should be contacted and asked if he'd be willing to assign copyright to Walter. Does anyone have his email address? I've found his Github page[1]. It links to his business website[2] which has email addresses but I'm not sure if those reach him directly.


1. https://github.com/FunkyM
2. http://mirell.com/

> However i find it extremely alarming that there is a casual disregard for any sort of consistency of the D brand.

> 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 understand and sympathize where you're coming from, but I think it's less important than one might think. Golang's logo is a stupid-looking gopher that looks like it was drawn by a 4-year-old. Python also has IMO an ugly, amateurish logo (but better than the truly hideous one it had until 2005). Julia has a non-logo (three colored dots over the word "Julia"). R's logo is just horrid. AFAIK, C++ doesn't even have a logo or any branding whatsoever.

Developers are a very different customer than the mass market -- they just want to know, "what can it do for me? In particular, how can this programming language make my life easier and land me a six-figure job offer?"

D's community & recognition is still very small, comparatively. If anything,  now or near-future is the perfect time to rebrand & relaunch.

> * D is a brand, whether you like it or not

Yes, but frankly not yet widely recognized.

> * The logo is the essence of that brand

Disagree. The essence of a brand is the customers' history and experience of interactions with the entity behind it -- the value they find in it (or not). In other words, the brand value of D is precisely how pleasant it makes software development for professional programmers, such that they can convince their PHBs of its corresponding value to the business. Yes, a sketchy website will scare off a lot of people from trying the language, but basically in this domain there's a *very low bar* for marketing -- you just have to be *not* sketchy-looking.

> * D has a history of poorly managed change

Hmmm... perhaps, but it can afford to "break stuff" still since there likely aren't more than a couple dozen companies with large, critical D projects in production.

> * D's community has been destroyed once before (Tango)

For substantive reasons, not branding.

> * D has the preception of unreliability
> * D is not seen as a professional offering
> * D is perceved as half finished

Then those underlying problems (usability, reliability, general quality) insofar as they are real issues need to be to be fixed, and current D users need to evangelize -- otherwise any branding efforts will be ineffective. Again, languages have a pretty low bar from a marketing perspective -- the big hurdles are elsewhere. I agree that some basic aura of professionalism and stability are necessary.

> 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.

Again, this point is mainly about usability (search, navigation, quality of content). Branding really has a minimal role -- it just has to stay in the background and *not* scare people off.

Ideally a "Design & Web Czar" would just make behind-the-scenes executive decisions about all this stuff, no NG discussion needed.

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:53:52 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
> He should be contacted and asked if he'd be willing to assign copyright to Walter. Does anyone have his email address?

Walter and I have attempted to reach out to Martin a while ago with regards to logo licensing (triggered by the logo's deletion on Wikipedia - it was taken down once, but since then someone reuploaded it again). As far as I know, so far there has been no reply.

Here's the information I have:

Original post:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/e3j72u$16n7$1@digitaldaemon.com

GitHub profile:
https://github.com/FunkyM

Professional website:
http://mirell.de/

On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 22:02:19 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> 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?

It's pointless naming brands i've worked on because there have been so many over the years and the gamut is so wide. Also i guarantee you will of never heard of them because many groups use different brand names for each country. This is part of my argument. When these large groups take over smaller brands they homogenise them but keep the brand identities as they were, there is simply too much at stake in changing them.

See this chart: http://i.imgur.com/k0pv0.jpg

I've been involved in most of the brands from all of those international groups.

On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 22:02:19 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> You probably wouldn't talk like that to (former) colleagues,
> would you?

Yes we do because we're all in the same boat. It's no big deal after so much time.

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:02:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> We don't have any recognizable branding worth fighting for. I can't even remember how current D logo looks like without checking the website, it is just some image in the corner of the page. "Branding" is something bigger than that.

But you recognise it when you see it!



On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:56:39 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote:
> The change that w0rt put together as a showcase is not a redesign of the logo.   All he did was stylize it for the design of the website he put together -- which looks fantastic!

But it's completely the wrong way of going about it. The website should be designed to a specification and part of that specification will be to respect the identity of D, including the logo. Just saying i needed to redesign the logo because it didn't fit with my website design is total poppycock. If we as a COMMUNITY are going to redesign the site it should be done by people who already know this! I applaud w0rp's efforts but to be honest we need it doing properly.

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:56:39 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote:
I realize you may not think so, but the current logo is not
very attractive.

In your opinion but that still doesn't matter, it is the official D brand!

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:56:39 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote:
> Can we please delegate some control of the website to someone who's already put a substantial amount of work into making a modern and attractive version (w0rt) of it.

I don't think that's a good idea as i honestly think his attitude and the design are both very amateurish. (See the first reply of this thread.)

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
> I understand and sympathize where you're coming from, but I think it's less important than one might think. Golang's logo is a stupid-looking gopher that looks like it was drawn by a 4-year-old.

That is a homage to plan9 and immediately recognisable further supporting my stance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language)#Mascot

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
> D's community & recognition is still very small, comparatively. If anything,  now or near-future is the perfect time to rebrand & relaunch.

This is for Walter and Andrei to okay not some amateur rolling his own because it just so happens to go with a site design he's working on and without any input from the community.

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
>> * D is a brand, whether you like it or not
> Yes, but frankly not yet widely recognized.

But it is recognised and been in use since 2006!
http://media.sukimashita.com/d/

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
>> * D has a history of poorly managed change
> Hmmm... perhaps, but it can afford to "break stuff" still since there likely aren't more than a couple dozen companies with large, critical D projects in production.

It is never ok to "break stuff" and this attitude needs to start being re-examined not only as it pertains to the logo but through the entire community. As for users and how they use D, this is such an poorly reasoned argument in fact you've probably just made those figures up. All we know at present is that the *vast* majority of D users are unknown in what they do. Another reason to keep things stable and recognisable.

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
>> * D's community has been destroyed once before (Tango)
> For substantive reasons, not branding.

Maybe not but i'm highlighting how vast damage can be done by doing something without thinking of the consequences to the community.

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
> Then those underlying problems (usability, reliability, general quality) insofar as they are real issues need to be to be fixed, and current D users need to evangelize -- otherwise any branding efforts will be ineffective. Again, languages have a pretty low bar from a marketing perspective -- the big hurdles are elsewhere. I agree that some basic aura of professionalism and stability are necessary.

The product and brand are one. They are not separate as you have remarked. Thought needs to be put into both.

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
> Ideally a "Design & Web Czar" would just make behind-the-scenes executive decisions about all this stuff, no NG discussion needed.

I agree but with a title like that they better have the experience and professionalism to carry that task well.

I think people are completely missing the main point here in that D needs to grow up and start being professional about everything. Gone are the days when we can mess around with the compiler and standard lib and now increasingly we have to settle on a brand and stick to it!

Let's face it D is an awesome language, i know that, you know that but it's not gaining traction as fast as it should. The reason behind this is user perception as most devs have heard of it but decide not to use it.

The only way D is going to succeed is through better marketing. Marketing of its features and strengths all backed up by a strong web presence and brand!

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
> Python also has IMO an ugly, amateurish logo.

And look at the zeal with which they protect it.
https://www.python.org/community/logos/
https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks

It means more than you realise.

Here is one of my all time favourite talks from Steve Yegge (Senior Engineer at Google) at OSCON 2007 entitled "How to Ignore Marketing and Become Irrelevant in Two Easy Steps".

This is sage advice:

http://tvuol.uol.com.br/video/oscon--how-to-ignore-marketing--0402D0C90386/

On 7/2/2014 4:58 AM, Shammah Chancellor wrote:
> On 2014-07-02 02:32:18 +0000, Walter Bright said:
>> There's so much that can be done to improve the website, I'm reluctant to put
>> time and energy into redesigning the logo.
>
> Nobody is asking you to put any time or effort into redesigning the logo.

Look at all the time and effort just in these threads.


> I realize you may not think so, but the current logo is not very attractive.
> Unfortunately, having a modern website with attractive graphics goes a long way
> toward garnering support for a project.

I very much understand and agree with the reasons for a distinctive logo. Not everyone is going to like every logo, but that doesn't really subtract from its effectiveness.

BTW, Apple's site last time I looked at it was clearly designed for aesthetic appeal, but its use of grey text on a white background with a small font made it literally painful for me to read their developer documentation. That's a great way to beat developers away with a stick.

What I'm saying is that above all the site has to be usable for developers - that means fast loading, easy navigation, well organized information content, and readable fonts.


> Walter, I've been involved with D since 2001 (iirc? 0.064 i think?)  I
> absolutely love your language and the project.   The D Programming Languages
> deserves more usage and notoriety since it *is* the best programming language
> available.   To do this, we need as many people working on whatever niches they
> care about the most.    Can we please delegate some control of the website to
> someone who's already put a substantial amount of work into making a modern and
> attractive version (w0rt) of it.

Andrei is in charge of the web site. That doesn't necessarily mean he is doing the work, but he reviews and approves changes.

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
> is just horrid. AFAIK, C++ doesn't even have a logo or any branding whatsoever.

Actually, I think C++ has had the most hyped branding any language can achieve, even more than Java. I remember how the shelves were flooding with books and magazines with "C++" in big bold letters on the covers around 1991. "C++" is actually a very strong visual mark that is unique and easy to recognize. Much stronger than "C" of "D" alone and certainly much more appealing than "objective-C". I sincerely doubt C++ would have caught on without all that hype, because the language and the compilers weren't all that great…

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 17:34:46 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
>*wall'o'text*

You are right, we need to be much more professional in the way we deal with things regarding branding, but I also think that you are fighting the wrong fight here. I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding regarding what is meant by redesign.

Unless I am wrong(I haven't been keeping up 100% on all the website redesign stuff), we don't really want a new logo, just a reinterpretation that better fits with the planned website theme.

For example look at google, compare the logo from a few years[1] ago to the one now[2]. Same logo, just slightly different to keep up with the times.

You are vary right in that we need to worry a lot about our branding, but I think what you are not taking into account is that branding works a little bit different in tech industries. Because of the vary fast pace of change in tech, it is important to give off a feeling of newness and freshness. If it *appears* that the brand is older due to website design or logo design, that will have a large impact on the perceived relevancy of the product.

It has been commented on in this thread that major tech companies seem to always be following a fad, in that the prevalent theme seems to change quite often. For example going from high gloss(win7 era) to flat(win8 era). I don't think this is by accident(how could it be). To stay relevant, they must be perceived as having innovation even if that innovation only comes in the form of a face lift.

I vary much agree with you that we need to be more professional in they way branding is being dealt with. But I also agree that the direction that w0rp is going is also the right direction.


[1] http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100520131746/logopedia/images/5/5c/Google_logo.png
[2] https://www.google.com/images/srpr/logo11w.png