On 03/07/14 02:08, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> 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/

Great share. Thanks.

On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 00:17:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/2/2014 4:18 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 23:16:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 7/2/14, 4:00 PM, Israel Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> Or you know...you could rename D to maybe something like....The Mars
>>>> programming language?
>>>
>>> I think we should have an FAQ for that stuff. -- Andrei
>>
>> I actually added a FAQ entry for this awhile back.
>>
>> http://dlang.org/faq.html#q1_1
>
> That page could use some serious updating. The GDC link is out of date, no mention of LDC, ...

Yeah, I think it might actually be best just to move the entire page to the wiki.

On 03/07/2014 12:40 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 19:05:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 7/2/2014 11:08 AM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>> Yes, Steve has a way of pointing out the obvious that the rest of us
>> miss.
>
> Is there the complete video somewhere ? This one cut before the
> end, and that is very frustrating.

Ditto, however given the GTE -> Verizon anecdote and this...

On 01/07/2014 6:45 PM, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> * 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

A...

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 17:34:46 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> 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!

I recognize the updated one too. Actually I won't be able to tell the difference unless looking at both at the same time.

My point is that there is nothing very distinctive with current logo to be that concerned. Anything with similarly styled "D" letter will be as recognizable as current one.

On 03/07/2014 10:40 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 17:34:46 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
>> 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!
>
> I recognize the updated one too. Actually I won't be able to tell the
> difference unless looking at both at the same time.
>
> My point is that there is nothing very distinctive with current logo to
> be that concerned. Anything with similarly styled "D" letter will be as
> recognizable as current one.

I agree!

I started working on this little document last night while angry and tired, maybe it should find its way to the wiki.

Its the last time I'm going to post any work related to D branding or logo design unless someone specifically asks me to.

A...

On 03/07/2014 10:40 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 17:34:46 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
>> 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!
>
> I recognize the updated one too. Actually I won't be able to tell the
> difference unless looking at both at the same time.
>
> My point is that there is nothing very distinctive with current logo to
> be that concerned. Anything with similarly styled "D" letter will be as
> recognizable as current one.

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.

A...

On 3 July 2014 12:40, Alix Pexton via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/2014 10:40 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 17:34:46 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
>>>
>>> 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!
>>
>>
>> I recognize the updated one too. Actually I won't be able to tell the difference unless looking at both at the same time.
>>
>> My point is that there is nothing very distinctive with current logo to be that concerned. Anything with similarly styled "D" letter will be as recognizable as current one.
>
>
> 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.
>
> A...


You mispelt "Useage"

/spelling troll

On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 11:40:34 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote:
> 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.
>
> A...

Yes, yes and yes! This is much better! This needs finalising and approving by the chiefs before any work on the website starts. This looks great!

Once the logo is officially approved then we can move onto a vision for D and what the requirements for the website are. In fact a specification should be drawn up. In Andrei's Quo Vadis talk he mentioned his vision for D. This needs to be quantified and put into writing which can then be referred to in the future when discussions like this take place. Even though they are cheesy a mission statement couldn't hurt either.

Look at Rust's release announcement:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2014-July/010655.html

The first line reads:
"Mozilla and the Rust community are pleased to announce version 0.11.0 of
the Rust compiler and tools. Rust is a systems programming language with a
focus on safety, performance and concurrency."

That conveys exactly what they are about and where they are going. We need to do the same.

On 03/07/2014 1:00 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:

> You mispelt "Useage"
>
> /spelling troll
>

There is no red underline this end and invoking the spell checker is only finding the hex colour codes at the moment. But means nothing as I discovered just this morning that the google docs spell checker ignores words that appear before a full-stop, so its entirely possibly it skips orphans or single word titles or single capitalised words or something too.

A...

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 20:04:50 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> The 'new' design by w0rp (http://w0rp.com:8010/) does none of those things. He's well intentioned but even things like basic text layout and white space usage are completely lacking.

I didn't notice that link before, and if on the one hand it's not seems a "big" improvement over the original site,  on the other hand it looks like (IMHO) more clean and professional.

Couldn't you fix those problems that you said about text layout and white space usage and show us (people which are not designers "like me") what you meant.

Matheus.