On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 11:40:34 UTC, 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
>
Very nice; thank you.  Though, having thought on it some more, I would suggest the capital D and the two moons are the most important aspect in terms of a distinctive mark.

The red background is currently an element of the logo design, but I don't think it lends much potential for iconified forms.  Casting outward, I can't think of many logos that depend heavily on their background either, and I think there are merits to pursuing similar.  Isolating the glyph and moons is pretty easy, too!

But this then calls attention to the implied horizon of Mars.  How essential is it to the mark?  I'm really not sure, but my gut is telling me it needs to be given consideration for at least the more ornate levels of the design.  So would emulating that boundary with a thin crescent work?  I don't have any good tools on-hand, but I managed to scrape together this stupidly rough wireframe that hopefully illustrates the basic idea well enough: http://radiusic.com/imagedump/dwire2.png

This allows for dark-on-light or light-on-dark equally, with the horizon some value in the red area; possibly a gradient.

-Wyatt

On 03/07/2014 3:44 PM, Wyatt wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 11:40:34 UTC, 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
>>
>>
> Very nice; thank you.  Though, having thought on it some more, I would
> suggest the capital D and the two moons are the most important aspect in
> terms of a distinctive mark.
>
> The red background is currently an element of the logo design, but I
> don't think it lends much potential for iconified forms. Casting
> outward, I can't think of many logos that depend heavily on their
> background either, and I think there are merits to pursuing similar.
> Isolating the glyph and moons is pretty easy, too!
>
> But this then calls attention to the implied horizon of Mars. How
> essential is it to the mark?  I'm really not sure, but my gut is telling
> me it needs to be given consideration for at least the more ornate
> levels of the design.  So would emulating that boundary with a thin
> crescent work?  I don't have any good tools on-hand, but I managed to
> scrape together this stupidly rough wireframe that hopefully illustrates
> the basic idea well enough: http://radiusic.com/imagedump/dwire2.png
>
> This allows for dark-on-light or light-on-dark equally, with the horizon
> some value in the red area; possibly a gradient.
>
> -Wyatt

I swear it was just before I read this, that I added a paragraphlette saying that in some contexts it may be appropriate to reduce the logo further to just the D and moons in red for use on light coloured backgrounds. I hadn't considered having the horizon a just a line or swoosh, but I like the look of it ^^

A...

On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 14:44:06 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
> [...]
> Very nice; thank you.  Though, having thought on it some more, I would suggest the capital D and the two moons are the most important aspect in terms of a distinctive mark.
>
> The red background is currently an element of the logo design, but I don't think it lends much potential for iconified forms.  Casting outward, I can't think of many logos that depend heavily on their background either, and I think there are merits to pursuing similar.  Isolating the glyph and moons is pretty easy, too!
>
> But this then calls attention to the implied horizon of Mars.  How essential is it to the mark?  I'm really not sure, but my gut is telling me it needs to be given consideration for at least the more ornate levels of the design.  So would emulating that boundary with a thin crescent work?  I don't have any good tools on-hand, but I managed to scrape together this stupidly rough wireframe that hopefully illustrates the basic idea well enough: http://radiusic.com/imagedump/dwire2.png
>

That would improve the idea of there being a horizon in the background but I believe the curvature of the D is intended to be Mars with the two circles being Phobos and Deimos. The background curve does look like a horizon but the background is just a stylistic flourish and I think should just be dropped to focus on the main element. The version with it doesn't look terrible though so if people have some sort of attachment to it I wouldn't be upset if it stayed.

> This allows for dark-on-light or light-on-dark equally, with the horizon some value in the red area; possibly a gradient.
>
> -Wyatt

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

This is a great start.

> It should also be used as a splash screen when the compiler is installed via the installer program, which should also associate the .d and .di extensions used by d with an icon based on the logo.

Jordi just did this for Debian just the other day. I'll find some time to do it on Windows (and incorporate some features Jordi asked me to add a long time ago). I won't add a splash screen but I'll update the header graphics to match whatever the branding guide says.

On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 14:44:06 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
> Very nice; thank you.  Though, having thought on it some more, I would suggest the capital D and the two moons are the most important aspect in terms of a distinctive mark.
>
> The red background is currently an element of the logo design, but I don't think it lends much potential for iconified forms.  Casting outward, I can't think of many logos that depend heavily on their background either, and I think there are merits to pursuing similar.  Isolating the glyph and moons is pretty easy, too!
>
> But this then calls attention to the implied horizon of Mars.  How essential is it to the mark?  I'm really not sure, but my gut is telling me it needs to be given consideration for at least the more ornate levels of the design.  So would emulating that boundary with a thin crescent work?  I don't have any good tools on-hand, but I managed to scrape together this stupidly rough wireframe that hopefully illustrates the basic idea well enough: http://radiusic.com/imagedump/dwire2.png
>
> This allows for dark-on-light or light-on-dark equally, with the horizon some value in the red area; possibly a gradient.
>
> -Wyatt

I completely disagree. The logo is the whole and provides recognition using not only form but also in colour. The red background is essential and the planet horizon make this logo what it is. Removing those elements decrease the recognition of the mark and practically destroy the feel of the brand.

The wireframe you've created looks odd. Immediately, the horizon just looks tacked on and wonky. I understand what you are trying to do in that you are trying to keep the horizon without keeping it but you've run into the age old trap of killing the design.

On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 15:52:34 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
> The background curve does look like a horizon but the background is just a stylistic flourish and I think should just be dropped to focus on the main element.

No, no, no... we shouldn't be redesigning the logo now. This is what you are effectively doing.

Follow Alix Pexton's observation of the following:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sb4xnZUbzVRIicsfnxBFhTvRH4EOYq88wZexAuGcnaE/edit

Quote:
The following elements of the current logo may be considered to be artifacts of the image and removed without lessening its recognisability.

a. The triple border with rounded corners.
b. The drop-shadow.
c. The glossy sheen.

I completely agree, this way we can work with the logo and preserve its integrity while keeping recognition high. I don't think we ought to remove anything else. Removing more is going too far and removing elements for its own sake.

Also the current colour scheme is equally as important.

On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 17:08:12 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
>
> I completely disagree. The logo is the whole and provides recognition using not only form but also in colour. The red background is essential and the planet horizon make this logo what it is. Removing those elements decrease the recognition of the mark and practically destroy the feel of the brand.
>
I wouldn't recognise the Apple logo without the familiar rainbow bands, either.  Setting that aside, I explicitly chose a wireframe because the question of background colour was out of scope.

I get that you're passionate, and I respect that.  In fact, I'm posting here because I'm willing to take this topic seriously.  But some of your assertions fly in the face of a lot of observable reality, so rather than shouting "no, no, no!", could you please make some attempt at substantiating them without flippantly linking to Wikipedia?

> The wireframe you've created looks odd. Immediately, the horizon just looks tacked on and wonky. I understand what you are trying to do in that you are trying to keep the horizon without keeping it but you've run into the age old trap of killing the design.
>
Yes the whole thing is awful.  It's a mockup made with a Javascript SVG editor in ten minutes because it was intended as a visual aide to go with my text, not a candidate proposal.  Though I'd like more detail on how you think this concept categorically "kills" the design.  That rings false, given it's literally traced (albeit sloppily) from the current design. (This isn't to say I'm satisfied with the position, length, arc, or width of the lune in my sketch.)

> Follow Alix Pexton's observation of the following:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sb4xnZUbzVRIicsfnxBFhTvRH4EOYq88wZexAuGcnaE/edit
>
> Quote:
> The following elements of the current logo may be considered to be artifacts of the image and removed without lessening its recognisability.
>
> a. The triple border with rounded corners.
> b. The drop-shadow.
> c. The glossy sheen.
>
> I completely agree, this way we can work with the logo and preserve its integrity while keeping recognition high. I don't think we ought to remove anything else. Removing more is going too far and removing elements for its own sake.

Actually, stepping back a bit: maybe you can explain, concretely, why you believe the horizon line is essential to the point that removing it fundamentally alters the form?  That may be more productive.

-Wyatt

On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 19:06:42 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
> Actually, stepping back a bit: maybe you can explain, concretely, why you believe the horizon line is essential to the point that removing it fundamentally alters the form?  That may be more productive.
>
> -Wyatt

I think i've already explained myself fully. Please read all of my comments again.

On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 19:06:42 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
> Actually, stepping back a bit: maybe you can explain, concretely, why you believe the horizon line is essential to the point that removing it fundamentally alters the form?  That may be more productive.

I don't agree with Gary that the horizon/reflection is essential to the form, but I think  but if you remove it you get an imbalance that you need to compensate for because you get a big red area in the bottom right and a diagonal move that goes from bottom left to top right. That means you either have to change the logo or change the space around it.

On 03/07/2014 8:30 PM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com>" wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 19:06:42 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
>> Actually, stepping back a bit: maybe you can explain, concretely, why
>> you believe the horizon line is essential to the point that removing
>> it fundamentally alters the form?  That may be more productive.
>
> I don't agree with Gary that the horizon/reflection is essential to the
> form, but I think  but if you remove it you get an imbalance that you
> need to compensate for because you get a big red area in the bottom
> right and a diagonal move that goes from bottom left to top right. That
> means you either have to change the logo or change the space around it.

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.

A...