Worrying attitudes to the branding of the D language

[Gary Willoughby via Digitalmars-d]

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.