Worrying attitudes to the branding of the D language

[Wyatt via Digitalmars-d]

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