On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 22:48:52 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Monday, 18 January 2016 at 10:28:48 UTC, Guillaume Piolat
On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 17:55:13 UTC, karabuta wrote:
How do you see it?
Many variants are on the way.
The current logo is very good and there is value in keeping
it. Now if it didn't have this extremely 90s-looking borders,
it would be even better.
I've long wished the D and moons were what was considered the
logo. The current one has three borders, a drop shadow, and
gradients up the wazoo. Anything tacked on beyond the iconic
shape should just be done based on context (like using red or
white for the logo, a background color, etc.)
Doesn't it look so much better: http://i.imgur.com/QlrbCou.png
I completely agree. The most recognisable symbols I can think of
are characters. An "A" is clearly an "A" regardless of color,
shading, or its surroundings. I think a logo should be
recognisable in silhouette - this tends to keep it simple,
portable, and customisable. This could include an official
default color to enhance recognition/association. The default
would just be there when there is not a strong reason to use
something else, but if you want to incorporate the logo into some
other artwork (slides, t-shirts, etc.) you have much greater
The official logo should just be the D with the moons, not the
entire box. The default color seems to have become that red color
so the default logo would either be a red D (with moons) or,
using negative space, a white D surrounded by red (as shown in
the proposed header). There may be a time the shiny stylized box
version fits the design, but the new site is certainly the place.
The box feels like other design elements that crept into a logo
and got stuck there.