On 7/1/2014 3:02 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
I'm not taking it lightly. The big issue I see with the current state is that D simply doesn't have a consistent brand at this point, and never had (D Man, anyone?). Frantically clinging to the current bits and pieces doesn't help us at all, and neither do alarmist and inflammatory sweeping blows directed at a honest (and only partially related) volunteer effort.
The only thing that we have that is consistent is the current D logo. I do not understand the rationale for changing it.
Instead, we should try to channel what we currently have into a appealing and recognizable brand. Even if that means slightly touching up the logo to adapt some of the elements that might have been hip a while ago, but would seem rather quaint in a current design. I completely agree that this can't be a matter of somebody toying around with Inkscape a bit (no offense!), but discouraging everybody from addressing the issue at all while at the same time not bringing anything to the table yourself also isn't particularly productive.
There's so much that can be done to improve the website, I'm reluctant to put time and energy into redesigning the logo.
