On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 22:02:19 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
I just asked because I was genuinely interested in your
background, not because it would be particularly relevant for
this discussion. However, please understand that when your
answer to a question for design references is "everything you
saw in the supermarkets" and a shop you do software engineering
for, I have somewhat of a hard time taking you seriously. You
probably wouldn't talk like that to (former) colleagues, would
you?
It's pointless naming brands i've worked on because there have
been so many over the years and the gamut is so wide. Also i
guarantee you will of never heard of them because many groups use
different brand names for each country. This is part of my
argument. When these large groups take over smaller brands they
homogenise them but keep the brand identities as they were, there
is simply too much at stake in changing them.
See this chart: http://i.imgur.com/k0pv0.jpg
I've been involved in most of the brands from all of those
international groups.
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 22:02:19 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
You probably wouldn't talk like that to (former) colleagues,
would you?
Yes we do because we're all in the same boat. It's no big deal
after so much time.
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:02:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
We don't have any recognizable branding worth fighting for. I
can't even remember how current D logo looks like without
checking the website, it is just some image in the corner of
the page. "Branding" is something bigger than that.
But you recognise it when you see it!
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:56:39 UTC, Shammah Chancellor
wrote:
The change that w0rt put together as a showcase is not a
redesign of the logo. All he did was stylize it for the
design of the website he put together -- which looks fantastic!
But it's completely the wrong way of going about it. The website
should be designed to a specification and part of that
specification will be to respect the identity of D, including the
logo. Just saying i needed to redesign the logo because it didn't
fit with my website design is total poppycock. If we as a
COMMUNITY are going to redesign the site it should be done by
people who already know this! I applaud w0rp's efforts but to be
honest we need it doing properly.
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:56:39 UTC, Shammah Chancellor
wrote:
I realize you may not think so, but the current logo is not
very attractive.
In your opinion but that still doesn't matter, it is the official
D brand!
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 11:56:39 UTC, Shammah Chancellor
wrote:
Can we please delegate some control of the website to someone
who's already put a substantial amount of work into making a
modern and attractive version (w0rt) of it.
I don't think that's a good idea as i honestly think his attitude
and the design are both very amateurish. (See the first reply of
this thread.)
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
I understand and sympathize where you're coming from, but I
think it's less important than one might think. Golang's logo
is a stupid-looking gopher that looks like it was drawn by a
4-year-old.
That is a homage to plan9 and immediately recognisable further
supporting my stance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language)#Mascot
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
D's community & recognition is still very small, comparatively.
If anything, now or near-future is the perfect time to rebrand
& relaunch.
This is for Walter and Andrei to okay not some amateur rolling
his own because it just so happens to go with a site design he's
working on and without any input from the community.
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
* D is a brand, whether you like it or not
Yes, but frankly not yet widely recognized.
But it is recognised and been in use since 2006!
http://media.sukimashita.com/d/
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
* D has a history of poorly managed change
Hmmm... perhaps, but it can afford to "break stuff" still since
there likely aren't more than a couple dozen companies with
large, critical D projects in production.
It is never ok to "break stuff" and this attitude needs to start
being re-examined not only as it pertains to the logo but through
the entire community. As for users and how they use D, this is
such an poorly reasoned argument in fact you've probably just
made those figures up. All we know at present is that the *vast*
majority of D users are unknown in what they do. Another reason
to keep things stable and recognisable.
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
* D's community has been destroyed once before (Tango)
For substantive reasons, not branding.
Maybe not but i'm highlighting how vast damage can be done by
doing something without thinking of the consequences to the
community.
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
Then those underlying problems (usability, reliability, general
quality) insofar as they are real issues need to be to be
fixed, and current D users need to evangelize -- otherwise any
branding efforts will be ineffective. Again, languages have a
pretty low bar from a marketing perspective -- the big hurdles
are elsewhere. I agree that some basic aura of professionalism
and stability are necessary.
The product and brand are one. They are not separate as you have
remarked. Thought needs to be put into both.
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 16:58:06 UTC, Jared wrote:
Ideally a "Design & Web Czar" would just make behind-the-scenes
executive decisions about all this stuff, no NG discussion
needed.
I agree but with a title like that they better have the
experience and professionalism to carry that task well.
I think people are completely missing the main point here in that
D needs to grow up and start being professional about everything.
Gone are the days when we can mess around with the compiler and
standard lib and now increasingly we have to settle on a brand
and stick to it!
Let's face it D is an awesome language, i know that, you know
that but it's not gaining traction as fast as it should. The
reason behind this is user perception as most devs have heard of
it but decide not to use it.
The only way D is going to succeed is through better marketing.
Marketing of its features and strengths all backed up by a strong
web presence and brand!
