Warren Harris <warrensomeb...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi Jon,
>
> I agree with much of your rant, and would agree that the
> logo is probably the least interesting about haskell, but I
> think that it's worth spending a little time to spiffy up
> haskell's image from a marketing perspective.
I don't disagree with that. I'm complaining about the
method...
> Although I downplayed much of my design decisions by
> focusing on the logo's t-shirt potential, I just wanted to
> say that a lot of thought did go into the design aspects
> of what I sent out.
I don't dispute that either. My point (about lack of
justification) was not that people didn't put thought into
their efforts, but that there's no mention of it on the
listing.
> A logo needs to be a crisp graphic, needs to draw people
> in who don't yet understand ("pure lazy fun-- huh?" or
> "what's with that Amtrak symbol?")
That's where that particular design falls down. >>= is an
ugly symbol in the first place, and while the pun with a
lambda in the middle provides some intellectual
satisfaction, it doesn't outweigh the fussiness of its shape
or the irrelevant associations. I hadn't thought of Amtrak,
but it made me think of the flags of Mozambique and South
Africa.
> This is all off in the realm of marketing psychology,
> which is a far cry from programming language design, but
> important in the overall product perception nonetheless.
Again, I don't dispute the importance, but...
> The other thing about this logo design that is so great is
> the community process that's creating it. It's the open
> source process in a nutshell -- the brightest minds playing
> off each other to build something bigger than the sum of
> the parts.
That could happen, but a vote by people who haven't been
given a clue isn't the way to get there.
> So even if the new logo ends up looking like something
> that rolled down hill collecting rubbish, the story behind
> it will be brilliant -- like a family photo reflecting who
> we are and how we do things here.
Maybe so, but the story isn't what's important as far as
your first point is concerned.
> I hesitated in sending my write-in candidate in the first
> place because I didn't want to derail the process that's
> underway,
derailing it is necessary if we are to get "the brightest
minds playing off each other"
> Now at the risk of further muddling things, I'll just say
> that I like your idea of focusing on the :: symbol, and
> just wanted to provide my interpretation:
That design is more like it! I would vote for that.
> I think that's not bad either, although I think it loses a
> little of the distinction and intrigue of Pollard's lovely
> monad/lambda symbol with its curved edges.
In the absence of the :: version, I'd might go for that one,
but I think it really isn't simple enough, though to
properly decide between them, we'd have to try them out on
non-Haskellers.
--
Jón Fairbairn jon.fairba...@cl.cam.ac.uk
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
