Warren Harris
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.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk