Update on the F# Logo Project

[Reed Copsey, Jr.]

Thank you everybody who voted for the F# logo.  We received quite a few votes, and a large amount of comments.

The F# community is a passionate one.  We received a large amount of opinionated, detailed responses with some good, focused feedback from the survey.  We are now taking all of this feedback and going back to the designer to try to incorporate it into another round of logos, and are planning to open up a second round of voting to the public to choose the final design.

As for the voting results themselves.  We found that the first two concepts (which are very related) definitely got the highest ratings overall in the votes, both before and after weighting the results by the donation weightings.  Concept 2 had a very slight edge (about 2%) in ratings over concept 1.  Concept 5 and 6 garnered the most passionate responses, with a high number of "10" votes, but also a high number of "1" votes, though 5 was definitely preferred over 6.

Happily, many people also contributed great constructive feedback on all of the designs.  This feedback is being compiled now to go to the designer and further refine the concepts preferred by the community.

We also wanted to extend an invitation to the community here to provide a forum for open discussion on the logo concepts and ideas.  Please feel free to provide feedback or discuss the designs here, though any feedback already provided via the survey will be included.

Thank you, and we all look forward to receiving your comments and feedback!

-Reed Copsey

[Ben Taylor]

Thanks for providing this forum for discussion.  I have voted and provided comments.  This morning I decided to do some "research" on Twitter.  It is about programming logo preference in general, rather than F# specifically (and the concepts under discussion).  However, there has been some F# specific discussion amongst the responses.

You can follow along by viewing the original tweet and seeing the responses here https://twitter.com/bentayloruk/status/477100097352658944

I have one initial question.  As per my votes and responses, I don't particularly love any of the current concepts.  I know this is a hard thing to do and we all have different tastes, so I appreciate that I could be a minority voice here.  However, I have strong opinions that the logo is an important part of language adoption (read Thinking Fast and Slow, we are NOT rational beings! :) and I want people to love the logo (like it seems people love the Clojure logo) and get that fresh, modern, warm and fuzzy feeling when they see it.  So my question is, is there the possibility of doing additional concepts, or are the votes such that you will be moving forwards with one of the existing concepts?

[Paulmichael Blasucci]

I'm glad to see some constructive discussion on this important subject. I think it's very important to stress a few key points:

1. These are concepts, rather than finished products. So there is still a lot of room for change.

2. We are very open to feedback. This includes comments on the existing concepts. But also means that folks are welcomed to suggest new and different directions as well.

So, bottom line: we'd like to see a constructive discussion, which is open to the whole community. When it seems there's been ample conversation, we'll aggregate all the feedback and have April (the designer) incorporate the work into another iteration. This will almost certainly yield a mix of new concepts and improved versions of the current batch. 

Thanks, again, for the feedback. Let's keep building an awesome language community.

- Paulmichael Blasucci

[Ben Taylor]

Thanks for highlighting these points Paulmichael.  I totally understand that we are at the concept stage, rather than the final design.  I've had a lot of experience working through the design process and appreciate the difference.

Is there any reason not to publish the voting results and comments (where the voter approves)?  We have all provided votes and feedback, so starting the discussion again here, without access to the data, seems a little redundant.  I for one would be interested to read the feedback and see if we can use that to get some feedback consensus.  I also think it would be good to have total transparency in the process, for obvious reasons.

My totally unscientific Twitter convo yesterday with a very small sample size showed a lot of love for the Clojure logo.  There was also some sentiment regarding _not_ using F# or |> https://twitter.com/rojepp/status/477109041978957824 in the design - If this was a common sentiment, then it has ramifications for all of the current candidates.

[Paulmichael Blasucci]

Ben, in all honesty, it seems unethical to post the survey responses. The poll was NOT anonymous, and we made no disclaimer of republication. We also didn't ask for said permission on the survey itself, and asking retroactively seems a bit... dodgy.

As to the Twitter findings, you'll be happy to know the Clojure logo was one of the first exemplars we showed the designer. As to other sentiments, the survey shows lots of differing opinions. Hence the desire to flesh everything out on this forum.

Thanks for continuing the conversation.

[Reed Copsey, Jr.]

Ben,

While I agree with Paulmichael about posting results - I will happily summarize them and try to address this specific issue:

On Friday, June 13, 2014 10:01:37 AM UTC-7, Ben Taylor wrote:

There was also some sentiment regarding _not_ using F# or |> https://twitter.com/rojepp/status/477109041978957824 in the design - If this was a common sentiment, then it has ramifications for all of the current candidates.

Actually, the survey showed the opposite.  There are really two questions here - whether to use F#, and whether to use the |>.

As for including "F" and "#", there was a big split, and it really shows in the voting.  Many people liked the idea of including "F" and "#" in the logo, and had comments relating to "the # isn't quite visible enough in this one" or "The F isn't recognizable enough" and similar.  In general, this group tended to (strongly) prefer concepts 3 and 4, where the "F" and "#" are very much in the forefront.

An equally large group of people had many comments to the effect that we shouldn't focus on the "F" and "#" being in the logo.  Nearly the entire group who preferred concepts 5 & 6 had comments related to this, but surprisingly, many of the people who liked concept #2 (which was the most popular, but does somewhat include "F" and "#" in a sense) also had comments to this effect, typically in their comments about the 3rd and 4th logos where it was, in their opinion, over emphasized.

The forward pipe operator comments are also very interesting - and very telling.  Unlike your twitter conversation - in the survey itself, there were 3 comments relating to dropping or de-emphasizing it, and 13 separate people who specifically called it out as a positive thing.  There were multiple comments suggesting to make the operator significantly more visible, as well - in fact, one of the comments suggested doing nothing but the |> inside of a circle as the entire logo.

I will say -  Your twitter survey is interesting, and does bring up an interesting discussion topic.  As I mentioned above, the survey really showed that people fall into two distinct camps: one group who wants a "literal" logo including "F" and "#", and one who prefers more abstract concepts (where the F# is either subtle or non-existent).  However, when looking at the logos for other programming languages which people really like (ie: ones like clojure), successful logos for languages are most often abstract.  I've never had somebody say they're favorite logo is the PHP logo, for example. The ones people tend to prefer (clojure, haskell, etc) are more abstract designs, which don't include the language name directly in the logo itself. 

I think F# falls into this strange realm where people think the logo should include "F" and "#" because it could - and the only real reason that's possible is that "F#" is short.  This caused a huge split in the voting, and is something I wanted to at least mention in the discussions for people to consider.

The advantage of having the actual "F" and "#" characters in the logo is really that it's potentially more recognizable.  This is a big advantage early on, but if F# is successful and the logo becomes more and more entrenched, the advantage here becomes less important.  A good logo will become recognizable as the brand with use and time - whether or not it is known immediately.

That being said, if you look at how programming language logos are typically used, they're almost always included with other text.  It's rare that you see a logo on a website without some other "title" that exists, as well.  An abstract logo shines in this case, as you then avoid essentially creating "[F#] The F# Programming Language", "[F#] The F# Software Foundation" or "[F#] F# Data", and instead end up with "[*] The F# Software Foundation" (where [F#] is a "literal" logo and [*] is an abstract one).  

-Reed

[Robert Jeppesen]

Very good comments, Reed!

I agree with the decision not to post the survey data. The intent to publish was never announced, so this is clearly not ok.  

In favour of an abstract logo, like Reed said, it will often be featured together with type. The sticker that, for instance, goes on your laptop would probably not have type. This is a question of courage in branding. The courage to rely on the fact that this will be a recognised brand. Until we get there, it will at least have the possibility of being a conversation starter at conferences/meetups/customer meetings. 

My issue with 'F#' and '|>' is the common misconception that FP is cryptic and a bunch of strange chars. :) Especially the '|>' is a bit too Haskell prelude to me.  'F#' in itself is aesthetically just not very pretty. Subjective, but a discussion about a logo is going to be just that.    

Fun discussion!

/Robert

[Adam Granicz]

Can someone sum up the comments in all forums (here, Twitter, etc.) and not just the logo project site - I bet this would show a more balanced opinion on the abstract vs F# issue.  I for sure belong to the abstract logo group because of three main reasons:

1) Graphics is a more powerful way to convey a lasting impression

2) The logo will most likely come with a qualifying text, as Reed pointed out

3) Whether you can make the conceptual leap or not, F# might not be called F# forever

I would also avoid "special operators" like |> or anything cryptic or over-general (like a Lambda) because they narrow the graphic impression and end up scaring (some) people away.

--
--
To post, send email to fsharp-o...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to
fsharp-opensou...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/fsharp-opensource
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F# Discussions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fsharp-opensou...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Adam Granicz, IntelliFactory
www.intellifactory.com

[Ben Taylor]

Agreed.  That is why I said "Is there any reason not to publish the voting results and comments (where the voter approves)?".  I don't see why asking the question afterwards is dodgy.  It's just a question with a Yes and No answer.  However, I have no problem if there is no appetite for it.  I was just asking the question.

I do think it is a shame that we can't see the anonymous rating data (without ID or comments).  As an open group and a group interested in data, I can't see a reason to keep that anon.

[Ben Taylor]

Thanks for such a detailed response Reed.

It is likely that peoples preference for a certain concept design, will have influenced their comments on wether they like the use of the F# or the |> operator.  1 and 2 were far and away the most polished of the concepts (and 2 was more balanced than 1) and as a result will have done better in the voting.  The abstract concepts were extremely raw in comparison.

Personally, I'm in the abstract/iconic logo camp.  Unless F# can be included in a subtle or clever way (like Boo's ghost eyes http://boo.codehaus.org/), then it seems too literal.  I like the idea of using something more iconic and representative of F# and the |> is one candidate for this.  However, I also agree that if such a thing is used, it should look good (I think Clojure got this right) and not be too cryptic or academic looking (maybe Haskell is on this side).  I also agree that F# in the logo is a bit redundant as it will always be next to the text F#.

The Clojure logo includes the lambda as negative space, and then all these lovely different coloured shapes that might represent blocks or modules (or whatever).  It looks good.

I think Robert said on Twitter that the |> was too harsh.  I would say that this is down to the design.  If the Clojure logo was just a lambda, it might seem "scary and academic",  but the design means it's not (even though it is).

We can use things in combination too.  As an example, I drew this on my iPad.  It has the softer |> and is meant to communicate modularity and chaining too.  To be clear, I am not putting this forward as a design, I'm not a designer.  However, I think it illustrates that you can combine and design a "scary" thing, into something softer.

I also scribbled this one, which has the |>, some ``, sort of F# and is meant to combine into a lambda :)

Anyway, I've rambled enough.  Personally, I think I'd like to see a new round of concepts with more developed abstract options.  The devil is in the detail with those.  I don't feel that we should only be iterating on the current set of concepts, because there is not developed abstract option.  Of course, I'm just expressing my personal opinion here and will go with the majority flow!

[Robert Jeppesen]

About the 'abstract' logos, the designer mentioned that they were illustrated without text to go with them: https://twitter.com/aibreanstudio/status/476452964228661249

This might have affected the voting. Thanks to Ben for igniting the discussion! 

[Christopher Atkins]

These are fun. I happened to be re-reading Eric Evans' DDD today, and the Kandinsky on the cover compelled me to draw the attached. While admitting I haven't read much of this thread, i want to share one comment. I've spent a good deal of time with Elixir, and they are definitely poised to coop the pipe operator as part of their public identity. Including it in the F# logo is a good move, IMO.

good move at protecting brand identity, IMO. 

[Simon Cousins]

OK, I couldn't resist it. Recursive logos generated by F# code comprised entirely of lambdas. Does it get any more functional?

[Mathias Brandewinder]

First, thanks to everybody who sent out comments here. To reiterate what has been said by Reed and Paul earlier, the designs submitted were proposals for various directions the logo could take, and were intended to trigger feedback, so that the final result is a logo that has the support of the community. So keep the comments coming :)

I was quite intrigued by some of the reactions to Ben's thread. Like pretty much everyone, I like the Clojure logo; however, I was surprised not to see mention of Python, which I find has similar qualities (not overly explicit, colorful but still professional, recognizable on its own, and composable / usable with various text elements) - and frankly very surprised to see Lua or Scala mentioned. I guess it shows that obviously people have different sensibilities, which also probably means that it will be hard to find a logo that pleases everyone.

If this helps the discussion, here is what I am looking for in a logo. I want something that is graphically recognizable, but does not necessarily say F# explicitly: I want it to be a conversation piece, so that people ask about it, and remember it afterwards - and recognizable so that as the language takes over the world, people just know what it is (like Clojure for instance).

One tricky aspect of F# compared to other languages is that first, the name is short enough that it could be the logo by itself, but it also seems that for some reason it's hard to "make it work", the combination F# is hard to balance. That's what I find interesting in trying to leverage the |> operator - unlike lambda, which is pretty generic for functional languages, |> is specific to F#, and something that has triggered some envy in other places :) However, I get the point that this might be too abstract / too scary, even though my sense is that the idea is not the scariest among FP concepts, and it's also a pretty dynamic symbol ("push forward and do stuff!"). I thought for instance that what Scott W. did with it in the F# |> I <3 worked fairly nicely, and didn't scream "crazy monoid in the category of endofunctors people" :)

I thought Adam's point about F# possibly not being called F# in the future was intriguing! I suspect it's a stretch, but at the same time, erring towards the side of symbolic over explicit would cover that.

One final thought - maybe showing the logo, in combination with text like "F# Foundation" or others, might help also see what works and what doesn't? I believe April had worked on font combinations with the various logos, that might help see things a bit differently. Just a thought.

At any rate, thanks for the constructive input, everyone - if anything, this confirms that the F# community is opinionated and diverse, which is a good thing :)

Mathias

[Mathias Brandewinder]

F# Nation!

A big thanks to everybody who voted on the initial logo concepts, and sent feedback. So far, here is what we got from your reactions:

1. Among the current concepts, the first/second one is the favorite direction,
2. Quite a few reactions hinted at the idea that a logo that was more symbolic, less explicitly tied to "F#", could be a good idea.

In that frame, here is what we propose:

1. Ask April to take concept 1/2, and refine it a bit, based on the comments you sent,
2. Ask April to propose a "symbolic"/abstract concept,
3. Leave the other existing concepts alone.

As stated above, the second part is a bit too open-ended, so any help providing her some direction would be highly appreciated. Conversely, we've asked April if she has questions that would help her take a direction that makes everyone happy.

Our thinking is that a logo revolving around the |> symbol/operator is the most promising direction. Lambdas have also been suggested, but it seems that between the Clojure and Haskell logos, the lambda theme has already been done, and |> is both distinctive (other languages are starting to borrow it...), "dynamic", and not overly scary.

That doesn't mean that Lambda is off-the-table altogether, but we think this shouldn't be the primary focus. If April finds a way to use it in a way that isn't a "me-too", why not.

So what we are looking for is a logo that we could compose with other terms, such as [logo] F# Foundation, [logo] FSharp.LibraryXYZ. In the original brief, we stated some of the language qualities as "clean, minimalist, efficient, elegant, safe" [ http://mathias-brandewinder.github.io/fs-logo/ ]

We still think these hold, but if you have any other thoughts, now would be a great time to share it. Colorful, fun, professional, something else?

That's it! We are waiting for your input and comments, and will shortly go back to the drawing board for a second iteration. Once an updated version of logo 1/2, and we have a new candidate (probably a couple of weeks), we'll see where we are, and start another round of voting, this time with sample text attached to the logos, to see better how they would work in context.

Mathias

[Paul Blair]

> We still think these hold, but if you have any other thoughts, now would be a great time to share it. Colorful, fun, professional, something else?

"Fun" is in the direction of what I want, but I'm looking for a word that expresses the sense of great *relief* that F# makes me feel, that I don't have to deal with all sorts of crap. The best word thesaurus.com could offer me was "unshackle." Or "liberating," maybe?

[Paul Blair]

The other day I sent out a mail which included a mention of F#. One of our newer non-technical employees apparently had commented about her surprise at seeing someone "drop the F-bomb" in a mail to the entire company. Something else to think about when putting "F#" in a logo...

[Volha Samusik]

While thinking of an idea with pipe I did a search for images similar to it: http://labs.systemone.at/retrievr/?sketchName=2014-07-01-22-43-56-652423.2#sketchName=2014-07-01-22-57-19-733477.1

There are a couple of eyes in the results and I realized that |> does look like an eye indeed:

Associations: 'sharp eyesight', 'seeing clearly', 'focus'...

This may be a possible direction to take for creating an abstract symbolic logo.

[Phil Nash]

Ah! I was wondering what was happening with the logo. Now I know :-)

FWIW I agree with all the sentiment regarding abstraction. I'd be supportive of tastefully orienting a logo around |> - but I have to say I didn't like the concepts that included it as an accessory. If it's in there it should be central IMHO.

After reading through the comments here it sparked some ideas. I think a concept around the idea of the old "F#: putting the fun into functional" could work out.

Then I had a flash of inspiration! Unfortunately I don't have any way to capture it in a drawing at the moment - will try and remember when I get home. But I can describe it...

The idea is that the |> is central - but we want to annotate it to explain what it does. What does it do? It takes the thing on the right and applies it to the thing on the left

So we need placeholders for the things on the left and right - make then dots, or small circles or something.

Then we need something to indicate the direction of application: a curved line (with small arrowhead on the left - or perhaps in the middle, pointing left). The line drops below the |>

Draw this out. When you step back it looks like a smiling face!

To make that a little more subtle the dots - and especially the lines - should be de-emphasised through use of colour (e.g. make the line grey).

Until I see it for real I can't decide if it's brilliant or completely awful (and which it is is likely dependent on the quality of execution - so my attempt will skew towards awful) - but any thoughts on the concept itself?

BTW, a quick doodle here (which I definitely will not be posting) is reminiscent of OS X's Finder icon - not sure if that's a good sign or bad)

[Reed Copsey, Jr.]

Hello again, F# Nation!

Thank you everybody for the feedback so far.  We've passed all of the current feedback and ideas onto April, and are ready for the second round of voting.

Given the results of the first vote, concepts 1 and 2 from the initial round have been kept in, exactly as they stood.  These two concepts were very close in their votes, but the clear "winners" in round one. In addition, April took all of the feedback, both in the surveys, but also reading from this discussion, twitter, and other places, and has created some new concepts as well.  These are directly based off feedback, suggestions, and criticisms of the first round of concepts.

We now have four concepts from which to vote.

Our goal is to have this be the final round of voting.  As such, we are making some changes to how we go about the survey, based on some issues and suggestions that arose during the first round.  First off, there was some definite bias due to coloring.  As such, all 4 concepts will now be shown using the same set of multiple color options, so the focus can stay on the logo itself.  We are also providing the option of providing suggestions for color options in this survey, separate from the logo choice.

In addition, the logos will now also be shown in context.  Each logo was placed in a mockup showing it's usage, in multiple colors, in both the fsharp.org website as well as a "custom F# library" website. This should help make it more clear how the logo would look when used.

Please go and vote at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FSharpLogo ! 

Thank you,

Reed

[Phil Nash]

Damn! I did try to reply to this thread before but my post doesn't seem to be here.

Sounds like it's too late to influence anything now - but just in case - I had an idea for a concept.

The idea is to be centred on the |> operator - but go some way to explain it too.

What does |> do? It takes the thing on the right and applies it to the thing on the left.

So we need placeholders for the left and right things, and something to indicate the direction of application.

Which brings us to my very crude sketch:

The emergent "smiley face" has echoes of "putting the fun into functional".

Obviously my sketch doesn't do it justice. Lighter shading on the arrow, for example, would make the smile less overwhelming. I think something decent could be made of it.

Perhaps academic now - but any thoughts?

[Phil Nash]

Slightly better version - having just found my iPad:

[Mathias Brandewinder]

F# Nation!

Just as we thought we were reaching a consensus on the logo project, we hit a major road bump.

The Japanese F# Community pointed out that all 4 logos currently under consideration have a very unfortunate meaning in Japanese, evoking a character along the lines of "faulty / having errors". This is clearly a major problem, and we can't have that. So first, big thanks to them for warning us - and then, we are back to the drawing board.

We need to regroup and see where we can go from there. While this was out of our control, we are really sorry for the delay - and need to figure out how to move forward. Thanks for bearing with us through this process; finding a logo that the whole community can get behind is not an easy task, and we are doing our best.

Cheers,

Mathias, Reed, Paul and Lincoln.

[Volha Samusik]

Here's one more pipe-focused version then:

This is only one of the possible 'implementations' of the idea that I was able to create with my limited skills and pixlr :) 

The basis is "pipe & the gradient". Experimenting with the font, colors, width & height, replacing 'fun' with something different, or maybe even making the whole pipe gradient wider (larger) on the left and sharper (smaller) on the right so that it would form a triangle could result in something interesting.

If F# Nation likes this initial concept, I could draw it in vector, create variations, refine it further. Your comments (especially criticism and suggestions) will be appreciated!

In any case, I believe pipe is a geometrically simple symbol which makes the idea space around it is vast, so finding a nice concept that would work is just a matter of experimenting.

[Paul Blair]

I have to say that so far of all the proposals I've seen, this is the one that speaks to me most. I'm not entirely sure if I prefer "fun" to, say, "F#", but I definitely like the way the pipe-forward is featured and the color gradient. 

[hhyloc]

That's unfortune to hear, I wonder why all the logo concept evoke such negative meaning in Japanese? Something to do with the abstracted # symbol? It's a shame cause those concepts were very good.

The concept by Volha Samusik looks good in my opinion, though I prefer we use no word at all in a logo (or somehow abstract it) and incorporate the # symbol, but then again this could evoke the negative meaning in Japanese like the previous ones..

[Chris Brockett]

By way of explanation, the problem is that the character 非, which the logo proposals (especially 3 and 4) closely resemble, is associated with meanings along the lines of  "un-", "non-", "error", "wrong-doing", in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean.  (Put a box around it, and it becomes 匪   "bandit", which isn't any better.) As logos go, this is a non-starter in East Asia.

[round crisis]

Out of all the logos I have seen, this is the one I like the most :D

[Lain-]

If that's the case then I guess it would be troublesome to come up with a logo that somehow represent F# but still avoid the 非 character. Maybe emphasize the forward pipe more? A logo doesn't have to be to litteral especial when it come in context.

[Phil Nash]

On Monday, 14 July 2014 16:45:08 UTC+1, round crisis wrote:

Out of all the logos I have seen, this is the one I like the most :D

Thanks! :-)

I was going to assume that no-one has taken my idea seriously (and that's still my working theory) but you've given me just enough encouragement to try and do one more iteration. It still showcases my clear lack of design skills, but at least is sharper round the edges ;-)

(I'm a sure a real designer could make it look more balanced)

Regards,

[)o
IhIL..

[Don Syme]

Hi all,

 

I’m really impressed with the logo project – it’s a difficult thing to get right, and iteration is needed, but it’s great to see this being a real community effort, and to see the cooperation to get an internationally-suitable logo. 

 

I’ve sent two main pieces of feedback so far privately, which Reed asked me to share. I’m no visual designer, so my feedback should be taken with a grain of salt! J

 

Firstly, I do wonder if it might be a good idea to de-emphasize (or even remove!?) the “#” sign. I quite like the way that some of existing logos for libraries give the “#” less emphasis – it is still there, but other content is brought to the fore. 

 

Secondly, I’m wondering about developing a concept around an upper-case letter “F”.  Here are some possible reasons why:

 

-          The F in F# comes from “System F” (a strongly typed lambda-calculus) as much as anything else - “Functional” and “Fun” and “Friendly” being other influences. 

 

-          The letter “F” is more or less ours for the taking.  There are languages C, D, E, and Fortran, but we really own F these days. 

 

-          It feels like there are many beautiful ways of writing “F” that could be explored

 

-          If we ever did variations on F# - for example, a variant of F# specifically for the JVM, then I’d think using an “F” variant name would be on the cards.  It would be nice to have that under the same logo/branding.  Though that’s a minor consideration really – perhaps more of an indicator that much of what most people love about “F#” is independent of the “#”.

 

These are just thoughts and are far from a design suggestion – and shouldn’t necessarily be pursued at the expense of other ideas. But perhaps a really well designed F can rival a lovely Lambda.

 

Cheers!

Don

--

[Paul Blair]

What about something that superimposed the pipe-forward and the F?  The attached is just something I put together quickly in a drawing program to see how they might fit together.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "F# Discussions" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/fsharp-opensource/FsIWfxPrxaM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to fsharp-opensou...@googlegroups.com.

[Ben Samuels]

stand back and glimpse at the fruits of over 100000 hours in paint.net

[Lain-]

I'd say it looks too similar to the Haskell logo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskell_%28programming_language%29

[Daniel Fabian]

We might play a bit with the colouring though. Because the same way that there is a colour gradient in the Haskell logo, is is done here. However, with different colours, perhaps without the gradient this might already change it significantly enough.

[Ben Samuels]

i borrowed a time machine in order to spend another hundred thousand hours working on this piece of art

almost any washed out color scheme will work - use a decent color picking tool and see for yourself

things that can improve this logo for those who want to experiment:

-use of color to create a focal point

-use of color to create a direction to the composition

-fixing the head of the lambda - i hate the shape but dunno what would look better

[Christopher Atkins]

Yet another variant on a familiar theme. The F is supporting the lambda which is being pushed into the pipe forward. Just more grist for the mill.

[Henry Cooper]

Yes! here's another seed of an idea along those lines that a real artist would have to flesh out. Reversing the F keeps it easily recognizable but I think abstract enough to use along with verbiage containing "F#". We get the F, we get the |>, and no pesky #

[Lain-]

I like your mock-up! I'm not an artist but I'd say it has potential. Here's an idea: The logo, especially the reversed F part can symbolise the wing of a bird, to represent "freedom", "fly", "librerate developers from errors".

[Henry Cooper]

the reverse F as a stylized wing - brilliant.  I had been thinking of it as possibly a banner waving backwards as the arrow shot forwards. But a wing is more poetic.  Slanting the whole symbol forwards slightly would give it even more sense of motion

[Kevin Ashton]

I like it. Also like the idea of slightly slanting it forward to give it motion. 

[Henry Cooper]

if a mascot is preferred then I think a seahorse can easily be morphed/abstracted to/from an 'F'.  The > could be incorporated as the typical belly of a highly stylized seahorse.  If a seahorse is too cutesy then a seahorse-inspired dragon works as well. This image is just a stylized seahorse I found on the net to help visualize the seahorse/dragon/F possibility:

[Roundcrisis]

seahorse dragon ... very cool who wouldn't want a t-shirt with something like that

Source: http://risachantag.deviantart.com/art/Original-Seahorse-Dragon-25414996

Also options for something more toned down

Source:http://followpics.co/simple-dragon-tattoo/

Andrea
www.roundcrisis.com

On 17 July 2014 16:00, Henry Cooper <hjco...@gmail.com> wrote:

if a mascot is preferred then I think a seahorse can easily be morphed/abstracted to/from an 'F'.  The > could be incorporated as the typical belly of a highly stylized seahorse.  If a seahorse is too cutesy then a seahorse-inspired dragon works as well. This image is just a stylized seahorse I found on the net to help visualize the seahorse/dragon/F possibility:

[Emanuele D'Osualdo]

Hi,

a friend of mine brought this discussion to my attention.
I am not an F# programmer myself but I could not stop doodling playing around with the two symbols.

Here are some suggestions, in the abstract/symbolic (no mascot) style.
They are just mockups not the final result, obviously.
Hope you'll find them of inspiration!

This one is meant to convey the idea of "fast" combining the sharp with a mathbb F

These three compose a sharp using 4 Fs

This series plays with the sharp as a grid and some of them incorporate the pipe as well

Another option is having the F casting a sharp-shaped shadow

Or one could go with a safe option: this looks like a "button" inviting you to try the language

More curvy f+sharp options

​

​

Manu

[Henry Cooper]

what you did with the pipe as a "button" works for me as a clean minimalist logo: 

​

​

--

[Gaston Cababie]

I like it :)

I believe the inverted version could also work.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F# Discussions" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fsharp-opensou...@googlegroups.com.

[Steven Taylor]

I liked your lopsided sketch style smile a little better.  I like the concept.

I also like the idea of dropping the #, and have already dropped using it in my emails.

|>

Maybe a pipe could be a wink?

--

[Sebastian Bełczyk]

This one just rocks:

It's simple but quite symbolic. 

Just love it!

[panesofglass]

I've been meaning to reply to this thread for weeks, but it's a bit of a hard message, so I've been delaying.

First, while I have been enjoying several of the designs proposed in this thread by community members, I think it important to reiterate the process the logo team established at the outset. Specifically, they decided to hire a professional graphic designer and raised funds to this purpose. The team spent time interviewing a number of candidates and selected an excellent designer who is also a developer. I think they did a fantastic job in the selection of April.

Second, the team provided a governance model for the project that you can find at http://mathias-brandewinder.github.io/fs-logo/. While some of you may have missed it, and the page is not all too easy to find, I think it behooves us all to re-read and remember the what we committed to as a community (more than just individual members). If you missed this early on, reach out to Mathias, Reed, and Paul and see if you can somehow retroactively contribute.

Finally, as someone married to a graphic designer, I can say with almost complete certainty that the designs being posted in this thread are 1) probably seen by April and 2) probably damaging the relationship with her. Designing for one person is difficult. Designing for a community is nigh on impossible. I'm sure April knew what she was getting into when she agreed to take on the project. However, I think it would do well to remember that we have selected a talented designer and to learn how best to help her design the greatest community logo ever for F#. I'm assuming the surveys have been her preferred method to date, and perhaps Reed, Mathias, or Paul can provide other avenues, should she desire them.

I certainly appreciate the zeal and excitement I've seen in this thread. I'm also quite impressed by the talent many of you possess in designing logos. This is coming from someone good at drawing and sketching but not so good at logos, so make of that what you will. ;) Nevertheless, let's re-commit to the process the team set forth at the outset and see this through.

Again, if you have questions or concerns, ping the team. You can find contact info on the logo project page linked above, re-linked here for convenience: http://mathias-brandewinder.github.io/fs-logo/

Cheers!

Ryan

[Phil Nash]

On Tuesday, 22 July 2014 03:32:25 UTC+1, panesofglass wrote:

First, while I have been enjoying several of the designs proposed in this thread by community members, I think it important to reiterate the process the logo team established at the outset. Specifically, they decided to hire a professional graphic designer and raised funds to this purpose. The team spent time interviewing a number of candidates and selected an excellent designer who is also a developer. I think they did a fantastic job in the selection of April.

I think it's valuable to remind everyone of this - especially those that may not have read the whole thread. I think everyone is really grateful to have April onboard.

 

Finally, as someone married to a graphic designer, I can say with almost complete certainty that the designs being posted in this thread are 1) probably seen by April and 2) probably damaging the relationship with her.

I would really hope that the ideas (I wouldn't say "designs") are seen by April. I think that's the whole point!

Point (2), though, really surprises me! I've worked with many graphic designers - both on a one-to-one basis and as part of larger projects. Maybe I've just been doing it wrong all this time but for me it's always been an interactive relationship to the end.

I've not seen any evidence of anyone undermining her work - but I don't think anyone (least of all a professional designer) would claim to have all the best possible ideas. The back-and-forth with, "how about this" ... "no that can't be made to work"/ "let me try and work something like that in" has always been an integral part of the process for me - and where the real value of having someone with the experience and talent of April at the centre of the process is.

A "set it up and go" approach where we only vote yes or no seems alien to me - and not really the best way of tapping in to April's talents.

Obviously I can't speak for April about how she feels about this - it would be good to hear her perspective. It would certainly be a deep shame if the wrong message has been sent here and she feels undervalued. I really don't think that's the case. I think everyone is just pitching in with some raw ideas and eager to see what, if anything, she'll make of them (and respectful of the fact that she may choose to ignore any or all of them - but at least see them). The contrast here reminds me of the difference between Waterfall and Agile projects. Whether or not you believe that to be a false dichotomy - and whatever you think of actual Agile practises - I think everyone can relate to the underlying differences and problems with the Waterfall approach. One constant I've seen in software projects is that the customer will change their mind - or refine their expression of what they want - in response to what you start giving back to them. In that case being able to take that response early and iterate on it is always the more satisfying approach.

 

Designing for one person is difficult. Designing for a community is nigh on impossible. I'm sure April knew what she was getting into when she agreed to take on the project. However, I think it would do well to remember that we have selected a talented designer and to learn how best to help her design the greatest community logo ever for F#. I'm assuming the surveys have been her preferred method to date, and perhaps Reed, Mathias, or Paul can provide other avenues, should she desire them.

I agree that designing for a community must be harder than designing for an individual. I don't think it's impossible.

I would be very surprised if the surveys were the only option - or that they usually lead to the best result. I for one would be keen to hear what other avenues are appropriate if not this thread.

Regards,

[)o

IhIL.. 

[Ben Taylor]

+1 for Phil's reply.

Given that the existing 4 logos have been scrapped, I had viewed the posts into this group as being additional material to feed into the suggestion mixer.  The original governance document says "it's important to give everyone a voice in the process".  While it mentions the surveys, I don't see it saying anywhere that we are not allowed to discuss it or make suggestions in a public group.

I hope this thread is not damaging the relationship with April.  I've certainly not seen the suggestions as being 'against' April or her work.  We are currently in a situation where we have no candidate designs and people are going out of their way to take the time to get involved and make suggestions (that might be big in Japan and/or include some of Don's follow up brief information).

Personally, I was not a huge fan of the original candidates and I expressed that in the survey.  I hope I'm free to express that here too.  There is a massive difference between my personal view of a set of 4 logos and my view of April as a person, her involvement in this project or her work in general.

[Henry Cooper]

+1 Phil and Ben.  

I think there was a misunderstanding about the ideas being posted.  I posted a couple of ideas and commented on some that were posted by others. But that's all they are - just ideas - raw material for the big brainstorm box that April is also contributing to and shaking around for inspiration and to which she is bringing her skills, judgement, and experience.  Ideas are cheap, execution is everything - that is why we hired April.  She is not being devalued by any means. We are her customers and I'm sure she appreciates more input not less at this stage since we are basically starting over again.

[Emanuele D'Osualdo]

+1 Phil
I hope I did not step on anybody's foot with my post, I was just giving some suggestions with no implications about the other proposals...just for inspiration.
I thought there were no "plain name and symbol" proposal so I drew the "button" one which somebody liked.
I also think that the 4 Fs construction has some potential, that a real designer can bring to life.

Just for fun, a slanted version

​

[Steven Taylor]

not sure what the correct protocol is... but... 

or vaguely similar to the match syntax ;-)

[Reed Copsey, Jr.]

I wanted to chime back in here.

First off - Ryan, thanks for writing in and expressing your concerns.  I understand your worry about damaging the relationship with April, but luckily, she is a stalwart professional, and was expecting much of the community feedback from the start.

To everybody else participating - 

I did want to bring up a couple of points.  First off, I do not feel that this forum has had issues which would be damaging to the relationship between April and the community.  The comments here have been very constructive, and putting ideas forth is very helpful.  We did specifically ask for, and very much appreciate, all of your great ideas and contributions, as well as the excitement and dedication towards providing ideas.  There has been some great feedback here, and it's all being seen by April.

To address some of the points raised - the surveys have not been the only channel of communication.  There has been direct feedback to various people on the team through other channels as well, myself included, during the entire process from members of the community.  We have asked for input on the GitHub page from day one, and have been actively listening and providing feedback to April through the entire process.  The surveys have been the most common, single public means of getting feedback, but that's mainly because they are a direct way to get input from the entire community in one shot, which can then be passed directly to the designer.  I am happy to listen to feedback, both here or personally, if anybody wants to make sure their voice is heard.

We do appreciate all of the feedback and ideas.  While some of the proposed ideas may not be used, they are all seen and provide ideas and inspiration. Unfortunately, we had very little input until the first round of voting (not for lack of trying!), and all of us prefer the active participation to silence.

I know we've been quiet for the last couple of weeks.  Expect to see more about this later this week, as well as some requests from all of you for input on how this moves forward from here.

Thank you,

Reed

​

[Lincoln Atkinson]

As we continue working with April, it's valuable to know what visual directions people are really enthusiastic about, and which they might not like. Along these lines, we wanted to circle back in particular to Don's comment from earlier -

What are everyone's thoughts regarding a design focused on "F" that omits the "#"?

The "#" is strongly associated with Microsoft in many people's minds. F# as a language and community is much much more than Microsoft, so for a logo that represents the visual brand of the whole ecosystem, it might be appropriate to de-emphasize this part. Other symbolism (operators? lambdas?) could be paired with the "F" instead, to suggest that "F" isn't the whole name. Or maybe you just think an unencumbered "F" is prettiest!

On the other hand, at the end of the day "#" _is_ in the language name, and "#" has become a key aspect of existing F#-related logos. It's a nice, symmetrical symbol that allows for a lot of cool design variations. Maybe removing it would be confusing to people and require frequent explanation.

What are others' thoughts on this approach?

-Lincoln, for Reed, Paul, and Mathias

[Paul Blair]

For myself, I'm fine with downplaying or omitting the # -- the logos of many languages don't contain their name. I do like the idea of laying claim to the pipe forward, especially now that it looks like other languages are picking it up.

--

--
To post, send email to fsharp-o...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to
fsharp-opensou...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/fsharp-opensource
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "F# Discussions" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/fsharp-opensource/FsIWfxPrxaM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to fsharp-opensou...@googlegroups.com.

[Lain-]

I too think we can safely omit the # part (or abstract it heavily). The forward pipe is a more attractive option here as it's unique to F# only.

[Phil Nash]

First: Thanks Reed for clarifying the situation here and putting many of our minds at rest - but thanks, again, to Ryan for raising a valid concern and getting all that out in the open. I think we're in a stronger position for it now.

Now:

On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 03:34:37 UTC+1, Lincoln Atkinson wrote:

As we continue working with April, it's valuable to know what visual directions people are really enthusiastic about, and which they might not like. Along these lines, we wanted to circle back in particular to Don's comment from earlier -

What are everyone's thoughts regarding a design focused on "F" that omits the "#"?

I'm ok with it but not super excited. My reasoning being that F# is the name (at least right now). The F is just part of the name and using it in the logo seems a little odd - like a partial identity.

That said, in addition to the disassociation from microsoft angle, it has the advantage of simplicity. In general the designs I've seen that include the # are at least very slightly more cluttered than those without (with the possible exception of Emanuele's "four-F"'s concept) - so I'm still open to it, FWIW. 

 

But overall, despite some initial scepticism, I've found the designs based around the forward pipe to be the most promising direction (as evidenced by my own submission).

I also think we haven't sufficiently explored many further abstracted options. I have to say I'm not keen on the Phi idea for some reason (even if it didn't turn out to have had any localisation issues) - but I think it was valuable to explore.

Finally, I don't think I'm alone in thinking this but, with the quality of some of the ideas that have been posted here of late I'm really keen to see what April will make of them!

[)o

IhIL.. 

[Don Syme]

For “plain F”, these may give inspiration, based on a search for “calligraphy F”

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=calligraphy+f&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X

 

It feels like there could be a design direction loosely influenced  by some of these ideas, probably with a small, de-emphasized “#” added?

 

Here is the search for “letter F”

 

Cheers

Don

 

p.s. A similar search for “calligraphy pipe” gives interesting results J

 

 

 

 

From: fsharp-o...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fsharp-o...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Phil Nash
Sent: 30 July 2014 08:34
To: fsharp-o...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Update on the F# Logo Project

 

First: Thanks Reed for clarifying the situation here and putting many of our minds at rest - but thanks, again, to Ryan for raising a valid concern and getting all that out in the open. I think we're in a stronger position for it now.

Now:

--

--
To post, send email to fsharp-o...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to
fsharp-opensou...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/fsharp-opensource
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "F# Discussions" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fsharp-opensou...@googlegroups.com.

[Don Syme]

 

 

Perhaps a variation on this one J (joke!)

 

[Robert Pickering]

When choosing a logo, for any brand, there are three choices, typographic, symbolic, or combination of the two. This blog post seems to do a good job of describing the basic difference of the three: http://www.youthedesigner.com/2012/03/20/which-makes-a-better-logo-design-typographic-or-symbol/

The general consensus seems to be that the F# logo should be symbolic rather than typographical. A common justification of this seems to be that two of the big FP languages, Haskell and Clojure, use symbolic rather that typographical logos. I'm generally inclined to think a typographical logo would be the right choice for F#, this because it's much easier to associate and typographical logo with the underlying brand and also typographical logos are much more common in the tech industry, and probably industry in general. Here I'm think of Microsoft, Google, Oracle ... the list goes on, a notable exception is Apple, but they do have a name that lends itself very well to a symbolic logo.

Anyway, I'm very happy to see the project progressing and will happily go with whatever the group decides, this is just my 0.02€

[Steven Taylor]

I prefer a lower case f, or calligraphy based upper case F.  Probably a great letter to stylise.  

Re # -- too much of an association with music.  

Please give some consideration to search engines.  Re: f-lang.  Ie what it is would increase click throughs which would add some single digit but not insignificant percentage to adoption.  

Apple swift-lang has both benefit and what it is in the branding.  Very smart.

The mark should have different contexts, one of these being text only.

[Steven Taylor]

f# is found in the keys of g,d,a,e,b,f#

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_fifths

c# has the benefit of its association to c, but otherwise not a great choice either.

On 30 Jul 2014, at 09:08, Robert Pickering <rob...@strangelights.com> wrote:

When choosing a logo, for any brand, there are three choices, typographic, symbolic, or combination of the two. This blog post seems to do a good job of describing the basic difference of the three: http://www.youthedesigner.com/2012/03/20/which-makes-a-better-logo-design-typographic-or-symbol/

The general consensus seems to be that the F# logo should be symbolic rather than typographical. A common justification of this seems to be that two of the big FP languages, Haskell and Clojure, use symbolic rather that typographical logos. I'm generally inclined to think a typographical logo would be the right choice for F#, this because it's much easier to associate and typographical logo with the underlying brand and also typographical logos are much more common in the tech industry, and probably industry in general. Here I'm think of Microsoft, Google, Oracle ... the list goes on, a notable exception is Apple, but they do have a name that lends itself very well to a symbolic logo.

Anyway, I'm very happy to see the project progressing and will happily go with whatever the group decides, this is just my 0.02€

On 30 July 2014 09:41, Don Syme <don...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

 

 

Perhaps a variation on this one J (joke!)

 

<image002.jpg>

[Mathias Brandewinder]

F# Nation!

A quick update on the logo project. As you are probably aware by now, we did run into an unexpected road bump with the previous iteration. Just as we thought the only thing we had to do was to select the Community favourite, it came to our attention that, unfortunately (and unpredictably), all the candidates shared a common problem, namely that, in Asian languages, they evoked a character with the rather problematic meaning of "faulty".

This was honestly quite a blow. As you can imagine, working with all of you to find a logo everyone in the Community likes is no small task. We were a bit burnt out by the process, and deciding what to do next took a bit of soul searching.

At the same time, we clearly can't have a logo that means "faulty" for a significant part of our Community, so we decided for a reboot.

Thanks for all the input that you contributed to the thread! We conveyed the suggestions to April, our fearless designer, and our goal is to have a couple of completely new logos done. We are now exploring options based on recent feedback from the last survey and this thread, including symbolic options based around the operators, concepts based on the letter F de-emphasizing #, and other ideas brought up here by the Community.

So stay tuned - more coming soon! In the meanwhile, we are doing our best to get this back on track, to finally get that snazzy logo we are hoping for.

Mathias, for Reed, Paul and Lincoln

[Ruben Bartelink]

>We do appreciate all of the feedback and ideas.  While some of the proposed ideas may not be used, they are all seen and provide ideas and inspiration. Unfortunately, we had very little input until the first round of voting (not for lack of trying!), and all of us prefer the active participation to silence.

I lurk a lot but really wanted to participate. I spent a good few minutes attempting to decide what to vote for. I agonised. Then I closed the tab. While I may have missed an earlier round, the problem for me is that there wasnt enough variation (e.g. including being able to downvote and upvote clearly opposing styles rather than selecting nuances from a set of ~4 that were all variations on a theme.

I [more than] suspect others have similar views.

Firstly, please take the general tone of my ideas more than the exact content of the following (I've had little experience of a logo design/selection process but like many like to think I'll know what I want when I see it :P)

If the community vote is to be a key input, I think the design of the survey is critical:

- diffferent directions alongside eachother

- upvoting and downvoting (and/or some other form of priority ranking / proxy for such a mecahnism - a la uservoice?)

- ability to spoil vote and/or say "I really just don't like any of them, can we step back please?"

- perhaps each design (maybe below the fold) might have an accompanying paragraph comparing and contrasting with the others where relevant? (Obv gut feel is a key input but for those of us without relevant background and/or having followed the debate as to the pros/cons of individual designs and that can sway things - and/or trigger comments e.g. "you say it alludes to X but I didnt get that, I think you need to accentuate effect Y' etc.)

I agree with the thrust of most of the well measured debate in the rest of the thread and remain very optimistic of a great outcome.

--Ruben

[Jamie Dixon]

Reed:

Can I make a suggestion that F#Sharp's logo should convey "making complex simple"?

Can the graphics designer come up with something that encapsulates something like that?

[Reed Copsey, Jr.]

Hello everybody!

I wanted to update you all on the status of the Logo Project.

After the unfortunate incident with the last round of designs and the way they were perceived in East Asian cultures, we had the designer go back and start over again.

We now have three completely new concepts.  All three were designed based on feedback from the community (with one directly based on a community suggestion).  Each of the concepts also includes 2 variations.

Please give us feedback and vote for your favorites at:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/fsharplogo3

We look forward to hearing from everybody and seeing the responses from this third round of voting!

Thank you,

Reed, for Mathias, Paul, and Lincoln

[Michael Ciccotti]

I like all three of these icons.  A few notes on how to make the first one better and which ones I like best.

For icon 1, the use of black to give it a sort-of MC Escher style 3-d appearance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_triangle ) is a neat effect.  I think it would be improved by a somewhat more minimal use of black -- this particular icon feels very heavy because of it.  Also, looking at the other two designs currently under consideration, plus the other language icons linked from here (http://mathias-brandewinder.github.io/fs-logo/), its noticeably wider than most.  I think it would benefit from more square or more tall dimensions.

For icon 2, I really like the second variation (the one where the top and left segments are joined), since they reduce the visual complexity to a more manageable level.  The first variation just feels really busy.

For icon 3, again I prefer the second variation.  The first variation feels like its missing something in the bottom right corner and feels too much like it just came off of a printed page.  The second one feels more balanced, more relaxed and less busy.  My wife also pointed out that the first variation looks very like the first letter of the Ford Motor Company logo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company ).

 

For all three I prefer more color over a black and white or grey scale icon.

I would be happy with the colored variations of icons 2 and 3, and I think icon one has a lot of potential if it gets cleaned up.

Finally, is there a way to see the icons outside of the survey?  I took it earlier today but can't find a way to see them without re-opening the survey.

[Lain-]

On Friday, August 22, 2014 10:19:09 AM UTC+7, Michael Ciccotti wrote:

I like all three of these icons.  A few notes on how to make the first one better and which ones I like best.

For icon 1, the use of black to give it a sort-of MC Escher style 3-d appearance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_triangle ) is a neat effect.  I think it would be improved by a somewhat more minimal use of black -- this particular icon feels very heavy because of it.  Also, looking at the other two designs currently under consideration, plus the other language icons linked from here (http://mathias-brandewinder.github.io/fs-logo/), its noticeably wider than most.  I think it would benefit from more square or more tall dimensions.

Agree. A slightly taller logo and it will be perfect IMHO. I don't think the original variant has too much black, but the other variant indeed feel heavy because of the big black strip. Really the Escher-esque look and the use of forward pipe in this logo, I have high hope for this.

 

[Steven Taylor]

Can we see the logos without filling in a survey?

Sent from my iPod

--

[Reed Copsey, Jr.]

Greetings F# Nation!

First off, I'd like to thank everybody for voting in this last round.  We had more than three times the participation of round one, and more than twice round two!  I'm happy to say that people are getting involved, and providing a lot of feedback.

In addition, the feedback from this last round has been much better overall than previous rounds.  Not only do people, in general, seem more excited about this round of concepts, they've also provided a lot more constructive critism and ideas.

Let me start with a short recap of the voting.  For the three concepts, the votes were almost exactly evenly split.  There is only about a 2% swing from the lowest rated to the highest rated concept, and far fewer "extreme" votes and comments showing strong dislike towards any single concept.

Variations on the concepts is a far different matter - here, the voting was very clear.  For concept 1 (the diamond shaped one), variation one was a clear winner (by roughly 90%).  For concept 2 (the # built from F characters), variation 2 was a clear winner (about 60/40).  For concept 3, variation one (the cursive F) was a clear winner (about 80%).

That being said, we feel that, given the responses and voting results, we're not quite done at this point.  While the feedback has been positive, there were two common themes that arose in the feedback, both of which are very actionable.

First, for concept 1 (the diamond shaped logo), there was a lot of feedback and suggestions regarding the use of black, as well as the overall proportions.  In addition, this logo has a significant similarity to a well known logo in Japan from which we very much want to distance ourselves.  Luckily, the general feedback and ideas put forth will likely address both issues.

For concept 3 (the cursive F), there were quite a few ideas put forth on improving and refining this logo, as well.

As such, we have gone back to the designer, and are having her do some refinements on concepts 1 and 3.  Once she has completed this, we will do a final round of voting with the winning variation of concept 2 and the new refinements of logos one and three, and let the community choose which of the three, final logos will be the new logo for F#.  For the final round, our plan is to make the survey very simple - pick your favorite, and the winner will be the one with the most votes after the weighting for people who contributed financially.

Please stay tuned!  We're now very close to having our new logo.  We will reopen the voting as soon as the revisions are done, and get F# the logo it deserves.

Thank you,

Reed, for Mathias, Paulmichael, and Lincoln

[Robin Neatherway]

Thanks for the summary Reed, great to have the information. Would you
mind putting the current variations online somewhere, as now the
survey is closed I can't go back and have another look?

A couple of quick thoughts:

1. I had noticed that the first logo reminded me of something, and
when I browsed through the apps on my phone I noticed that the
"Motorola Migrate" logo has a similar shape:

https://lh6.ggpht.com/PVMyNY18Nxu9i29xi1KLlHF8navBf0EgsHVY9Ub71GQ_x6ZKCl7ggV5er562uaUvSJtS=w300

Not the most well-known logo obviously, but I thought I would mention
it. I'm interested to see how this one looks after revision.

2. For logo 2, I am one of those that prefer the second variation. I
like the emphasis on the single F, but I think the orphaned right
angle in the bottom left is a little awkward. As I can't see the
proposal currently perhaps my description isn't quite right, but I
think "fusing" it with the rest of the upper-left components would be
interesting to see. This would leave just two distinct components in
the logo: the 'F' in the bottom right and the rest of the hash shape
to the top and left.

Cheers,
Robin

[Daniel Robinson]

Agreed. Can the logos be posted elsewhere so we can look them over?

[Reed Copsey, Jr.]

Hello everybody!

The Logo Project is nearing its conclusion.  As mentioned previously, we had the designer revise the two concepts based on the feedback from the community, and have opened a final round with the three final concepts.

We are now ready for our final round of voting. In this round, we are asking you to choose your favorite from the three revised concepts. This will be used for the final logo for F#, barring any final polish required, etc.

Please vote for your favorite at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/fsharp_logo

We look forward to hearing from the entire community and deciding on our new logo from this final round of voting!

[Reed Copsey, Jr.]

Daniel and Steven - 

There are some legal reasons for not having them posted outside of the survey.

I did take this into account with this final round, though - the survey is now "one page", so you can see them without filling out anything (and even go back and change your choice later if you do it from the same device).

-Reed

[Michael Ciccotti]

Excellent!  I'm almost tempted to not vote because I think I would be happy with any of the current choices!

--
--
To post, send email to fsharp-o...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to
fsharp-opensou...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/fsharp-opensource
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "F# Discussions" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/fsharp-opensource/FsIWfxPrxaM/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to fsharp-opensou...@googlegroups.com.