<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
A <a
href="http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2008-December/051836.html">call
has gone out</a> for a new logo for Haskell. Candidates (including a <a
href="http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Image:Haskell-logo-revolution.png">couple</a>
of <a
href="http://www.haskell.org/sitewiki/images/f/fd/Ouroborous-oval.png">mine</a>)
are accumulating <a
href="http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Haskell_logos/New_logo_ideas">here</a>.
There has also been a long thread on the Haskell Cafe mailing list.<br>
<br>
I've lived through a couple of corporate rebranding exercises in my
time, and I've read about some others. They follow a pattern:<br>
<ol>
<li>Management decide that the organisation needs a makeover to
change public perception. A new corporate "look and feel" is part of
this, and a new logo is therefore required. The rest of the makeover
may be deep or shallow; that doesn't affect the rest of this story.</li>
<li>The new branding is released with as much fanfare as possible.
Press releases are released. Staff are given briefings about the
significance of the whole exercise and the bold new future that it
symbolises.</li>
<li>The staff universally agree that the new logo is not a patch on
the old one. The old one was a much loved friend; it stood for
something; people have spent years working for it. The new one is
obviously a piece of cheap gimcrackery munged up by an overpaid
consultancy hired by senior managers who mistake image for substance.
A ten year-old with an Etch-a-Sketch could have done better.</li>
<li>Over time the new logo blends in and becomes part of the
scenery. Years pass. Go to stage 1 and repeat.</li>
</ol>
This suggests that the current effort to find a new logo for Haskell
needs to go back to the basics. Its no good expecting consensus on one
of the suggestions because there are too many options and everyone has
their favourite. Nothing will attract a majority of the community. <br>
<br>
Furthermore I think that (just like programmers everywhere) we have
dived into development before deciding what the requirements are. This
is reflected in the mailing list discussion, where two broad positions
seem to be emerging.<br>
<ul>
<li>On one side we have what I think of as the "Vulcans". This group
sees Haskell as abstract and difficult, and believes that the logo
should reflect these qualities. They want mathematical symbols to
dominate the design.</li>
<li>On the other side we have the "Warm Fuzzies". They want Haskell
to be perceived as accessible and welcoming, and so want a logo
featuring something warm and friendly.</li>
</ul>
A paradox of the Haskell world is that, while the language is Vulcan,
the community around it is dominated by Warm Fuzziness. Clearly the
two are not mutually exclusive.<br>
<br>
A rebranding exercise needs to start with a short list of adjectives
that the brand is to represent, and I think that the Haskell community
needs to decide this before it fires up Inkscape. To that end, here
are a sample of adjectives in alphabetical order:<br>
<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;">abstract, academic, </span><span
style="font-style: italic;">accessible, </span><span
style="font-style: italic;">accurate,
adventurous, business-like, communal, complicated, dangerous,
different, easy, exciting, familiar, friendly, fun, fuzzy, hard,
interesting, inventive, precise, productive, profitable, reliable,
revolutionary, safe, simple, strange, supportive, warm, welcoming.</span><br>
<br>
What are the top three adjectives we want to project? Once we have
decided that, we can write a brief for the Haskell logo.<br>
<br>
Note that the selected adjectives need not be related. In fact they
may be partly contradictory. I've
already noted that the language is Vulcan whereas the community is Warm
and Friendly. So they might reasonably be the three adjectives (though
I wouldn't take "Vulcan" too literally). The challenge will then be
for the graphical work to project these qualities, even if they seem
incompatible.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>