19

It's safe to say that after quite a discussion, the general consensus is that we should add "Wolfram Language" as sub-text to our header image. Now, the question is what exactly should we put there. I prepared 3 versions of things I like the most, where "Mathematica and Wolfram Language" is my favorite. However, there are several other possibilities that were proposed. Basically all these

StringRiffle[
 StringJoin /@
  Tuples[{
    {"Mathematica\n"}, 
    {"and ", "& ", "/", "Powered by "},
    {"the ", ""},
    {"Wolfram Language"}}
  ],
  "\n\n"
]

If you like you can download the SVG and grab Inkscape to make another suggestion.

As pointed out by C.E., StackExchange seems to like the & in its site names which might be of help when choosing:

Unix & Linux, Programming Puzzles & Code Golf, Music: Practice & Theory, Motor Vehicle Maintenance & Repair, Software Quality Assurance & Testing, Anime & Manga, Board & Card Games, Psychology & Neuroscience, Gardening & Landscaping, Veganism & Vegetarianism Stack Exchange

  • 2
    I know this has been discussed elsewhere, but can we insert the article "the"? That's the way it's used on official sites such as wolfram.com/language/uses and sounds a little better to my ears. – Chris K May 1 at 10:34
  • @ChrisK Which one is your favourite? "Mathematica and the Wolfram Language"? – halirutan May 1 at 12:34
  • 1
    Either "Mathematica and the Wolfram Language" or "Mathematica & the Wolfram Language" are OK with me – Chris K May 1 at 13:01
  • 1
    @ChrisK Since the "and" version seems to lose against the "&" version anyway, I chose the latter one. – halirutan May 1 at 13:07
  • 2
    How about "Mathematica & Lingua Wolframica", just to emphasize the scientific side of the programming language and to have a better rhyme for the subtitle? ... Just kidding. – István Zachar May 3 at 7:45
19

enter image description here

This is how it looks on the main site

web

  • 4
    Relevant: There is precedence for using & on SE – Carl Lange May 1 at 8:56
  • Might be worth to add an example screenshot of how the logo would look like on the actual site (as you did for the grey "&" version already). Also, how would the Meta variant look like? Just a third line? – Lukas Lang May 1 at 10:12
  • 2
    Looking at some other examples of sites with long names (e.g. CS Theory, SO in Portuguese and English), it seems most favor the "Meta" tag to the right – Lukas Lang May 1 at 10:18
  • 1
    @CarlLange Also on basis of these examples, the whole title text tends to be in the same color, with one exception where ampersand is in a different color. Usually logos with smaller number of colors are considered better. I'm not certain why "Mathematica" and "(the) Wolfram Language" should be in different colors... – kirma May 2 at 9:34
  • One thing that might be nice whenever the actual logo is made might be to increase the spacing between the & and Wolfram Language. Currently the coloring/spacing makes the & Wolfram Language all visually blend together. – b3m2a1 May 3 at 18:20
9

Requested by b3m2a1

enter image description here

but remember that we already have a gray pattern in the background

enter image description here

  • Appreciate it! Many thanks – b3m2a1 May 1 at 8:58
  • 1
    I like the grey ampersand because it makes "Wolfram Language" stand out more. Also, I think the Mma font could be a couple of points smaller or WL a point or two larger. – Edmund May 1 at 12:42
  • 3
    I think it brings attention to the ampersand, which is not really helpful. I consider it visual clutter. – C. E. May 1 at 15:44
  • 3
    I feel the same. One could reduce the brightness further, but then it would definitely fight with the background. The other thing is that it introduces another "color", while otherwise the image would only contain colors that are already in the graphics. But I cannot vote since I posted the answers. – halirutan May 1 at 15:47
  • 1
    @C.E. and halirutan, I have mixed feelings, indeed it looks worse on the first image but it somehow it is more readable in our background as the & 'fades' away. – Kuba May 2 at 9:43
5

enter image description here

This is a version where no conjunction or other qualification is present.

The connotation is clear, namely that Mathematica is related to Wolfram Language.

The underlying premise here is that the precise nature of their relation is not necessary to be qualified in a banner.

@gwr suggested that screenshots showing how this banner solution would integrate to the site would be helpful:


Here's how the main site will look like under the suggested banner:

enter image description here


And, here's how the meta site will look like under the suggested banner:

enter image description here

  • 3
    I would be happy with this. There's no real reason to have the conjunction - we can let users fill it in in their brains. – Carl Lange May 1 at 22:46
  • This is like the conjunction of all other solutions: it could be „&“ or „and“ or „powered by“ or „built by“. To make this win the beauty contest there should be screenshots to show how this would look on the site. – gwr May 2 at 7:27
2

As requested by ChrisK

enter image description here

This is how it looks on the main site

web

  • Ampersand and "the" Wolfram Language are my preferred option combinations. If we are to add it to be more in-line with the development of the program & language, then this seems to be the only logical option. I don't see an image of "and the Wolfram Language", though. – CA Trevillian May 2 at 4:44
  • 2
    Having to add „Language“ explicitly feels strange in itself, it is like having to add „science“ to a field because otherwise it is not obvious. Adding „the“ for me reads like a step over the top. – gwr May 2 at 7:25
  • @gwr this justification is appropriate, thank you for helping to explain it to me, and allow me to accept the deletion, as we will just autofill it in our minds :D – CA Trevillian May 6 at 6:56
-2

enter image description here

This is how it looks on the main site

web

-7

enter image description here

  • I don't like this one because it adds more confusion than it has benefits. E.g. future visitor could think the site itself is somehow powered by WL. Am I stupid?, maybe. – Kuba May 1 at 8:50
  • @Kuba It was one of the suggestions and I do my best to be objective :) – halirutan May 1 at 8:52
  • 7
    I know, my comment is just meant to prevent it from winning :) – Kuba May 1 at 8:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .