incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: [WWW] rebranding...
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:36:59 GMT
Let's take this knot apart and work it more systematically.

 1. I think there is alignment on what the logo is for Apache OpenOffice (incubating), in
terms of text with gulls.  That takes care of the one main logo.

 2. With regard to branding on the web properties, and the references to Apache OpenOffice
and OpenOffice.org, I agree that it has to be staged properly and it is important to be clear
when the context is OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 and earlier and when is about Apache OpenOffice pending.

 3. I think a priority concern should be branding and links in the *releases* from the podling,
including binary releases from the podling as well as the source release.

  3.1 I've done one analysis of the Windows install that shows all of the places branding
and branded-dependencies show up just in the installation process: <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Win-en-x86-Setup>.
 There is more to do simply in identifying all of the places where branding matters.  
 
  3.2 There is more related to the install, including the setup of icons for use by the Windows
Explorer shell, text content in the installed location, etc.

  3.3 Then there is the branding in the execution of a binary release, in dialogs, in links,
in embedded and on-line help, in the handling of extensions and in the treatment of availability
of updates, whether it is just a matter of URLs that are exercised from within the executable.

 4. Under the ASF, there may also be some nuances regarding what a downstream provider of
a binary release must do to honor Apache marks and not create confusion with "official" podling
releases.  (There are some authentication considerations here as well.)

I'm devoting as much of my attention as I can to (3) strictly from a QA perspective -- i.e.,
systematic identification of all the places where an end-user of a binary release will encounter
branding in some form. When there is enough on the wiki where it is all visible and the cleanups,
substitutions can be made visible, I think that will work well.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 16:17
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [WWW] rebranding...

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a bit of a discussion has ensued re
the
>>>>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the existing logo on
that
>>>>> site.
>>>>>
>>>>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Evolution-wise, at some point we'll have a logo without the
>>>> "incubating" in it. Hopefully we can slow the pace of branding changes
>>>> after that ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but should anticipate
>>>>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache OpenOffice"
as
>>>>> well?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would not do a batch search and replace of OpenOffice.org to Apache
>>>> OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>>> A few considerations (these are my opinions only, of course):
>>>>
>>>> 1) Some places legitimately should be called OpenOffice.org, e.g.,
>>>> references to legacy downloads, documentation for legacy releases,
>>>> etc.   OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 did not magically become Apache OpenOffice
>>>> 3.3.0.  It is still OpenOffice.org.
>>>>
>>>> 2) If we're discussing historical information, like the history of the
>>>> project, then we would still use OpenOffice.org in that context, just
>>>> as we still refer to "StarOffice".
>>>>
>>>> 3) I would not change something that is considered a "record", like a
>>>> past communication or letter or email or press release, etc.  If
>>>> something was an authorized communication of the project, we should
>>>> respect the words it used at the time.
>>>>
>>>> 4) But in general, we want to be consistent in the new branding as
>>>> "Apache OpenOffice".   It should be clear to a user that this is the
>>>> branding and any other use should be a historical context.
>>>>
>>>> 5) It should be fine to refer to "Apache OpenOffice" initially on any
>>>> given page and then unambiguously refer to "OpenOffice" for
>>>> repetitions.  We don't need to use the full form over and over and
>>>> over again on the same page.  But we should use the full form on the
>>>> first occurrence on a page.
>>>>
>>>> 6) Maybe just start with the logo, the page footer and prominent other
>>>> pages, e.g., the blog, top level navigation on the website, how to get
>>>> involved, etc.  I don't see much value in "hunting" for millions of
>>>> occurrences of "OpenOffice.org".  But maybe we can search for all
>>>> <title> and <h1>'s that use that term?
>>>
>>> I just put the new Apache OpenOffice incubating logo on the project blog, changing
the project name.
>>>
>>> One possibility would be to make logo changes to the banner based on whether
the information is for a current release vs. information that is being updated for the project.
>>>
>>> It would be possible to make the top logo choice at the folder level.
>>>
>>
>> I'd avoid that approach.  The logo that is on every page is part of
>> the site branding.  It is like the footer.  It is an attribute of the
>> site, not the specific page.
>>
>> Things that appear in the body of the page, between the header and
>> footer banner, there we might have some good reasons to refer to
>> OpenOffice.org, and maybe even show the old logo.  But the site and
>> the project are Apache OpenOffice.  There should never be an occasion
>> for removing the site branding from a page.
>>
>> Remember, someone could visit a page from an external URL reference.
>> When they are dropped onto a page it should be obvious to them that
>> this is the Apache OpenOffice project.  It might also be obvious to
>> them that they are viewing documentation for OpenOffice.org, but we
>> should not need to drop the AOO branding in order for this to work.
>>
>>> download and api might remain with the old logo until release.
>>> why would remain legacy until it is updated.
>>> NLC projects could all be changed over. We want them to come to us.
>>>
>>> Do we want to pursue a pragmatic approach like that?
>>>
>>
>> Consistency on site branding is pragmatic, IMHO.
>
> My concern is users going to download.openoffice.org and thinking that they are downloading
Apache OpenOffice when they are downloading OpenOffice.org.
>
> I am also concerned that when they look at API docs on api.openoffice.org for the legacy
codebase they don't think they are looking at the API for Apache OpenOffice.
>

And if they start from a page that says Apache OpenOffice and view 5
other pages that say Apache OpenOffice, and then go to a page the
subtly changes the logo, then the user will also think they are
downloading an Apache release -- unless you take other and much more
obvious precautions.  I don't think you can avoid that.  A
Subtle".org" in a logo is not really adequate.  We should probably
have a prominent note on the download there that makes it clear that
this is not ALv2 code, but a legacy LGPL release.

As for API doc, version to version differences are more critical than
the difference between the OOo and AOO version.  A developer needs to
make sure they are looking at the right info, and the subtle change of
logo is not going to help much.

> The logo at the top is going to be subliminally the wrong message. It's a subtle point.
This is why I think we should wait to change the logo until we are offering an Apache OpenOffice
download from openoffice.org.
>

I'd recommend avoiding subliminal messages altogether.  Have
consistent branding for the site and the project, and then where there
is an important distinction to make, make it clear, in writing.  I
think you expect too much from the visitor if you think they will take
a subtle change of logo as implying something significant and specific
rather than just an error.

An alternative, for example, would be to have a consistently styled
<div> that we could place on selected pages, saying something like
"Note: the content on this page pertains specifically to the legacy
OpenOffice.org release X.Y.Z.  This information is subject to change
when Apache OpenOffice is released".

I think that addresses your concern in a better way.

-Rob

> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts on this?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> MzK
>>>>>
>>>>> "You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
>>>>>  with strange cats."
>>>>>                                                  -- *Colonial American
>>>>> proverb*
>>>
>


Mime
View raw message