incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:03:53 GMT

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.

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.

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