incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Lauder <g.a.lau...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Moving ahead with the AOO logo and rebranding
Date Sun, 08 Jan 2012 14:55:43 GMT
On Wednesday 04 Jan 2012 11:14:53 Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi Rob;
> > 
> > JIC someone with a lot of spare time gives a try
> > on this logo thing ... I have some questions.
> > 
> > What would be the implications (if any) of using
> > a legally licensed commercial font?
> 
> Our ability to use such a logo would depend on the specific terms of
> the font license.
> 
> But in general, a commercial font license might lead to restrictions
> on how we redistribute images using the font.  For example, we might
> only be able to redistribute rasterized bitmaps of a logo, but not a
> scalable vector image that included a font glyph definition as well.
> A commercial font might also restrict who in the project is able to
> modify the logo or create derivative logos for the benefit of the
> project.
> 
> I'm not sure any of these are killer objections to the use of a
> commercial font.  But I think we'd want a strong design reason for not
> using a font with few or no restrictions.

+1, the old font was a commercial one: Frutiger, which caused all sorts of 
issues when being used by the community Artists.  There are plenty of similar 
fonts about.  The "best" solution was Liberation Sans at 60% IIRC.  But that 
was just to try and maintain the old logo look as close as possible.  

My personal opinion is; if we can't bundle the font with the software then we 
shouldn't use it.    Of course, it should be added there is absolutely no 
reason why a font should be used at all in the main logo. Taglines and 
positioners perhaps and a free font should be used in things such as 
splashscreens, but the logo can be a graphic that looks like text.  I've added 
a couple of proposals based on a graphic that was created in a vector editor, 
no fonts used, created as needed.

To much focus on Text/Font style in branding is a part of an old paradigm.  
This was put in a style guide so that signwriters could easily retain 
corporate branding out on the high street.  We don't do High street, we are 
internet based.  We just have to make our branding easily available to those 
who want to distribute it. 
That is is the power of the internet after all.


> 
> > Ariel pointed to some nice splash screens done
> > previously in the Wiki, can those be (re)used
> > as a starting point?
> 
> I have no objections.  But I think right now we're talking about the
> general theme of the Drew's logo proposal, i.e., the distinctive
> design elements of:
> 
> - text
> - color

Broader than this, we are talking pallet, aesthetics, emotive response.  

> - type face

necessary, only if a designed font face is used as part of the graphic

> - spacing
> - background
> - embellishment.
> - and so on
> 
> If there is consensus on that, then there will be follow up design
> work to incorporate that logo into a variety of locations, including a
> splash screen.  But I think there is a hesitation to invest in that
> additional work until we're sure the basic design is OK.

Which of course is completely the wrong way round.  

Define the look and feel first, the logo should fit that.  
Answers first:
What is our target Market
What is our aesthetic, 
how do we want the market to percieve us.  
How do they percieve us now, 
do we want to change that perception, 
   
This is not about what the people on this list consider is aesthetically 
pleasing to them, but what the people who are going to download the software, 
think is best.

I would like to see a selection of branding elements, in particular: Pallet, 
logo and name, several of each and then survey our "customers" via the 
announce list to find their preferences.  Any brand suggestions should include 
all of the above including an explanation that defines the aesthetic and where 
it positions the product in terms of the market as well as target market.  

Voting on the list is a particularly bad and limiting way to make these sorts 
of decisions, especially without any research whatsoever.

It has been itterated on a number of occasions that  Apache is about building 
communities, what better way to bring the community together than giving them 
the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way and demonstrating to them 
that the project actually cares about their opinions.

I've put together a prenotification to go out on the announce list to ask 
people to participate in a survey and I'm putting together some questions for 
the respondents to that mail to answer. This would be a good apportunity to 
run this past a wider audience.


Cheers
GL  


> 
> -Rob
> 
> > cheers,
> > 
> > Pedro.
> > 
> > --- Mar 3/1/12, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > ...
> > 
> >> 2012/1/3 Pavel Janík <Pavel@janik.cz>:
> >> >> we would use (TM).  At some point, say after we
> >> 
> >> actually have a
> >> 
> >> >> release, then we could ask Apache to pursue
> >> 
> >> registration for "Apache
> >> 
> >> >> OpenOffice"
> >> > 
> >> > Why would we do so if we know that Sun/Oracle could
> >> 
> >> not get it registered (and thus have chosen OpenOffice.org
> >> instead)?
> >> 
> >> We're talking about the full mark, "Apache
> >> OpenOffice".  I have no
> >> reason to think this could not be registered.
> >> 
> >> In any case, we already discussed this, voted, and the
> >> choice was
> >> "Apache OpenOffice".  We're now talking about the
> >> graphical ogo that
> >> will reflect that name.
> >> 
> >> > --
> >> > Pavel Janík

Mime
View raw message