incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:16:50 GMT
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