Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of acolorado@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: acolorado@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksoh28=YrWVPG_=s8heSyyg3NWM=LwY6xxykPdUEkopO-WA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAP-ksoh28=YrWVPG_=s8heSyyg3NWM=LwY6xxykPdUEkopO-WA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:34:10 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAMK9kTgZyEoPL8FQJBGoLh-0DJWWKucAmx45M_sw3qidDBK=qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Need new logo for openoffice.apache.org
From: Alexandro Colorado <jza@oooes.org>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff2555e0b56be04cc7f5a71

--e89a8ff2555e0b56be04cc7f5a71
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:

> See upper left here:  http://openoffice.apache.org
>
> The "Incubating" is integrated into the graphic.
>
> The underlying file is here:  a PNG with transparent background.
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
>
> What do we want to do here?
>
> 1) Edit that graphic to remove "Incubating"?
>
> 2) Use a different graphic?
>
> Note that the http://www.openoffice.org/ site uses a different form of
> the branding.  Are we intentionally using two different logos here?
> Do we want to continue this?
>


I am confused about having the branding all disjointed, OO is used
implemented halfway, we use Oracle brand refresh elements just on certain
parts. The brand refreshed used this:
- Symbols
- Logo
- Icons
  - application
  - modules
  - filetype

There was some big drawback on the monotone look of the filetype, but for
some unknown reason there was no implementation on the modules either.
Since, we have been keeping Application logos from 3.1, modules logos from
2.4 and filetypes of 2.0.

Specifically on the logo, we have 2 versions, one with the "gulls" and the
other with the "orb". I am not sure if there is a representation.

There is also the issue with the fonts, where the fonts are not open, and
we currently don't have a specific vector format logo, between using
Nimbus, Liberation or Bitstreams we still dont have a good functional
specification.

My proposal is:
- Get rid of incubating
- Normalize the font-face of the logo
- Update the modules logo to the latest refresh
- Review new filetypes contribution

Rather than changing and implementing a new design, work on the proposals
to have a consistent look.


>
> -Rob
>


-- 
Alexandro Colorado
PPMC Apache OpenOffice
http://es.openoffice.org

--e89a8ff2555e0b56be04cc7f5a71--