openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Moving ahead with the AOO logo and rebranding
Date Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:51:26 GMT
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Graham Lauder <> wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 Jan 2012 11:14:53 Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Pedro Giffuni <> 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.

It is useful to make a distinction between:

1) How we make decisions in this project


2) How gather information to inform our individual opinions.

In the end decision making in the project will be a factor of many
things, including who has the initiative to do the work.   We make
decisions by consensus wherever possible (including "lazy consensus")
and by voting where necessary.  Our opinions might be fed by surveys
and quantitative data, or by experience, or by debate on this list, or
by a myriad of other factors.

So in the end, yes, the decision will be made by the opinions of those
on the list, specifically the PMC members.  And in the end the success
of the project will depend on us making a large number of right
decisions, and a relatively small number of bad decision.  But how we
decide is as important as what we decide.

> 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.

I believe that the value of the logo is even more critical for those
who are potential users (the largest segment of the "target market"),
and therefore are not on our announce list.

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

I agree that research can only help us make better decisions.

> 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 think that you are demonstrating just fine that anyone can join this
list and give 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.

It would be great if you posted your drafts to this list and/or the wiki.

> Cheers
> GL
>> -Rob
>> > cheers,
>> >
>> > Pedro.
>> >
>> > --- Mar 3/1/12, Rob Weir <> ha scritto:
>> > ...
>> >
>> >> 2012/1/3 Pavel Janík <>:
>> >> >> 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
>> >> 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

View raw message