Hi Nik, all, Great to have you back officially :)
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Nik <n...@tdf.nikashsingh.com> wrote: > Hi Bernhard, Christoph, all, > > I know this isn't something on our current to-do list or a priority, but > I've been watching the talk about the soon-to-be-launched Lib/O site; > http://test.libreoffice.org/ > > I know this is a work-in-progress and I see the hard work that was put into > its realisation. So I don't mean to undermine any efforts so far. > But if the site is going to be live, I'd like to help address the overall > appearance so it doesn't look so "raw". I've uploaded a couple of quick > mock-ups here; > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Nik#Interim_Website_Design_proposals Yeah, it is pretty raw. Your mockups, on the other hand, quick or not, look polished. I like the two tiered navigation design - I don't know if you saw my mockup(s), but yours is definitely better in this respect. I'm not sure if the contrast on the second tier is sufficient though. > They show a potential arrangement for the Homepage and an example of a > two-tiered navigation. > (Past usability concerns about this type of horizontal menu bar can be > addressed using some intelligent JavaScript). > If I've jumped the gun, or contributed unnecessarily on a topic that has > already been finalised, my apologies and no harm done. > I just want to help ensure Lib/O puts its best foot forward. +1. I agree with Christoph in that we shouldn't rush to get the website out at all costs (or something near that), but then again I am a bit of an idealist. The obvious problem is that as the design team, we'll need time to come up with a finalised design, and from David et al's perspective, that's time we don't have. We can always improve on the design, but, as Christoph stated, this is all initial branding. > On a less helpful note, I wrote this Email (below) some time ago in response > to the icons. For some reason it wasn't received by the list. > I've included it below because I still feel that the concern I raised should > be aired while discussion on the branding is still relevant. > I hope you find time to read it even though it is somewhat long, but I'll > understand if you don't get a chance (it *IS* Christmas after all). > > Happy Holidays everyone! > -Nik > > PS. I know this is probably more relevant to the Website list but I didn't > want to cross-post and I thought it warranted discussion on the Design list > first. > In case I've made a mistake. > > > UNRECEIVED EMAIL;---------------------------------------- > > Hi Bernhard, Christoph, all, > > Christoph Noack wrote: >> Okay, but - at the moment - you might be more interested in the page >> I've already mentioned: >> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:ChristophNoack/Initial_MIME_Icons > > Can a be a real wet sock and just bring up a concern quickly before > everything is set in concrete regarding the file icons? > I noticed that the icons carry on from the current logo design. While the > logo design concept of the dog-eared document is iconic and intuitive, I > think the implementation of the logo needs some work before it looks like a > professional brand. But that may just be my opinion. We've already had discussions here on improving the initial branding, and some of that has been implemented (e.g. branding colors). Beyond that, we were initially caught between creating/adapting/supplying artwork for a product that needs to ship very soon and creating a comprehensive branding framework that is done in an open source manner. We couldn't do both; rushing now to create a comprehensive identity would have been too chaotic. So, for now, our primary focus is on the initial branding which requires us to be reasonably conservative; as time passes we will shift to the latter. > What is more relevant right now is the derived styling of the mime-type > icons and the "reflective surface" in particular. > I'll be bold and get straight to the point: I think there is no need for > those icons to be reflective or "shiny". Hmm, there was no intention (on my part) to make the icons shiny/reflective (a la the 3.0 splash screen) - if you're referring to the lighter patch near the top (which was a transparent segment with a solid white fill in my proposal), that's intended to denote a document header rather than a reflection (at least in my mind), and could be removed if it gives the wrong impression. > [...] > This is just a request. But I hope you'll consider it an important one for > getting our brand right? > I know I'm raising concerns without offering solutions and I know it may not > be practical to do so at this time. > I'm sure I'm being idealistic while you're all being pragmatic, but I just > thought it was worth asking in case it was an oversight. Fair enough (I, too, have been guilty of reflections in the past, I'm still guilty of idealism, etc), and it's great to have your feedback - feel free to take the mockups and make changes if you have a specific vision in mind. Do you think they'd be better without the white transparent segment at the top, or are there other changes you think would make them better? Again, the approach has been reasonably conservative (e.g. keeping the same symbols as OOo) to ease the transition process for users (addressing the usability concerns with the 3.2.1 icons), speed up the design process and secure short term branding. Happy holidays everyone! - Ivan. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
