Hi Graham, Christoph, all,
Graham Lauder schrieb:
On Monday 19 October 2009 11:13:48 Christoph Noack wrote:
Hi Chris and all, Whew, this is going to get long
Hi Bernhard, Ivan, Nikash, .*,
[...]
Am Sonntag, den 18.10.2009, 22:02 +0200 schrieb Bernhard Dippold:
[...]
Ivan M schrieb:
<bernh...@familie-dippold.at> wrote: [...] All the Art
project managed to influence for OOo 3 was the splash screen,
but the process there was not very collaborative (i.e., we
only had one round and no time to comment on the winning
design until afterwards).
In my opinion this should be done differently in future: Even if
I like community votes on important questions, the splash screen
is one of the most important bases for branding. Public
like/dislike voting can't take this point into account.
Agreed, however we should be careful to make sure we leverage what
could be the major strength of the community and that is numbers and
teams.
I don't want to exclude anybody - just add an additional step towards
quality and usability.
[...]
Therefore I prefer a different approach: - Define a color
scheme, perhaps some branding element to be included in every
splash screen proposal. - Have a first round of voting by a
dedicated jury taking into account all the implications of the
splash screen proposals on visual identity. - Provide a set of
three to five splash screens to be voted by the community.
Yep, that might work well. Maybe - if there is enough time in
advance - that the community can (additionally) vote on certain
graphical/branding elements to be used. This may be the basis to
provide consistency across the whole product (incl. website,
documentation, people *g*).
At the moment OOo4.0 is far away enough to add some votings, if they
increase awareness and result in high quality branding elements...
A better process for mine would be slightly different.
First work on an overall style: Colour Palette, feel, target
Demographic and so on.... this could be done by Artists contributing
extreme work based on the above, there could even conceivably be more
than one brand to suit different demographics, who knows.
The overall style is the most important factor in the entire project.
Therefore this must be the first step - after branding elements (like
the logo proposals) giving an impression on the different styles.
But I don't think that the color palette must be decided in the beginning.
It's all about feeling IMHO: People should feel comfortable with any OOo
style - whether it should just be updated a bit or newly defined from
the basics. And they should be able to recognize the product and project
by this artwork.
Once the community has decided on that work on Elements: Bugs,
Positioners, Fonts. Taking into consideration all the places it's
going to be used and then
That's what I rather would like to see as community vote:
It much easier to vote on a more or less final design concept than on a
color palette, font or other graphical basics.
Put it to the Artists with concrete criteria and then sit back and
watch the fun.
[....]
Yep. Maybe one possible approach could even be to maximize the
efficiency by close cooperation with Sun - even contributing
"officially" to the core product. This might free resources on
their side to cooperate with us (e.g. defining styleguides).
Especially when I think about the changes which might happen with
the ongoing effort Renaissance, I'm sure there will be a huge
demand for artwork.
Cooperation with the present art team at Sun is crucial for the success
of the new project. What kind of cooperation will be possible I don't
really know by now.
[...]
In the past the Art project has not been in a position to force
any modification to the core product - but with a broader basis
(including Marketing, UX, Website, UI experts) this will become
different.
Personally, I think that other terms than "force" are appropriate
in this case.
Agreed - I didn't mean this term in it's militant meaning. One of the
problems of writing in a foreign language... ;-)
From my point-of-view, it has been incredible difficult to manage
community artwork so that it keeps / enhances visual consistency
in OOo. And it still is. As far as I know, we lack "best practices"
to judge whether such artwork is sufficient for inclusion.
That comes down to a couple of things:
> a) A comprehensive style guide
b) Recognise long term contributors above one off arrivals. This is
because there is a greater connection with the community and they are
already in touch with the Corporate Consciousness and have
participated in the discussions that lead to a final product.
Not necessarily, but in general you're right.
Simple things like those "not in touch" almost invariably leave the
.org off. The idea is to recognise the concept of "Community" and
that way longterm participation in the art project will lead to
consistency.[...].
Consistency in sense of branding recognition and visual identity is
necessary, but this is not dependent on the time someone is subscribed
to the Art Project's mailing list or the number of pictures uploaded to
the wiki (or to issues).
Active involvement in the other projects (website, UX, marketing ...)
affected by this new project is valid too.
I'm with you when you want to reduce the influence by people just
jumping in a topic that raises personal reputation but leaving the
project as soon as their work has not been decided to be the best one...
In my eyes it is more important to see whether someone wants to
contribute to the project or uses the project only to present his
personal artwork...
[...] That's all we need, a discussion toward a comprehensive style
guide that covers Website, documentation, stationery, visual
interface and logo and a team of people who will own that and run
with it.
Personally I prefer slight movements from present to future artwork over
a sharp breakage in our visual language. But this preference has to be
discussed in the general branding concept - like personal attitude for
or against the colors, the gulls or the font too.
A style guide will stand at the end of this general branding concept
that includes all the areas you mentioned above (and others).
This discussion should include experts from all these areas - and it has
to be repeated iteratively for every circle of updated artwork and
branding elements.
[...] The main reason that the Art project goes through fluctuations
is that there is little in the way of "reward" for the people who
participate. Reward in an Open Source project is simple
recognition.
There will always be different opinions on artwork - especially if it is
designed for central graphical elements like logos, icons or branding
elements.
Even with the new project we'll have to find a way to keep the interests
of the entire community over a single artwork contribution - no matter
how exceptional and splendid it is.
I don't know if a board of people from the different projects taking
care for the overall community goals would be a good idea. These people
(I imagine one from Art, Website, Marketing, Trademark, Documentation,
UX and UI plus lead and co-lead of the project) should agree on new
branding relevant design.
What do you think?
I don't want to escalate such topics directly to the Community Council,
but at present there is no other place to decide anything relevant for
more than one project. And with such a board the other projects keep
involved in the new project as their "representative" would bring
information and discussions from one project to the other..
[...]
Best regards
Bernhard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: art-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: art-h...@marketing.openoffice.org
