I would think this will distract us from our simpler mission, which is to promote open office. It can also be a bit of a double edge sword in the sense that if we are promoting another project and that project isn't received well, it could tarnish our brand or imply something about us which is not true.
On Thursday, December 20, 2012, Kadal Amutham wrote: > Just a loud thinking. Why promote only openoffice? Why not other open > source software like Ubuntu? I try this technique to switch completely from > licence world to licence free word. ( Still,it is hard to find acceptance. > As already mentioned, there is no option of telling "Buy One Get Two" > > With Warm Regards > > V.Kadal Amutham > 919444360480 > > > On 19 December 2012 22:50, Alexandro Colorado <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I also think typography goes a long way, having some great font on the > > page could really do a facelift without disrupting the CSS that much. > > > > On 12/19/12, Alexandro Colorado <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Also been working with Jan to acomodate the mWiki theme, since the new > > > mediawiki come with a diferent CSS than the old Monobook theme. > > > > > > However this should be intune with the current www.openoffice.orgstyle. > > > > > > Lets work together to make AOO site look in tune. > > > > > > On 12/19/12, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> cc'ing the marketing list, since we have some recent volunteers who > > >> said they had web design skills. > > >> > > >> We have two websites for the project: > > >> > > >> 1) A public-facing website at http://www.openoffice.org > > >> > > >> 2) A project-facing website at http://openoffice.apache.org > > >> > > >> In practice the distinction is not always clear. There are many links > > >> that cross from one website to another. For example, a user starting > > >> at http://www.openoffice.org/ and clicking the "I want to Participate > > >> in OpenOffice" ends on on this project page here: > > >> http://openoffice.apache.org/get-involved.html. > > >> > > >> The websites have a similar look, but they differ in many small ways, > > >> and the cumulative effect of these differences is discordant (IMHO). > > >> > > >> To draw out the difference, I made two identical test pages that > > >> illustrate how the different style sheets treat common HTML > > >> constructs, and differences in page headers/footers: > > >> > > >> See: > > >> > > >> http://openoffice.apache.org/style-test.html > > >> > > >> and > > >> > > >> http://www.openoffice.org/style-test.html > > >> > > >> Note, for example, how our tagline differs between the pages. Also, > > >> the default font size on the openoffice.org is smaller than on > > >> openoffice.apache.org. IMHO this is too small for default text. > > >> > > >> There are other things that are common between the two sites, but > > >> perhaps are non-optimal, like: > > >> > > >> 1) We're really not distinguishing blockquotes well. We're just > > >> indenting. Maybe we can add a left-aligned vertical bar? > > >> > > >> 2) The yellow background of the <pre> block is a bit extreme. Maybe > > >> something more subtle? > > >> > > >> 3) The hierarchy of headers only deals with H1 and H2. > > >> > > >> > > >> I'm willing to help here, on integration of new stylesheets, getting > > >> stuff checked in, etc. But I have neither the taste nor the talent to > > >> design a good looking set of styles. Trust me, you do not want be to > > >> do design work. So I'm hoping that someone reading this can volunteer > > >> to take the lead in proposing a good, modern, professional set of > > >> styles that we can use across both websites. > > >> > > >> Thanks! > > >> > > >> -Rob > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Alexandro Colorado > > > PPMC Apache OpenOffice > > > http://es.openoffice.org > > > > > > > > > -- > > Alexandro Colorado > > PPMC Apache OpenOffice > > <http://es.openoffice.org>
