On 1/3/2012 4:03 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Dave Fisher<[email protected]> wrote:
On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Kay Schenk<[email protected]> wrote:
OK, we got to see the new logo and a bit of a discussion has ensued re the
now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the existing logo on that
site.
My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
Evolution-wise, at some point we'll have a logo without the
"incubating" in it. Hopefully we can slow the pace of branding changes
after that ;-)
yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but should anticipate
changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache OpenOffice" as
well?
I would not do a batch search and replace of OpenOffice.org to Apache
OpenOffice.
A few considerations (these are my opinions only, of course):
1) Some places legitimately should be called OpenOffice.org, e.g.,
references to legacy downloads, documentation for legacy releases,
etc. OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 did not magically become Apache OpenOffice
3.3.0. It is still OpenOffice.org.
2) If we're discussing historical information, like the history of the
project, then we would still use OpenOffice.org in that context, just
as we still refer to "StarOffice".
3) I would not change something that is considered a "record", like a
past communication or letter or email or press release, etc. If
something was an authorized communication of the project, we should
respect the words it used at the time.
4) But in general, we want to be consistent in the new branding as
"Apache OpenOffice". It should be clear to a user that this is the
branding and any other use should be a historical context.
5) It should be fine to refer to "Apache OpenOffice" initially on any
given page and then unambiguously refer to "OpenOffice" for
repetitions. We don't need to use the full form over and over and
over again on the same page. But we should use the full form on the
first occurrence on a page.
6) Maybe just start with the logo, the page footer and prominent other
pages, e.g., the blog, top level navigation on the website, how to get
involved, etc. I don't see much value in "hunting" for millions of
occurrences of "OpenOffice.org". But maybe we can search for all
<title> and<h1>'s that use that term?
I just put the new Apache OpenOffice incubating logo on the project blog,
changing the project name.
One possibility would be to make logo changes to the banner based on whether
the information is for a current release vs. information that is being updated
for the project.
It would be possible to make the top logo choice at the folder level.
I'd avoid that approach. The logo that is on every page is part of
the site branding. It is like the footer. It is an attribute of the
site, not the specific page.
Things that appear in the body of the page, between the header and
footer banner, there we might have some good reasons to refer to
OpenOffice.org, and maybe even show the old logo. But the site and
the project are Apache OpenOffice. There should never be an occasion
for removing the site branding from a page.
Remember, someone could visit a page from an external URL reference.
When they are dropped onto a page it should be obvious to them that
this is the Apache OpenOffice project. It might also be obvious to
them that they are viewing documentation for OpenOffice.org, but we
should not need to drop the AOO branding in order for this to work.
download and api might remain with the old logo until release.
why would remain legacy until it is updated.
NLC projects could all be changed over. We want them to come to us.
Do we want to pursue a pragmatic approach like that?
Consistency on site branding is pragmatic, IMHO.
My concern is users going to download.openoffice.org and thinking that they are
downloading Apache OpenOffice when they are downloading OpenOffice.org.
Aren't these different versions of the same thing?
I am also concerned that when they look at API docs on api.openoffice.org for
the legacy codebase they don't think they are looking at the API for Apache
OpenOffice.
again...
Aren't these different versions of the same thing?
The logo at the top is going to be subliminally the wrong message. It's a
subtle point. This is why I think we should wait to change the logo until we
are offering an Apache OpenOffice download from openoffice.org.
openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice family of products.
The current name is Apache OpenOffice. (Other products that are
mentioned/covered on the site include StarOffice, Oracle Open Office,
LibreOffice, and OOo4Kids)
so the way to go forward (obviously - my opinion) is:
* openoffice.org when discussing the web site
* openoffice.org when discussing version 1.0 - 3.3 of the product
* Apache OpenOffice as the general product name (and for 3.4 and forward)
* Apache OpenOffice (with 'incubating' for the time being) as the
project name
thus - we would use the Apache OpenOffice logo at the top of all pages
Regards,
Dave
Regards,
Dave
Thoughts on this?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
with strange cats."
-- *Colonial American
proverb*
