On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 03:55 +1300, 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 <[email protected]> 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.
On that last point I agree - and I suppose I started all this my mentioning which font I used - the final is not font based, it is paths... > > 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. > > 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. > > Voting on the list is a particularly bad and limiting way to make these sorts > of decisions, especially without any research whatsoever. > > 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'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. > > > Cheers > GL > > > > > > -Rob > > > > > cheers, > > > > > > Pedro. > > > > > > --- Mar 3/1/12, Rob Weir <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > > ... > > > > > >> 2012/1/3 Pavel Janík <[email protected]>: > > >> >> 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 OpenOffice.org > > >> 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 >
