On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote:
> See upper left here: http://openoffice.apache.org > > The "Incubating" is integrated into the graphic. > > The underlying file is here: a PNG with transparent background. > > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png > > What do we want to do here? > > 1) Edit that graphic to remove "Incubating"? > > 2) Use a different graphic? > > Note that the http://www.openoffice.org/ site uses a different form of > the branding. Are we intentionally using two different logos here? > Do we want to continue this? > I am confused about having the branding all disjointed, OO is used implemented halfway, we use Oracle brand refresh elements just on certain parts. The brand refreshed used this: - Symbols - Logo - Icons - application - modules - filetype There was some big drawback on the monotone look of the filetype, but for some unknown reason there was no implementation on the modules either. Since, we have been keeping Application logos from 3.1, modules logos from 2.4 and filetypes of 2.0. Specifically on the logo, we have 2 versions, one with the "gulls" and the other with the "orb". I am not sure if there is a representation. There is also the issue with the fonts, where the fonts are not open, and we currently don't have a specific vector format logo, between using Nimbus, Liberation or Bitstreams we still dont have a good functional specification. My proposal is: - Get rid of incubating - Normalize the font-face of the logo - Update the modules logo to the latest refresh - Review new filetypes contribution Rather than changing and implementing a new design, work on the proposals to have a consistent look. > > -Rob > -- Alexandro Colorado PPMC Apache OpenOffice http://es.openoffice.org
