+1 to consistent branding but I admit I cannot follow the details here it is beyond my scope :-) BUT I trust your suggestions.
janI On 20 October 2012 20:21, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 10:49 AM, RGB ES <rgb.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2012/10/20 jan iversen <jancasacon...@gmail.com> > > > >> I really like the logo on the openOffice.org site, it is (at least to > me) > >> more modern and eye-catching. > >> > > > > +1 > > > > > >> > >> We should only use 1 logo, that is simpler and for the end-user more > >> understandable. > >> > > > > +1 too. > > > > OK. I changed the openoffice.apache.org website to use the same logo > as www.openoffice.org. > > But I am sympathetic to Alexandro's view that we need across-the-board > greater consistency on branding. We'll get there, I think, but it > will take time. > > -Rob > > > Regards > > Ricardo > > > > > >> > >> Jan. > >> > >> On 20 October 2012 16:28, 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? > >> > > >> > -Rob > >> > > >> >
