On 10/24/12, Kevin Grignon <kevingrignon...@gmail.com> wrote: > KG03 - see comments inline > > On Oct 24, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Alexandro Colorado <j...@oooes.org> wrote: > >> On 10/23/12, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Alexandro Colorado wrote: >>>> On 10/22/12, Kay Schenk wrote: >>>>> hmmm...well, OK. I think I remember something like this now. Should we >>>>> use Alexandro's new one at: >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/27834483/ApacheOpenOfficeTM.svg >>>> AFAIK there was no resolution on the fonts, the discussion ended on >>>> asking Michael Acevedo, but he never replied. >>> >>> Exactly. And this means we cannot use Alexandro's SVG since it is not a >>> 100% reproduction of the bitmap by Michael Acevedo (the orb is perfectly >> >> Who made Michael Acevedo the offical artist of AOO? If we are going to >> have a 'new' logo that automatically disqualify using MA logo as a >> whole. So far Nobody wants a proprietary fonts. So this logo is out. >> Now the issue is if there is any problem using an OpenType License >> font. >> >>> done in SVG and it is the only SVG version of the orb we have available, >>> since we never received one from Oracle; but the text has a slightly >>> different formatting). >>> >>> We have two separate issues here: >>> >>> 1) Collecting and consolidating all versions of the logo we are using; >>> here a 95% accuracy is not acceptable. These versions should be placed >>> under http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ or anyway under SVN. >> >> Most logos are variation of the first one. We can generate a whole new >> set for 4.0, or we can even go back to the pre-Oracle OpenOffice brand >> refresh and get the OpenOffice with the gulls. >> >> The Orb was never part of the logo, it was label a 'symbol' to be used >> in a different context of the logo, just like the wireframe gulls was >> for 2.4. >> >>> >>> 2) Collecting proposals that can be useful as inspiration for a new >>> visual identity; here it is of course acceptable to have variants of the >>> "official" logos, but these should remain proposals and be placed in the >>> wiki or such, possibly in pages that do not confuse a reader who types >>> "OpenOffice logo" in a search engine. >> >> We need a framework to make decisions "lazy conscensus, voting >> schemes, etc". But it seems there is a generalized knowledge that this >> is not only the logo but Application Icons, Mime Icons, and Module >> icons. >> >> Keeping a fresh logo with a very dated iconset is just not a good >> practice, specially for a 4.0 release. >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Andrea. >>> >> >> Should this be taken to marketing list? Is really a non-coding topic >> and traditionally was handled by the "art Project" which was a >> subproject of marketing. >> >> Most of the visual identity and design need to be upstreamed to >> marketing to develop marketing kits. >> > > KG03 - our branding is tightly bound to visual elements (gui) in tools. > Let's keep this activity with UX in design and dev discussions.
Not really, actually if you look at UX between 2.4 and 3.0 the tool visual element never changed, except for icons, but wee are not discussing about creating a new set of icons, or are we? > > >> -- >> Alexandro Colorado >> PPMC Apache OpenOffice >> http://es.openoffice.org > -- Alexandro Colorado PPMC Apache OpenOffice http://es.openoffice.org
