KG05 - see comments inline On Oct 24, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Alexandro Colorado <j...@oooes.org> wrote:
> 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? > > KG05 - I'm interested in exploring a broader rebrand, including app icons. Again, I have some design concepts to share. The styling would extend into other elements under consideration, such as start page updates. I'll post to ux wiki. >> >> >>> -- >>> Alexandro Colorado >>> PPMC Apache OpenOffice >>> http://es.openoffice.org >> > > > -- > Alexandro Colorado > PPMC Apache OpenOffice > http://es.openoffice.org
