Difference between revisions of "Application Rebranding - Project Home Page/Logo Guidelines/20100707"

From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with '[14:03] <rosana_a> shall we start now? [14:03] <JensGH> it is time.. yes [14:04] <rosana_a> ok, thanks all for taking the time [14:04] <rosana_a> to be here [14:04] <rosana_a> we…')
 
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
[14:03] <rosana_a> shall we start now?
+
[14:03] &lt;rosana_a&gt; shall we start now?<br>[14:03] &lt;JensGH&gt; it is time.. yes<br>[14:04] &lt;rosana_a&gt; ok, thanks all for taking the time<br>[14:04] &lt;rosana_a&gt; to be here<br>[14:04] &lt;rosana_a&gt; we still have some point for discussion from the last meeting<br>[14:05] &lt;rosana_a&gt; let's try to talk abou the topics that are new at the beginning<br>[14:05] &lt;rosana_a&gt; then we can go to the discussion topics still open<br>[14:06] &lt;rosana_a&gt; so, official font to be combined with the logo<br>[14:06] &lt;rosana_a&gt; this are the proposals: DejaVu Sans, Droid Sans, Liberation Sans <br>[14:08] &lt;rosana_a&gt; do you think that we should create examplesto decide this, or do you have any preferences from just seeing the names?<br>[14:08] &lt;bedipp&gt; If we want to decide about the fonts, we would need to have a visual draft of some combination<br>[14:08] * khirano has joined ooobranding<br>[14:08] &lt;rosana_a&gt; I agree, that's what I meant with examples<br>[14:08] &lt;rosana_a&gt; Hi khirano<br>[14:08] &lt;bedipp&gt; Did Stella came up with any other suggestion?<br>[14:09] &lt;khirano&gt; hi rosana&nbsp;:)<br>[14:09] &lt;rosana_a&gt; we were just talking about the official font<br>[14:09] &lt;JensGH&gt; you can see all three fonts on wikipedia... hi khirano<br>[14:09] &lt;ivantm&gt; we could also consider Molengo and Nobile from the Google font API (http://code.google.com/webfonts)<br>[14:09] &lt;rosana_a&gt; bedipp: as soon as any proposals are made they get posted to the wiki<br>[14:10] &lt;bedipp&gt; ok<br>[14:10] &lt;ivantm&gt; and Bernhard and my favorite, Vegur&nbsp;:)<br>[14:10] &lt;khirano&gt; rosana_a: OK, I see, thanks.<br>[14:10] &lt;rosana_a&gt; I was also thinking about vergur<br>[14:11] &lt;bedipp&gt; sorry for not post it to the wiki&nbsp;:-(<br>[14:11] &lt;rosana_a&gt; ivantm: you're right we should think about webfonts<br>[14:12] &lt;rosana_a&gt; I'd propose to have an example of the font next to the logo (in web or collateral)<br>[14:12] &lt;ivantm&gt; +1. And we should aim for a font with a broad character set (i.e. can be used by most NL projects)<br>[14:12] &lt;stx12&gt; ivantm: hm, does the font api mean you have to include the css from an external site in a page? <br>[14:13] &lt;ivantm&gt; yes - 1 line of HTML linking to a stylesheet on a Google server<br>[14:14] &lt;stx12&gt; ivantm: if this is the only way to use the font then i would try to avoid this dependency. <br>[14:15] &lt;bedipp&gt; does this mean they can't be included in offline design?<br>[14:15] &lt;ivantm&gt; they could be hosted locally - they're all based on actual fonts people can download and use<br>[14:15] &lt;rosana_a&gt; I think we should try to find a "web safe" font, taht can be displayed in every browser and can be created under any OS<br>[14:15] &lt;stx12&gt; ivantm: but they are mentioned as open suorce. so there will be a way to use them without 3rd party servers<br>[14:16] &lt;ivantm&gt; stx12: these fonts are available from most free font sites, so they could be hosted on OOo's servers and we could use the @font-face property of CSS... Google just offers the API as a service<br>[14:17] &lt;ivantm&gt; stx12: ...but they don't have to be used online - they're all available as TTF/OTF files<br>[14:18] &lt;stx12&gt; good to know; this also answers bedipp's question and allows us to use the fonts without the "online dependency".<br>[14:19] &lt;stx12&gt; btw, am i old-fashioned if i try to avoid the additional download of font data in a browser? <br>[14:20] &lt;JensGH&gt; a font is very small data.. i don´t think there is a problem today<br>[14:21] &lt;ivantm&gt; depends on who you ask&nbsp;:) - we can leave webfonts for another discussion<br>[14:22] &lt;stx12&gt; ok, at least we agree that there should be a way to hosdt them locally<br>[14:22] &lt;rosana_a&gt; ok, but we should decide which font to set as the official<br>[14:22] &lt;rosana_a&gt; let's ask for proposals with an example, that will help to find the best one<br>[14:23] &lt;rosana_a&gt; is that ok for you?<br>[14:23] &lt;JensGH&gt; yes, we can set up a page on wiki<br>[14:23] &lt;ivantm&gt; +1<br>[14:23] &lt;bedipp&gt; +1<br>[14:24] &lt;khirano&gt; +1<br>[14:24] &lt;rosana_a&gt; great, JensGH, you can link to the page from the branding guidelines draft<br>[14:25] &lt;rosana_a&gt; ok, let's move to other topics<br>[14:25] &lt;rosana_a&gt; I had the impression that there are missunderstandings around the black and white logo<br>[14:26] &lt;rosana_a&gt; I think our logo is blue/black and this b/w logo was intended to have a consistent logo when printed with b/w printers<br>[14:26] &lt;rosana_a&gt; but that isn't clear from the guidelines<br>[14:27] &lt;rosana_a&gt; if that's ok I would make it clear in the wiki<br>[14:28] * bedipp has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)<br>[14:28] &lt;stx12&gt; sure; i read invers logo solution for background color; i think it needs a bit more explanation <br>[14:29] &lt;rosana_a&gt; ok, then I will clear that if we all agree on that point<br>[14:29] &lt;JensGH&gt; b/w only for b/w prints<br>[14:29] &lt;rosana_a&gt; exactly<br>[14:29] &lt;rosana_a&gt; is not a secondary logo<br>[14:29] &lt;rosana_a&gt; we have only one<br>[14:31] &lt;rosana_a&gt; is that ok for you?<br>[14:31] &lt;JensGH&gt; +1<br>[14:31] &lt;khirano&gt; Yes. +1<br>[14:32] &lt;stx12&gt; yes<br>[14:32] &lt;rosana_a&gt; ok<br>[14:34] &lt;rosana_a&gt; last time we talked about the combination of NLC projects and the logo<br>[14:35] &lt;rosana_a&gt; we agree that respecting the white space NLC projects can use their visuals next to the official logo<br>[14:35] * stx12 was confused by the term "frame"&nbsp;;-)<br>[14:35] * bedipp has joined ooobranding<br>[14:36] &lt;rosana_a&gt; right, maybe we have to clarify the term frame<br>[14:36] &lt;rosana_a&gt; bedipp: we're talking about the combination of NLC visuals with the logo<br>[14:36] * bedipp got no feedback from freenode anymore&nbsp;:-(<br>[14:36] &lt;bedipp&gt; sorry - I thought to be online...<br>[14:37] &lt;rosana_a&gt; so, first let's clarify what was meant with "frame"<br>[14:38] &lt;rosana_a&gt; http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Branding_Initiative/branding_guidelines_draftLogo:_DO.27s<br>[14:39] &lt;rosana_a&gt; if you look at the white space guideline and at the proposal for a conference logo, it is marked through a frame how elements are arranged and what are the "rules"<br>[14:39] &lt;rosana_a&gt; that's what I meant with a frame<br>[14:39] &lt;rosana_a&gt; is to visually communicate the "rules"<br>[14:40] &lt;rosana_a&gt; is that clear now, has any of you a different idea?<br>[14:40] &lt;bedipp&gt; I donÄt know if you already talked about the basic question: create derived logos or not&nbsp;?<br>[14:40] &lt;rosana_a&gt; bedipp: we're coming to that point<br>[14:41] &lt;rosana_a&gt; let's make sure we all mean the same by using the term "frame"<br>[14:41] &lt;JensGH&gt; is clear for me<br>[14:41] &lt;bedipp&gt; If we want to define frames, it is not easy to make them in a way the design works for derived logos. Therefore I'd ask that questions<br>[14:42] &lt;rosana_a&gt; we are not defing frames, just the term we use, stx12 was confused<br>[14:42] &lt;rosana_a&gt; ok, if that' clear let's discuss bedipp's questions<br>[14:42] &lt;bedipp&gt; ok - what you call frames are relative areas defined by logo sizes (or parts of it)<br>[14:44] &lt;stx12&gt; yes; close to the logo - at least closer as the regular white space rule<br>[14:44] &lt;stx12&gt; this makes it a combined logo / work / (you name it) <br>[14:45] &lt;bedipp&gt; I want to restrict these combined logos to official OOo areas - NLC, other projects, OOoCon<br>[14:46] &lt;rosana_a&gt; I don't see a need fr combined logos<br>[14:46] &lt;rosana_a&gt; Just the official logo, respecting the white space and placing visual elements next to the logo<br>[14:47] &lt;stx12&gt; i think that's too broad a definition <br>[14:47] &lt;stx12&gt; there are 5 derived logos we should consider: for the annual OOoCon, and 4 seasonal logos incl. OOo birhtday to be used at the website. <br>[14:48] &lt;bedipp&gt; I don't that combined logos weaken our brand<br>[14:48] &lt;bedipp&gt; (forgot: think)<br>[14:48] * _Nesshof_ has joined ooobranding<br>[14:48] &lt;rosana_a&gt; I do think that combined logos weaken our brand<br>[14:49] &lt;stx12&gt; we have to take of the "quality assurance" for the TM. <br>[14:49] &lt;rosana_a&gt; we have many websites selling openoffice.org for a lot of money<br>[14:49] &lt;stx12&gt; you may want to look this up. <br>[14:49] &lt;bedipp&gt; several NLC projects did combine the logo with their ISO code. <br>[14:49] &lt;rosana_a&gt; one of the reasons is because all OOo looks different<br>[14:49] &lt;bedipp&gt; rosana_a: No allowance for external websites<br>[14:50] &lt;rosana_a&gt; bedipp: they won't ask for allowance<br>[14:50] &lt;stx12&gt; in the last round there was no real need for NLC combined work beyond the frame solution. <br>[14:50] &lt;rosana_a&gt; exactly<br>[14:50] &lt;bedipp&gt; If we define derived NLC logos, they have to look consistent with the official one<br>[14:50] &lt;rosana_a&gt; I think we already discussed that point<br>[14:50] &lt;bedipp&gt; sorry that I wasn't able to join<br>[14:51] &lt;bedipp&gt; Ismael mentioned this point at the last meeting<br>[14:51] &lt;bedipp&gt; and nobody replied my mail at the list<br>[14:52] &lt;stx12&gt; sometimes it's easier to come to a decision if sitting in a (irc) room&nbsp;;-) <br>[14:52] &lt;rosana_a&gt; that's right<br>[14:52] &lt;bedipp&gt; It can't be that this call can define the way to go if there are other opinions mentioned on the list<br>[14:52] &lt;stx12&gt; that's why rosana_a planned 2 meeting<br>[14:52] &lt;rosana_a&gt; we had already several discussions on the mailing list<br>[14:53] &lt;rosana_a&gt; and we have several meetings here<br>[14:53] &lt;bedipp&gt; and we had no *decision* on this topic by now (as far as I now)<br>[14:53] &lt;rosana_a&gt; but we need to come to a conclusion<br>[14:54] &lt;bedipp&gt; I want to avoid to force NLC projects to remove their identification by the ISO code<br>[14:54] &lt;bedipp&gt; I think it's better to show them how to do so without weakening the brand<br>[14:54] &lt;rosana_a&gt; bedipp: they can place them next to the logo, respecting the white space<br>[14:55] &lt;stx12&gt; and we want to avoid other difficult situations... but we can't please everyone. <br>[14:55] &lt;bedipp&gt; like any external website - this doesn't strengthen the brand<br>[14:55] &lt;rosana_a&gt; it is very hard to protect a trademark if you have 100 derived logos<br>[14:55] &lt;stx12&gt; bedipp: no there is a difference in the framing for internals<br>[14:56] &lt;bedipp&gt; ok - so we're talking about the frames for internals.<br>[14:57] &lt;stx12&gt; for the mentioned exceptions<br>[14:57] * _Nesshof_ has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)<br>[14:58] &lt;rosana_a&gt; it means that for the OOoCon and the seasonal logos we have special frames<br>[14:58] &lt;rosana_a&gt; like the one in the proposal for the OOoCon<br>[14:58] &lt;bedipp&gt; So my question stays, if the official OOo project names can be included in the exceptions<br>[14:59] &lt;bedipp&gt; And what about any official slogan<br>[15:00] &lt;bedipp&gt; seasonal logos are a gimmick - if any of these proposals should be dropped, I'd vote for them<br>[15:01] &lt;bedipp&gt; The previous logo had an official slogan (positioner) next to it in a way, that the combination could be used as logo itself.<br>[15:01] &lt;stx12&gt; i'm sure we'll find other use cases.... then let's drop the seasonal logos; and add the ability to use the ISO code in the frame. <br>[15:02] &lt;bedipp&gt; http://marketing.openoffice.org/art/galleries/logos/pos/ooo-pos-logo-col-rgb_200px.gif<br>[15:02] &lt;JensGH&gt; I think seasonal logos should be dropped, too<br>[15:02] &lt;bedipp&gt; stx12: +1<br>[15:03] &lt;ivantm&gt; +1<br>[15:03] &lt;stx12&gt; i don't think the positioner or even different ones should be part of a logo <br>[15:04] &lt;bedipp&gt; because of trademark or branding issues?<br>[15:05] &lt;bedipp&gt; if we define frames that cover those for example - would this be possible? http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/images/6/61/Logo_proposals_with_caption_line.png<br>[15:05] &lt;stx12&gt; both - and i don't think it bring the message really across. <br>[15:07] &lt;bedipp&gt; In the last meeting you mentioned the line as separator under the logo as (too?) close to Oracle<br>[15:07] &lt;stx12&gt; almost, maz be not in exactly that way; look at the example in the draft guidelines: <br>[15:07] &lt;stx12&gt; http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/File:Logo_OOo_extended_space.png<br>[15:08] &lt;stx12&gt; i'm not againt the horizontal line; i thought you would be&nbsp;;-) <br>[15:08] &lt;bedipp&gt; no - depends on the distance&nbsp;;-)<br>[15:08] &lt;stx12&gt; ok, then keep it in respectable distance - and well defined&nbsp;;-) <br>[15:08] &lt;bedipp&gt; half the "O" is too far for a derived logo<br>[15:09] &lt;stx12&gt; ok, then let's not use derived logos at all. <br>[15:09] &lt;bedipp&gt; I want them to look as an entity - that what I think of derived logos..<br>[15:09] &lt;rosana_a&gt; ok, so with a frame NLC projects can position their ISO code next to the logo <br>[15:09] &lt;rosana_a&gt; and seasonal logos don't seem to be important and we consider to drop them<br>[15:09] &lt;rosana_a&gt; is that right?<br>[15:10] &lt;bedipp&gt; depends on the definition of "next"<br>[15:10] &lt;JensGH&gt; yes<br>[15:11] &lt;rosana_a&gt; and one possible frame is the one proposed for the OOoCon here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/images/2/28/Logo_OOo_extended_space.png<br>[15:12] &lt;bedipp&gt; if you keep insisting on not allowing derived logos, then you can just add the normal white space. This will not change the visual impression very much.<br>[15:12] &lt;stx12&gt; next = not closer than shown in the example http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/images/2/28/Logo_OOo_extended_space.png<br>[15:12] &lt;stx12&gt; bedipp: ok, fine with me<br>[15:13] &lt;rosana_a&gt; is that ok?<br>[15:13] &lt;bedipp&gt; not for me, but I'm not the branding group<br>[15:14] &lt;stx12&gt; the idea to at least give oocon logos and nlc a chance would still be open; for those that would like to use it. if not that's fine too.<br>[15:15] &lt;stx12&gt; i mean a chance with a (not to close) creative area...<br>[15:15] &lt;bedipp&gt; In this case I'd propose an "official" design that respects the white space.<br>[15:15] * rosana_a has quit IRC (*.net *.split)<br>[15:15] * JensGH has quit IRC (*.net *.split)<br>[15:15] &lt;stx12&gt; oops, we lost those on another irc server<br>[15:17] &lt;stx12&gt; shall we wait for rosana and jens to rejoin? <br>[15:18] &lt;bedipp&gt; I think so<br>[15:18] * rosanaardila has joined ooobranding<br>[15:19] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; sorry, back<br>[15:19] &lt;stx12&gt; and where is jens? <br>[15:19] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; I just told him<br>[15:20] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; sorry, where was the discussion as Jens and I left the room?<br>[15:21] * JensGH has joined ooobranding<br>[15:21] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; so now we're all online again<br>[15:21] &lt;stx12&gt; bedipp just proposed to drop the exception with a closer creative area and force people to use the full whitespace - the other exteme<br>[15:21] &lt;bedipp&gt; I'm just trying to create a draft<br>[15:22] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; I think the white space is ok<br>[15:22] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; but bedipp do you mean the white space we have now, or something else?<br>[15:23] &lt;bedipp&gt; I think the normal white space "O"<br>[15:23] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; so you mean this: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Branding_Initiative/branding_guidelines_draftLogo:_DO.27s<br>[15:23] &lt;rosanaardila&gt;&nbsp;?<br>[15:24] &lt;stx12&gt; to be precise: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/File:Logo_OOo_space.png<br>[15:24] &lt;stx12&gt; that's the full white space. <br>[15:24] &lt;bedipp&gt; yes<br>[15:25] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; ok<br>[15:25] &lt;stx12&gt; the other extreme is combined logos; and i would allow the use of exceptions we talked about to use O/2. <br>[15:25] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; that sounds reasonable to me<br>[15:25] &lt;stx12&gt; if we have no need to do so then let's go with the full O<br>[15:25] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; +1<br>[15:26] &lt;bedipp&gt; I still vote -1 for not allowing derived logos<br>[15:26] &lt;bedipp&gt; But if this is decided anyhow I vote +1 for dropping the reduced space<br>[15:27] * rosana_a has joined ooobranding<br>[15:27] &lt;stx12&gt; it's not decided anyhow... i think we should support this together. but at some point we have to move forward. <br>[15:27] * rosana_a has left ooobranding<br>[15:28] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; I also think we need to come to a conclusion<br>[15:28] &lt;stx12&gt; and others were willing to take this route (avoiding) combined logos. <br>[15:28] &lt;bedipp&gt; And then I think you will not allow OOo stamps either: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/File:Stamps_draft.png<br>[15:29] &lt;bedipp&gt; Who will decide? The list? <br>[15:29] &lt;bedipp&gt; Finally it's a decision of the trademark holder<br>[15:29] &lt;stx12&gt; bedipp: i don't think it helps to move it fromj there to there and back: <br>[15:29] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; bedipp: that's why we're trying to create the guidelines<br>[15:30] &lt;bedipp&gt; the only place all the relevant people can talk is the list because we can't bring them all together here.<br>[15:30] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; and we need to come to a conclusion<br>[15:31] &lt;stx12&gt; bedipp: we had all people here; in the last round and now. <br>[15:31] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; I always post the minutes and logs of these IRC meeting on the list<br>[15:31] &lt;bedipp&gt; but not together - that's not possible for volunteers all over the world.<br>[15:32] &lt;bedipp&gt; We always agreed to decide on the list, not in IRC<br>[15:32] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; everyone can comment the minutes, exactly as you did<br>[15:32] &lt;stx12&gt; i don't want to enter a discussion who "we" is. <br>[15:33] &lt;bedipp&gt; no problem - just go on.<br>[15:34] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; ok, so let us come back to the questions<br>[15:34] &lt;bedipp&gt; None of us has the time to find a way through principle differences here.<br>[15:34] &lt;stx12&gt; i would expect that we exchange the same opiniolns again in the list. <br>[15:34] &lt;stx12&gt; so i was happy to see both ends. <br>[15:34] &lt;stx12&gt; and a possible compromise. <br>[15:35] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; I agree that the IRC meetings are good for finding compromises<br>[15:35] &lt;bedipp&gt; So let's try to find a compromise on the list<br>[15:35] &lt;bedipp&gt; (like a quarter of the "O")<br>[15:35] &lt;stx12&gt; so what is left is whether we need the o/2 expection or not. <br>[15:36] &lt;bedipp&gt; I think that depends on the other question.<br>[15:36] &lt;ivantm&gt; when it comes to NL derived logos it might be best to consult on the NL mailing list...<br>[15:36] &lt;ivantm&gt; otherwise we may get complaints about decisions being made here by a small group that negatively affect others<br>[15:37] &lt;stx12&gt; i'm afraid this topic will have negative effects anyway. <br>[15:37] &lt;stx12&gt; the only way to avoid this to establish the full whitespace. <br>[15:38] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; I am in favor of the full whitespace<br>[15:38] &lt;bedipp&gt; that has negative effects on our official artwork - in relation to the previous logo<br>[15:39] &lt;stx12&gt; otherwise we will see a bunch of proposals for combined logos... and continue as we did with the old logo.<br>[15:39] &lt;bedipp&gt; but as we didn't have a trademark policy in the past, negative effects can't be avoided<br>[15:39] &lt;stx12&gt; bedipp: yes, that's right. <br>[15:39] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; I propose to stick to the actual white space <br>[15:40] &lt;bedipp&gt; stx12: I want the combined logos be consistent with the general branding, therefore such a bunch should not be allowed<br>[15:40] &lt;stx12&gt; and now we have already "abuse" of the new logo, because we are not moving forward. <br>[15:40] &lt;stx12&gt; and the best consitency is achieved with no exceptions. <br>[15:40] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; stx12: I agree<br>[15:41] &lt;bedipp&gt; Stick with the full white space or come to a compromise on the list<br>[15:42] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; stx12 proposed O/2 as compromise<br>[15:42] &lt;stx12&gt; the compromise finding on the list didn't work out in the last months<br>[15:42] &lt;stx12&gt; we had everything on the table - aeh list. <br>[15:42] &lt;bedipp&gt; The best consistency is achieved with a consistent branding - not with a logo in different surroundings<br>[15:43] &lt;bedipp&gt; stx12: we had different opinions and no moving towards a compromise. But let's stop this here<br>[15:44] &lt;bedipp&gt; I have to leave soon - other important topics?<br>[15:44] &lt;stx12&gt; i think this is impotant enough to conclude that we go with full white space and don't consider it worth the tijme to discuss the o/2 thing. <br>[15:45] &lt;JensGH&gt; it is a little difficult from my design point of view, but consistency is important, too. maybe we should post o/2 whitespace rule as RC on the list and wait if there are any vetos? If not we made it final?<br>[15:46] &lt;stx12&gt; i'm sure there will be vetos; but what are the consequences? full whitespace only. <br>[15:46] &lt;stx12&gt; the o/2 thing is an offer for certain ujse case. nobody is urged to use it.<br>[15:47] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; as I understand the O/2 offer would be for the exceptions such as NLC and OOoCon, right?<br>[15:47] &lt;stx12&gt; exactly<br>[15:48] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; should we post this to the list?<br>[15:49] &lt;JensGH&gt; we need, and we must decide based on reaction what todo next<br>[15:49] &lt;stx12&gt; ok, i assumne the log will be available anyway. right? <br>[15:50] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; as always<br>[15:51] &lt;ivantm&gt; sorry everyone I have to go, I'll have a look at the log and make any comments on the branding list<br>[15:51] &lt;ivantm&gt; have a good day all<br>[15:51] * ivantm has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)<br>[15:51] &lt;stx12&gt; bye ivantm<br>[15:51] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; ok: so full whitespace as general rule and o/2 only for exceptions such as NLC and OOoCon<br>[15:52] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; I will post it and everyone can comment<br>[15:52] &lt;JensGH&gt; ok<br>[15:52] &lt;bedipp&gt; ok<br>[15:52] &lt;stx12&gt; do others hav ean opinion about a o/2 horizontal line? <br>[15:52] &lt;stx12&gt; just a curious question... <br>[15:53] &lt;bedipp&gt; Perhaps - need to be visualized first<br>[15:53] &lt;bedipp&gt; Might be more important than the round frame at the side<br>[15:53] &lt;bedipp&gt; thanks for mentioning it<br>[15:55] &lt;stx12&gt; if i understood rosanaardila correctly the red thing is to identify the creative area and doesn't have to be part of the final work. <br>[15:55] &lt;stx12&gt; that came up in the last meeting too<br>[15:55] &lt;bedipp&gt; but it was said, that the circle fits quite well with the gull orb<br>[15:56] &lt;bedipp&gt; I'll do some experiments and post them to the list<br>[15:56] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; that is a proposal<br>[15:56] &lt;stx12&gt; if people would like to have it as part of the work an dit looks good - why not <br>[15:56] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; the idea is to introduce the "frame" form to the proposals too<br>[15:56] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; otherwise it's hard to identify the rule<br>[15:57] &lt;bedipp&gt; I tried it with my proposals - but if you insist on O/2, there is not much space for a derived logo that includes the OOo logo in a appropriate size<br>[15:57] &lt;bedipp&gt; the OOo logo will become too small in relation to the entire design.<br>[15:58] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; I don't undestand you bedipp<br>[15:58] &lt;stx12&gt; i can imagine that it's hard to bring all these pieces on a stamp <br>[15:59] &lt;bedipp&gt; rosanaardila: In your design the logo covers less than the half space - it becomes a smaller part of the design<br>[15:59] * stx12 has to leave in a minute...<br>[15:59] &lt;bedipp&gt; But I have to leave too - more (with examples) on the list<br>[16:00] &lt;stx&gt; see you next time... bye all<br>[16:00] &lt;bedipp&gt; bye stx12 <br>[16:00] &lt;bedipp&gt; bye all<br>[16:00] * bedipp has quit IRC (Quit: bye)<br>[16:01] &lt;JensGH&gt; yes time is running out... we should move this on the list and set up a new meeting after we have feedback from the list<br>[16:01] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; thanks all for articipating<br>[16:01] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; I'll post the log to the wiki<br>[16:01] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; and the minutes to the list<br>[16:02] &lt;JensGH&gt; ok - i will make the font examples later the day... bye all<br>[16:02] * JensGH has quit IRC (Quit: JensGH)<br>[16:03] &lt;rosanaardila&gt; bye
−
[14:03] <JensGH> it is time.. yes
+
 
−
[14:04] <rosana_a> ok, thanks all for taking the time
+
<br>
−
[14:04] <rosana_a> to be here
+
[[Category:Branding]]
−
[14:04] <rosana_a> we still have some point for discussion from the last meeting
+
−
[14:05] <rosana_a> let's try to talk abou the topics that are new at the beginning
+
−
[14:05] <rosana_a> then we can go to the discussion topics still open
+
−
[14:06] <rosana_a> so, official font to be combined with the logo
+
−
[14:06] <rosana_a> this are the proposals: DejaVu Sans, Droid Sans, Liberation Sans
+
−
[14:08] <rosana_a> do you think that we should create examplesto decide this, or do you have any preferences from just seeing the names?
+
−
[14:08] <bedipp> If we want to decide about the fonts, we would need to have a visual draft of some combination
+
−
[14:08] * khirano has joined ooobranding
+
−
[14:08] <rosana_a> I agree, that's what I meant with examples
+
−
[14:08] <rosana_a> Hi khirano
+
−
[14:08] <bedipp> Did Stella came up with any other suggestion?
+
−
[14:09] <khirano> hi rosana :)
+
−
[14:09] <rosana_a> we were just talking about the official font
+
−
[14:09] <JensGH> you can see all three fonts on wikipedia... hi khirano
+
−
[14:09] <ivantm> we could also consider Molengo and Nobile from the Google font API (http://code.google.com/webfonts)
+
−
[14:09] <rosana_a> bedipp: as soon as any proposals are made they get posted to the wiki
+
−
[14:10] <bedipp> ok
+
−
[14:10] <ivantm> and Bernhard and my favorite, Vegur :)
+
−
[14:10] <khirano> rosana_a: OK, I see, thanks.
+
−
[14:10] <rosana_a> I was also thinking about vergur
+
−
[14:11] <bedipp> sorry for not post it to the wiki :-(
+
−
[14:11] <rosana_a> ivantm: you're right we should think about webfonts
+
−
[14:12] <rosana_a> I'd propose to have an example of the font next to the logo (in web or collateral)
+
−
[14:12] <ivantm> +1. And we should aim for a font with a broad character set (i.e. can be used by most NL projects)
+
−
[14:12] <stx12> ivantm: hm, does the font api mean you have to include the css from an external site in a page?
+
−
[14:13] <ivantm> yes - 1 line of HTML linking to a stylesheet on a Google server
+
−
[14:14] <stx12> ivantm: if this is the only way to use the font then i would try to avoid this dependency.
+
−
[14:15] <bedipp> does this mean they can't be included in offline design?
+
−
[14:15] <ivantm> they could be hosted locally - they're all based on actual fonts people can download and use
+
−
[14:15] <rosana_a> I think we should try to find a "web safe" font, taht can be displayed in every browser and can be created under any OS
+
−
[14:15] <stx12> ivantm: but they are mentioned as open suorce. so there will be a way to use them without 3rd party servers
+
−
[14:16] <ivantm> stx12: these fonts are available from most free font sites, so they could be hosted on OOo's servers and we could use the @font-face property of CSS... Google just offers the API as a service
+
−
[14:17] <ivantm> stx12: ...but they don't have to be used online - they're all available as TTF/OTF files
+
−
[14:18] <stx12> good to know; this also answers bedipp's question and allows us to use the fonts without the "online dependency".
+
−
[14:19] <stx12> btw, am i old-fashioned if i try to avoid the additional download of font data in a browser?
+
−
[14:20] <JensGH> a font is very small data.. i don´t think there is a problem today
+
−
[14:21] <ivantm> depends on who you ask :) - we can leave webfonts for another discussion
+
−
[14:22] <stx12> ok, at least we agree that there should be a way to hosdt them locally
+
−
[14:22] <rosana_a> ok, but we should decide which font to set as the official
+
−
[14:22] <rosana_a> let's ask for proposals with an example, that will help to find the best one
+
−
[14:23] <rosana_a> is that ok for you?
+
−
[14:23] <JensGH> yes, we can set up a page on wiki
+
−
[14:23] <ivantm> +1
+
−
[14:23] <bedipp> +1
+
−
[14:24] <khirano> +1
+
−
[14:24] <rosana_a> great, JensGH, you can link to the page from the branding guidelines draft
+
−
[14:25] <rosana_a> ok, let's move to other topics
+
−
[14:25] <rosana_a> I had the impression that there are missunderstandings around the black and white logo
+
−
[14:26] <rosana_a> I think our logo is blue/black and this b/w logo was intended to have a consistent logo when printed with b/w printers
+
−
[14:26] <rosana_a> but that isn't clear from the guidelines
+
−
[14:27] <rosana_a> if that's ok I would make it clear in the wiki
+
−
[14:28] * bedipp has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
+
−
[14:28] <stx12> sure; i read invers logo solution for background color; i think it needs a bit more explanation
+
−
[14:29] <rosana_a> ok, then I will clear that if we all agree on that point
+
−
[14:29] <JensGH> b/w only for b/w prints
+
−
[14:29] <rosana_a> exactly
+
−
[14:29] <rosana_a> is not a secondary logo
+
−
[14:29] <rosana_a> we have only one
+
−
[14:31] <rosana_a> is that ok for you?
+
−
[14:31] <JensGH> +1
+
−
[14:31] <khirano> Yes. +1
+
−
[14:32] <stx12> yes
+
−
[14:32] <rosana_a> ok
+
−
[14:34] <rosana_a> last time we talked about the combination of NLC projects and the logo
+
−
[14:35] <rosana_a> we agree that respecting the white space NLC projects can use their visuals next to the official logo
+
−
[14:35] * stx12 was confused by the term "frame" ;-)
+
−
[14:35] * bedipp has joined ooobranding
+
−
[14:36] <rosana_a> right, maybe we have to clarify the term frame
+
−
[14:36] <rosana_a> bedipp: we're talking about the combination of NLC visuals with the logo
+
−
[14:36] * bedipp got no feedback from freenode anymore :-(
+
−
[14:36] <bedipp> sorry - I thought to be online...
+
−
[14:37] <rosana_a> so, first let's clarify what was meant with "frame"
+
−
[14:38] <rosana_a> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Branding_Initiative/branding_guidelines_draftLogo:_DO.27s
+
−
[14:39] <rosana_a> if you look at the white space guideline and at the proposal for a conference logo, it is marked through a frame how elements are arranged and what are the "rules"
+
−
[14:39] <rosana_a> that's what I meant with a frame
+
−
[14:39] <rosana_a> is to visually communicate the "rules"
+
−
[14:40] <rosana_a> is that clear now, has any of you a different idea?
+
−
[14:40] <bedipp> I donÄt know if you already talked about the basic question: create derived logos or not ?
+
−
[14:40] <rosana_a> bedipp: we're coming to that point
+
−
[14:41] <rosana_a> let's make sure we all mean the same by using the term "frame"
+
−
[14:41] <JensGH> is clear for me
+
−
[14:41] <bedipp> If we want to define frames, it is not easy to make them in a way the design works for derived logos. Therefore I'd ask that questions
+
−
[14:42] <rosana_a> we are not defing frames, just the term we use, stx12 was confused
+
−
[14:42] <rosana_a> ok, if that' clear let's discuss bedipp's questions
+
−
[14:42] <bedipp> ok - what you call frames are relative areas defined by logo sizes (or parts of it)
+
−
[14:44] <stx12> yes; close to the logo - at least closer as the regular white space rule
+
−
[14:44] <stx12> this makes it a combined logo / work / (you name it)
+
−
[14:45] <bedipp> I want to restrict these combined logos to official OOo areas - NLC, other projects, OOoCon
+
−
[14:46] <rosana_a> I don't see a need fr combined logos
+
−
[14:46] <rosana_a> Just the official logo, respecting the white space and placing visual elements next to the logo
+
−
[14:47] <stx12> i think that's too broad a definition
+
−
[14:47] <stx12> there are 5 derived logos we should consider: for the annual OOoCon, and 4 seasonal logos incl. OOo birhtday to be used at the website. 
+
−
[14:48] <bedipp> I don't that combined logos weaken our brand
+
−
[14:48] <bedipp> (forgot: think)
+
−
[14:48] * _Nesshof_ has joined ooobranding
+
−
[14:48] <rosana_a> I do think that combined logos weaken our brand
+
−
[14:49] <stx12> we have to take of the "quality assurance" for the TM.
+
−
[14:49] <rosana_a> we have many websites selling openoffice.org for a lot of money
+
−
[14:49] <stx12> you may want to look this up.
+
−
[14:49] <bedipp> several NLC projects did combine the logo with their ISO code.
+
−
[14:49] <rosana_a> one of the reasons is because all OOo looks different
+
−
[14:49] <bedipp> rosana_a: No allowance for external websites
+
−
[14:50] <rosana_a> bedipp: they won't ask for allowance
+
−
[14:50] <stx12> in the last round there was no real need for NLC combined work beyond the frame solution.
+
−
[14:50] <rosana_a> exactly
+
−
[14:50] <bedipp> If we define derived NLC logos, they have to  look consistent with the official one
+
−
[14:50] <rosana_a> I think we already discussed that point
+
−
[14:50] <bedipp> sorry that I wasn't able to join
+
−
[14:51] <bedipp> Ismael mentioned this point at the last meeting
+
−
[14:51] <bedipp> and nobody replied my mail at the list
+
−
[14:52] <stx12> sometimes it's easier to come to a decision if sitting in a (irc) room ;-)
+
−
[14:52] <rosana_a> that's right
+
−
[14:52] <bedipp> It can't be that this call can define the way to go if there are other opinions mentioned on the list
+
−
[14:52] <stx12> that's why rosana_a planned 2 meeting
+
−
[14:52] <rosana_a> we had already several discussions on the mailing list
+
−
[14:53] <rosana_a> and we have several meetings here
+
−
[14:53] <bedipp> and we had no *decision* on this topic by now (as far as I now)
+
−
[14:53] <rosana_a> but we need to come to a conclusion
+
−
[14:54] <bedipp> I want to avoid to force NLC projects to remove their identification by the ISO code
+
−
[14:54] <bedipp> I think it's better to show them how to do so without weakening the brand
+
−
[14:54] <rosana_a> bedipp: they can place them next to the logo, respecting the white space
+
−
[14:55] <stx12> and we want to avoid other difficult situations... but we can't please everyone.
+
−
[14:55] <bedipp> like any external website - this doesn't strengthen the brand
+
−
[14:55] <rosana_a> it is very hard to protect a trademark if you have 100 derived logos
+
−
[14:55] <stx12> bedipp: no there is a difference in the framing for internals
+
−
[14:56] <bedipp> ok - so we're talking about the frames for internals.
+
−
[14:57] <stx12> for the mentioned exceptions
+
−
[14:57] * _Nesshof_ has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
+
−
[14:58] <rosana_a> it means that for the OOoCon and the seasonal logos we have special frames
+
−
[14:58] <rosana_a> like the one in the proposal for the OOoCon
+
−
[14:58] <bedipp> So my question stays, if the official OOo project names can be included in the exceptions
+
−
[14:59] <bedipp> And what about any official slogan
+
−
[15:00] <bedipp> seasonal logos are a gimmick - if any of these proposals should be dropped, I'd vote for them
+
−
[15:01] <bedipp> The previous logo had an official slogan (positioner) next to it in a way, that the combination could be used as logo itself.
+
−
[15:01] <stx12> i'm sure we'll find other use cases.... then let's drop the seasonal logos; and add the ability to use the ISO code in the frame.
+
−
[15:02] <bedipp> http://marketing.openoffice.org/art/galleries/logos/pos/ooo-pos-logo-col-rgb_200px.gif
+
−
[15:02] <JensGH> I think seasonal logos should be dropped, too
+
−
[15:02] <bedipp> stx12: +1
+
−
[15:03] <ivantm> +1
+
−
[15:03] <stx12> i don't think the positioner or even different ones should be part of a logo
+
−
[15:04] <bedipp> because of trademark or branding issues?
+
−
[15:05] <bedipp> if we define frames that cover those for example - would this be possible? http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/images/6/61/Logo_proposals_with_caption_line.png
+
−
[15:05] <stx12> both - and i don't think it bring the message really across.
+
−
[15:07] <bedipp> In the last meeting you mentioned the line as separator under the logo as (too?) close to Oracle
+
−
[15:07] <stx12> almost, maz be not in exactly that way; look at the example in the draft guidelines:
+
−
[15:07] <stx12> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/File:Logo_OOo_extended_space.png
+
−
[15:08] <stx12> i'm not againt the horizontal line; i thought you would be ;-)
+
−
[15:08] <bedipp> no - depends on the distance ;-)
+
−
[15:08] <stx12> ok, then keep it in respectable distance - and well defined ;-)
+
−
[15:08] <bedipp> half the "O" is too far for a derived logo
+
−
[15:09] <stx12> ok, then let's not use derived logos at all.
+
−
[15:09] <bedipp> I want them to look as an entity - that what I think of derived logos..
+
−
[15:09] <rosana_a> ok, so with a frame NLC projects can position their ISO code next to the logo
+
−
[15:09] <rosana_a> and seasonal logos don't seem to be important and we consider to drop them
+
−
[15:09] <rosana_a> is that right?
+
−
[15:10] <bedipp> depends on the definition of "next"
+
−
[15:10] <JensGH> yes
+
−
[15:11] <rosana_a> and one possible frame is the one proposed for the OOoCon here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/images/2/28/Logo_OOo_extended_space.png
+
−
[15:12] <bedipp> if you keep insisting on not allowing derived logos, then you can just add the normal white space. This will not change the visual impression very much.
+
−
[15:12] <stx12> next = not closer than shown in the example http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/w/images/2/28/Logo_OOo_extended_space.png
+
−
[15:12] <stx12> bedipp: ok, fine with me
+
−
[15:13] <rosana_a> is that ok?
+
−
[15:13] <bedipp> not for me, but I'm not the branding group
+
−
[15:14] <stx12> the idea to at least give oocon logos and nlc a chance would still be open; for those that would like to use it. if not that's fine too.
+
−
[15:15] <stx12> i mean a chance with a (not to close) creative area...
+
−
[15:15] <bedipp> In this case I'd propose an "official" design that respects the white space.
+
−
[15:15] * rosana_a has quit IRC (*.net *.split)
+
−
[15:15] * JensGH has quit IRC (*.net *.split)
+
−
[15:15] <stx12> oops, we lost those on another irc server
+
−
[15:17] <stx12> shall we wait for rosana and jens to rejoin?
+
−
[15:18] <bedipp> I think so
+
−
[15:18] * rosanaardila has joined ooobranding
+
−
[15:19] <rosanaardila> sorry, back
+
−
[15:19] <stx12> and where is jens?
+
−
[15:19] <rosanaardila> I just told him
+
−
[15:20] <rosanaardila> sorry, where was the discussion as Jens and I left the room?
+
−
[15:21] * JensGH has joined ooobranding
+
−
[15:21] <rosanaardila> so now we're all online again
+
−
[15:21] <stx12> bedipp just proposed to drop the exception with a closer creative area and force people to use the full whitespace - the other exteme
+
−
[15:21] <bedipp> I'm just trying to create a draft
+
−
[15:22] <rosanaardila> I think the white space is ok
+
−
[15:22] <rosanaardila> but bedipp do you mean the white space we have now, or something else?
+
−
[15:23] <bedipp> I think the normal white space "O"
+
−
[15:23] <rosanaardila> so you mean this: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Branding_Initiative/branding_guidelines_draftLogo:_DO.27s
+
−
[15:23] <rosanaardila> ?
+
−
[15:24] <stx12> to be precise: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/File:Logo_OOo_space.png
+
−
[15:24] <stx12> that's the full white space.
+
−
[15:24] <bedipp> yes
+
−
[15:25] <rosanaardila> ok
+
−
[15:25] <stx12> the other extreme is combined logos; and i would allow the use of exceptions we talked about to use O/2.
+
−
[15:25] <rosanaardila> that sounds reasonable to me
+
−
[15:25] <stx12> if we have no need to do so then let's go with the full O
+
−
[15:25] <rosanaardila> +1
+
−
[15:26] <bedipp> I still vote -1 for not allowing derived logos
+
−
[15:26] <bedipp> But if this is decided anyhow I vote +1 for dropping the reduced space
+
−
[15:27] * rosana_a has joined ooobranding
+
−
[15:27] <stx12> it's not decided anyhow... i think we should support this together. but at some point we have to move forward.
+
−
[15:27] * rosana_a has left ooobranding
+
−
[15:28] <rosanaardila> I also think we need to come to a conclusion
+
−
[15:28] <stx12> and others were willing to take this route (avoiding) combined logos.
+
−
[15:28] <bedipp> And then I think you will not allow OOo stamps either: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/File:Stamps_draft.png
+
−
[15:29] <bedipp> Who will decide? The list?
+
−
[15:29] <bedipp> Finally it's a decision of the trademark holder
+
−
[15:29] <stx12> bedipp: i don't think it helps to move it fromj there to there and back:
+
−
[15:29] <rosanaardila> bedipp: that's why we're trying to create the guidelines
+
−
[15:30] <bedipp> the only place all the relevant people can talk is the list because we can't bring them all together here.
+
−
[15:30] <rosanaardila> and we need to come to a conclusion
+
−
[15:31] <stx12> bedipp: we had all people here; in the last round and now.
+
−
[15:31] <rosanaardila> I always post the minutes and logs of these IRC meeting on the list
+
−
[15:31] <bedipp> but not together - that's not possible for volunteers all over the world.
+
−
[15:32] <bedipp> We always agreed to decide on the list, not in IRC
+
−
[15:32] <rosanaardila> everyone can comment the minutes, exactly as you did
+
−
[15:32] <stx12> i don't want to enter a discussion who "we" is.
+
−
[15:33] <bedipp> no problem - just go on.
+
−
[15:34] <rosanaardila> ok, so let us come back to the questions
+
−
[15:34] <bedipp> None of us has the time to find a way  through principle differences here.
+
−
[15:34] <stx12> i would expect that we exchange the same opiniolns again in the list.
+
−
[15:34] <stx12> so i was happy to see both ends.
+
−
[15:34] <stx12> and a possible compromise.
+
−
[15:35] <rosanaardila> I agree that the IRC meetings are good for finding compromises
+
−
[15:35] <bedipp> So let's try to find a compromise on the list
+
−
[15:35] <bedipp> (like a quarter of the "O")
+
−
[15:35] <stx12> so what is left is whether we need the o/2 expection or not.
+
−
[15:36] <bedipp> I think that depends on the other question.
+
−
[15:36] <ivantm> when it comes to NL derived logos it might be best to consult on the NL mailing list...
+
−
[15:36] <ivantm> otherwise we may get complaints about decisions being made here by a small group that negatively affect others
+
−
[15:37] <stx12> i'm afraid this topic will have negative effects anyway.
+
−
[15:37] <stx12> the only way to avoid this to establish the full whitespace.
+
−
[15:38] <rosanaardila> I am in favor of the full whitespace
+
−
[15:38] <bedipp> that has negative effects on our official artwork - in relation to the previous logo
+
−
[15:39] <stx12> otherwise we will see a bunch of proposals for combined logos... and continue as we did with the old logo.
+
−
[15:39] <bedipp> but as we didn't have a trademark policy in the past, negative effects can't be avoided
+
−
[15:39] <stx12> bedipp: yes, that's right.
+
−
[15:39] <rosanaardila> I propose to stick to the actual white space
+
−
[15:40] <bedipp> stx12: I want the combined logos be consistent with the general branding, therefore such a bunch should not be allowed
+
−
[15:40] <stx12> and now we have already "abuse" of the new logo, because we are not moving forward.
+
−
[15:40] <stx12> and the best consitency is achieved with no exceptions.
+
−
[15:40] <rosanaardila> stx12: I agree
+
−
[15:41] <bedipp> Stick with the full white space or come to a compromise on the list
+
−
[15:42] <rosanaardila> stx12 proposed O/2 as compromise
+
−
[15:42] <stx12> the compromise finding on the list didn't work out in the last months
+
−
[15:42] <stx12> we had everything on the table - aeh list.
+
−
[15:42] <bedipp> The best consistency is achieved with a consistent branding - not with a logo in different surroundings
+
−
[15:43] <bedipp> stx12: we had different opinions and no moving towards a compromise. But let's stop this here
+
−
[15:44] <bedipp> I have to leave soon - other important topics?
+
−
[15:44] <stx12> i think this is impotant enough to conclude that we go with full white space and don't consider it worth the tijme to discuss the o/2 thing.
+
−
[15:45] <JensGH> it is a little difficult from my design point of view, but consistency is important, too. maybe we should post o/2 whitespace rule as RC on the list and wait if there are any vetos? If not we made it final?
+
−
[15:46] <stx12> i'm sure there will be vetos; but what are the consequences? full whitespace only.
+
−
[15:46] <stx12> the o/2 thing is an offer for certain ujse case. nobody is urged to use it.
+
−
[15:47] <rosanaardila> as I understand the O/2 offer would be for the exceptions such as NLC and OOoCon, right?
+
−
[15:47] <stx12> exactly
+
−
[15:48] <rosanaardila> should we post this to the list?
+
−
[15:49] <JensGH> we need, and we must decide based on reaction what todo next
+
−
[15:49] <stx12> ok, i assumne the log will be available anyway. right?
+
−
[15:50] <rosanaardila> as always
+
−
[15:51] <ivantm> sorry everyone I have to go, I'll have a look at the log and make any comments on the branding list
+
−
[15:51] <ivantm> have a good day all
+
−
[15:51] * ivantm has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
+
−
[15:51] <stx12> bye ivantm
+
−
[15:51] <rosanaardila> ok: so full whitespace as general rule and o/2 only for exceptions such as NLC and OOoCon
+
−
[15:52] <rosanaardila> I will post it and everyone can comment
+
−
[15:52] <JensGH> ok
+
−
[15:52] <bedipp> ok
+
−
[15:52] <stx12> do others hav ean opinion about a o/2 horizontal line?
+
−
[15:52] <stx12> just a curious question...
+
−
[15:53] <bedipp> Perhaps - need to be visualized first
+
−
[15:53] <bedipp> Might be more important than the round frame at the side
+
−
[15:53] <bedipp> thanks for mentioning it
+
−
[15:55] <stx12> if i understood rosanaardila correctly the red thing is to identify the creative area and doesn't have to be part of the final work.
+
−
[15:55] <stx12> that came up in the last meeting too
+
−
[15:55] <bedipp> but it was said, that the circle fits quite well with the gull orb
+
−
[15:56] <bedipp> I'll do some experiments and post them to the list
+
−
[15:56] <rosanaardila> that is a proposal
+
−
[15:56] <stx12> if people would like to have it as part of the work an dit looks good - why not
+
−
[15:56] <rosanaardila> the idea is to introduce the "frame" form to the proposals too
+
−
[15:56] <rosanaardila> otherwise it's hard to identify the rule
+
−
[15:57] <bedipp> I tried it with my proposals - but if you insist on O/2, there is not much space for a derived logo that includes the OOo logo in a appropriate size
+
−
[15:57] <bedipp> the OOo logo will become too small in relation to the entire design.
+
−
[15:58] <rosanaardila> I don't undestand you bedipp
+
−
[15:58] <stx12> i can imagine that it's hard to bring all these pieces on a stamp
+
−
[15:59] <bedipp> rosanaardila: In your design the logo covers less than the half space -  it becomes a smaller part of the design
+
−
[15:59] * stx12 has to leave in a minute...
+
−
[15:59] <bedipp> But I have to leave too - more (with examples) on the list
+
−
[16:00] <stx> see you next time... bye all
+
−
[16:00] <bedipp> bye stx12
+
−
[16:00] <bedipp> bye all
+
−
[16:00] * bedipp has quit IRC (Quit: bye)
+
−
[16:01] <JensGH> yes time is running out... we should move this on the list and set up a new meeting after we have feedback from the list
+
−
[16:01] <rosanaardila> thanks all for articipating
+
−
[16:01] <rosanaardila> I'll post the log to the wiki
+
−
[16:01] <rosanaardila> and the minutes to the list
+
−
[16:02] <JensGH> ok - i will make the font examples later the day... bye all
+
−
[16:02] * JensGH has quit IRC (Quit: JensGH)
+
−
[16:03] <rosanaardila> bye
+

Latest revision as of 11:34, 12 July 2010

[14:03] <rosana_a> shall we start now?
[14:03] <JensGH> it is time.. yes
[14:04] <rosana_a> ok, thanks all for taking the time
[14:04] <rosana_a> to be here
[14:04] <rosana_a> we still have some point for discussion from the last meeting
[14:05] <rosana_a> let's try to talk abou the topics that are new at the beginning
[14:05] <rosana_a> then we can go to the discussion topics still open
[14:06] <rosana_a> so, official font to be combined with the logo
[14:06] <rosana_a> this are the proposals: DejaVu Sans, Droid Sans, Liberation Sans
[14:08] <rosana_a> do you think that we should create examplesto decide this, or do you have any preferences from just seeing the names?
[14:08] <bedipp> If we want to decide about the fonts, we would need to have a visual draft of some combination
[14:08] * khirano has joined ooobranding
[14:08] <rosana_a> I agree, that's what I meant with examples
[14:08] <rosana_a> Hi khirano
[14:08] <bedipp> Did Stella came up with any other suggestion?
[14:09] <khirano> hi rosana :)
[14:09] <rosana_a> we were just talking about the official font
[14:09] <JensGH> you can see all three fonts on wikipedia... hi khirano
[14:09] <ivantm> we could also consider Molengo and Nobile from the Google font API (http://code.google.com/webfonts)
[14:09] <rosana_a> bedipp: as soon as any proposals are made they get posted to the wiki
[14:10] <bedipp> ok
[14:10] <ivantm> and Bernhard and my favorite, Vegur :)
[14:10] <khirano> rosana_a: OK, I see, thanks.
[14:10] <rosana_a> I was also thinking about vergur
[14:11] <bedipp> sorry for not post it to the wiki :-(
[14:11] <rosana_a> ivantm: you're right we should think about webfonts
[14:12] <rosana_a> I'd propose to have an example of the font next to the logo (in web or collateral)
[14:12] <ivantm> +1. And we should aim for a font with a broad character set (i.e. can be used by most NL projects)
[14:12] <stx12> ivantm: hm, does the font api mean you have to include the css from an external site in a page?
[14:13] <ivantm> yes - 1 line of HTML linking to a stylesheet on a Google server
[14:14] <stx12> ivantm: if this is the only way to use the font then i would try to avoid this dependency.
[14:15] <bedipp> does this mean they can't be included in offline design?
[14:15] <ivantm> they could be hosted locally - they're all based on actual fonts people can download and use
[14:15] <rosana_a> I think we should try to find a "web safe" font, taht can be displayed in every browser and can be created under any OS
[14:15] <stx12> ivantm: but they are mentioned as open suorce. so there will be a way to use them without 3rd party servers
[14:16] <ivantm> stx12: these fonts are available from most free font sites, so they could be hosted on OOo's servers and we could use the @font-face property of CSS... Google just offers the API as a service
[14:17] <ivantm> stx12: ...but they don't have to be used online - they're all available as TTF/OTF files
[14:18] <stx12> good to know; this also answers bedipp's question and allows us to use the fonts without the "online dependency".
[14:19] <stx12> btw, am i old-fashioned if i try to avoid the additional download of font data in a browser?
[14:20] <JensGH> a font is very small data.. i don´t think there is a problem today
[14:21] <ivantm> depends on who you ask :) - we can leave webfonts for another discussion
[14:22] <stx12> ok, at least we agree that there should be a way to hosdt them locally
[14:22] <rosana_a> ok, but we should decide which font to set as the official
[14:22] <rosana_a> let's ask for proposals with an example, that will help to find the best one
[14:23] <rosana_a> is that ok for you?
[14:23] <JensGH> yes, we can set up a page on wiki
[14:23] <ivantm> +1
[14:23] <bedipp> +1
[14:24] <khirano> +1
[14:24] <rosana_a> great, JensGH, you can link to the page from the branding guidelines draft
[14:25] <rosana_a> ok, let's move to other topics
[14:25] <rosana_a> I had the impression that there are missunderstandings around the black and white logo
[14:26] <rosana_a> I think our logo is blue/black and this b/w logo was intended to have a consistent logo when printed with b/w printers
[14:26] <rosana_a> but that isn't clear from the guidelines
[14:27] <rosana_a> if that's ok I would make it clear in the wiki
[14:28] * bedipp has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[14:28] <stx12> sure; i read invers logo solution for background color; i think it needs a bit more explanation
[14:29] <rosana_a> ok, then I will clear that if we all agree on that point
[14:29] <JensGH> b/w only for b/w prints
[14:29] <rosana_a> exactly
[14:29] <rosana_a> is not a secondary logo
[14:29] <rosana_a> we have only one
[14:31] <rosana_a> is that ok for you?
[14:31] <JensGH> +1
[14:31] <khirano> Yes. +1
[14:32] <stx12> yes
[14:32] <rosana_a> ok
[14:34] <rosana_a> last time we talked about the combination of NLC projects and the logo
[14:35] <rosana_a> we agree that respecting the white space NLC projects can use their visuals next to the official logo
[14:35] * stx12 was confused by the term "frame" ;-)
[14:35] * bedipp has joined ooobranding
[14:36] <rosana_a> right, maybe we have to clarify the term frame
[14:36] <rosana_a> bedipp: we're talking about the combination of NLC visuals with the logo
[14:36] * bedipp got no feedback from freenode anymore :-(
[14:36] <bedipp> sorry - I thought to be online...
[14:37] <rosana_a> so, first let's clarify what was meant with "frame"
[14:38] <rosana_a> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Branding_Initiative/branding_guidelines_draftLogo:_DO.27s
[14:39] <rosana_a> if you look at the white space guideline and at the proposal for a conference logo, it is marked through a frame how elements are arranged and what are the "rules"
[14:39] <rosana_a> that's what I meant with a frame
[14:39] <rosana_a> is to visually communicate the "rules"
[14:40] <rosana_a> is that clear now, has any of you a different idea?
[14:40] <bedipp> I donÄt know if you already talked about the basic question: create derived logos or not ?
[14:40] <rosana_a> bedipp: we're coming to that point
[14:41] <rosana_a> let's make sure we all mean the same by using the term "frame"
[14:41] <JensGH> is clear for me
[14:41] <bedipp> If we want to define frames, it is not easy to make them in a way the design works for derived logos. Therefore I'd ask that questions
[14:42] <rosana_a> we are not defing frames, just the term we use, stx12 was confused
[14:42] <rosana_a> ok, if that' clear let's discuss bedipp's questions
[14:42] <bedipp> ok - what you call frames are relative areas defined by logo sizes (or parts of it)
[14:44] <stx12> yes; close to the logo - at least closer as the regular white space rule
[14:44] <stx12> this makes it a combined logo / work / (you name it)
[14:45] <bedipp> I want to restrict these combined logos to official OOo areas - NLC, other projects, OOoCon
[14:46] <rosana_a> I don't see a need fr combined logos
[14:46] <rosana_a> Just the official logo, respecting the white space and placing visual elements next to the logo
[14:47] <stx12> i think that's too broad a definition
[14:47] <stx12> there are 5 derived logos we should consider: for the annual OOoCon, and 4 seasonal logos incl. OOo birhtday to be used at the website.
[14:48] <bedipp> I don't that combined logos weaken our brand
[14:48] <bedipp> (forgot: think)
[14:48] * _Nesshof_ has joined ooobranding
[14:48] <rosana_a> I do think that combined logos weaken our brand
[14:49] <stx12> we have to take of the "quality assurance" for the TM.
[14:49] <rosana_a> we have many websites selling openoffice.org for a lot of money
[14:49] <stx12> you may want to look this up.
[14:49] <bedipp> several NLC projects did combine the logo with their ISO code.
[14:49] <rosana_a> one of the reasons is because all OOo looks different
[14:49] <bedipp> rosana_a: No allowance for external websites
[14:50] <rosana_a> bedipp: they won't ask for allowance
[14:50] <stx12> in the last round there was no real need for NLC combined work beyond the frame solution.
[14:50] <rosana_a> exactly
[14:50] <bedipp> If we define derived NLC logos, they have to look consistent with the official one
[14:50] <rosana_a> I think we already discussed that point
[14:50] <bedipp> sorry that I wasn't able to join
[14:51] <bedipp> Ismael mentioned this point at the last meeting
[14:51] <bedipp> and nobody replied my mail at the list
[14:52] <stx12> sometimes it's easier to come to a decision if sitting in a (irc) room ;-)
[14:52] <rosana_a> that's right
[14:52] <bedipp> It can't be that this call can define the way to go if there are other opinions mentioned on the list
[14:52] <stx12> that's why rosana_a planned 2 meeting
[14:52] <rosana_a> we had already several discussions on the mailing list
[14:53] <rosana_a> and we have several meetings here
[14:53] <bedipp> and we had no *decision* on this topic by now (as far as I now)
[14:53] <rosana_a> but we need to come to a conclusion
[14:54] <bedipp> I want to avoid to force NLC projects to remove their identification by the ISO code
[14:54] <bedipp> I think it's better to show them how to do so without weakening the brand
[14:54] <rosana_a> bedipp: they can place them next to the logo, respecting the white space
[14:55] <stx12> and we want to avoid other difficult situations... but we can't please everyone.
[14:55] <bedipp> like any external website - this doesn't strengthen the brand
[14:55] <rosana_a> it is very hard to protect a trademark if you have 100 derived logos
[14:55] <stx12> bedipp: no there is a difference in the framing for internals
[14:56] <bedipp> ok - so we're talking about the frames for internals.
[14:57] <stx12> for the mentioned exceptions
[14:57] * _Nesshof_ has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
[14:58] <rosana_a> it means that for the OOoCon and the seasonal logos we have special frames
[14:58] <rosana_a> like the one in the proposal for the OOoCon
[14:58] <bedipp> So my question stays, if the official OOo project names can be included in the exceptions
[14:59] <bedipp> And what about any official slogan
[15:00] <bedipp> seasonal logos are a gimmick - if any of these proposals should be dropped, I'd vote for them
[15:01] <bedipp> The previous logo had an official slogan (positioner) next to it in a way, that the combination could be used as logo itself.
[15:01] <stx12> i'm sure we'll find other use cases.... then let's drop the seasonal logos; and add the ability to use the ISO code in the frame.
[15:02] <bedipp> ooo-pos-logo-col-rgb_200px.gif
[15:02] <JensGH> I think seasonal logos should be dropped, too
[15:02] <bedipp> stx12: +1
[15:03] <ivantm> +1
[15:03] <stx12> i don't think the positioner or even different ones should be part of a logo
[15:04] <bedipp> because of trademark or branding issues?
[15:05] <bedipp> if we define frames that cover those for example - would this be possible? Logo_proposals_with_caption_line.png
[15:05] <stx12> both - and i don't think it bring the message really across.
[15:07] <bedipp> In the last meeting you mentioned the line as separator under the logo as (too?) close to Oracle
[15:07] <stx12> almost, maz be not in exactly that way; look at the example in the draft guidelines:
[15:07] <stx12> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/File:Logo_OOo_extended_space.png
[15:08] <stx12> i'm not againt the horizontal line; i thought you would be ;-)
[15:08] <bedipp> no - depends on the distance ;-)
[15:08] <stx12> ok, then keep it in respectable distance - and well defined ;-)
[15:08] <bedipp> half the "O" is too far for a derived logo
[15:09] <stx12> ok, then let's not use derived logos at all.
[15:09] <bedipp> I want them to look as an entity - that what I think of derived logos..
[15:09] <rosana_a> ok, so with a frame NLC projects can position their ISO code next to the logo
[15:09] <rosana_a> and seasonal logos don't seem to be important and we consider to drop them
[15:09] <rosana_a> is that right?
[15:10] <bedipp> depends on the definition of "next"
[15:10] <JensGH> yes
[15:11] <rosana_a> and one possible frame is the one proposed for the OOoCon here: Logo_OOo_extended_space.png
[15:12] <bedipp> if you keep insisting on not allowing derived logos, then you can just add the normal white space. This will not change the visual impression very much.
[15:12] <stx12> next = not closer than shown in the example Logo_OOo_extended_space.png
[15:12] <stx12> bedipp: ok, fine with me
[15:13] <rosana_a> is that ok?
[15:13] <bedipp> not for me, but I'm not the branding group
[15:14] <stx12> the idea to at least give oocon logos and nlc a chance would still be open; for those that would like to use it. if not that's fine too.
[15:15] <stx12> i mean a chance with a (not to close) creative area...
[15:15] <bedipp> In this case I'd propose an "official" design that respects the white space.
[15:15] * rosana_a has quit IRC (*.net *.split)
[15:15] * JensGH has quit IRC (*.net *.split)
[15:15] <stx12> oops, we lost those on another irc server
[15:17] <stx12> shall we wait for rosana and jens to rejoin?
[15:18] <bedipp> I think so
[15:18] * rosanaardila has joined ooobranding
[15:19] <rosanaardila> sorry, back
[15:19] <stx12> and where is jens?
[15:19] <rosanaardila> I just told him
[15:20] <rosanaardila> sorry, where was the discussion as Jens and I left the room?
[15:21] * JensGH has joined ooobranding
[15:21] <rosanaardila> so now we're all online again
[15:21] <stx12> bedipp just proposed to drop the exception with a closer creative area and force people to use the full whitespace - the other exteme
[15:21] <bedipp> I'm just trying to create a draft
[15:22] <rosanaardila> I think the white space is ok
[15:22] <rosanaardila> but bedipp do you mean the white space we have now, or something else?
[15:23] <bedipp> I think the normal white space "O"
[15:23] <rosanaardila> so you mean this: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Branding_Initiative/branding_guidelines_draftLogo:_DO.27s
[15:23] <rosanaardila> ?
[15:24] <stx12> to be precise: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/File:Logo_OOo_space.png
[15:24] <stx12> that's the full white space.
[15:24] <bedipp> yes
[15:25] <rosanaardila> ok
[15:25] <stx12> the other extreme is combined logos; and i would allow the use of exceptions we talked about to use O/2.
[15:25] <rosanaardila> that sounds reasonable to me
[15:25] <stx12> if we have no need to do so then let's go with the full O
[15:25] <rosanaardila> +1
[15:26] <bedipp> I still vote -1 for not allowing derived logos
[15:26] <bedipp> But if this is decided anyhow I vote +1 for dropping the reduced space
[15:27] * rosana_a has joined ooobranding
[15:27] <stx12> it's not decided anyhow... i think we should support this together. but at some point we have to move forward.
[15:27] * rosana_a has left ooobranding
[15:28] <rosanaardila> I also think we need to come to a conclusion
[15:28] <stx12> and others were willing to take this route (avoiding) combined logos.
[15:28] <bedipp> And then I think you will not allow OOo stamps either: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/File:Stamps_draft.png
[15:29] <bedipp> Who will decide? The list?
[15:29] <bedipp> Finally it's a decision of the trademark holder
[15:29] <stx12> bedipp: i don't think it helps to move it fromj there to there and back:
[15:29] <rosanaardila> bedipp: that's why we're trying to create the guidelines
[15:30] <bedipp> the only place all the relevant people can talk is the list because we can't bring them all together here.
[15:30] <rosanaardila> and we need to come to a conclusion
[15:31] <stx12> bedipp: we had all people here; in the last round and now.
[15:31] <rosanaardila> I always post the minutes and logs of these IRC meeting on the list
[15:31] <bedipp> but not together - that's not possible for volunteers all over the world.
[15:32] <bedipp> We always agreed to decide on the list, not in IRC
[15:32] <rosanaardila> everyone can comment the minutes, exactly as you did
[15:32] <stx12> i don't want to enter a discussion who "we" is.
[15:33] <bedipp> no problem - just go on.
[15:34] <rosanaardila> ok, so let us come back to the questions
[15:34] <bedipp> None of us has the time to find a way through principle differences here.
[15:34] <stx12> i would expect that we exchange the same opiniolns again in the list.
[15:34] <stx12> so i was happy to see both ends.
[15:34] <stx12> and a possible compromise.
[15:35] <rosanaardila> I agree that the IRC meetings are good for finding compromises
[15:35] <bedipp> So let's try to find a compromise on the list
[15:35] <bedipp> (like a quarter of the "O")
[15:35] <stx12> so what is left is whether we need the o/2 expection or not.
[15:36] <bedipp> I think that depends on the other question.
[15:36] <ivantm> when it comes to NL derived logos it might be best to consult on the NL mailing list...
[15:36] <ivantm> otherwise we may get complaints about decisions being made here by a small group that negatively affect others
[15:37] <stx12> i'm afraid this topic will have negative effects anyway.
[15:37] <stx12> the only way to avoid this to establish the full whitespace.
[15:38] <rosanaardila> I am in favor of the full whitespace
[15:38] <bedipp> that has negative effects on our official artwork - in relation to the previous logo
[15:39] <stx12> otherwise we will see a bunch of proposals for combined logos... and continue as we did with the old logo.
[15:39] <bedipp> but as we didn't have a trademark policy in the past, negative effects can't be avoided
[15:39] <stx12> bedipp: yes, that's right.
[15:39] <rosanaardila> I propose to stick to the actual white space
[15:40] <bedipp> stx12: I want the combined logos be consistent with the general branding, therefore such a bunch should not be allowed
[15:40] <stx12> and now we have already "abuse" of the new logo, because we are not moving forward.
[15:40] <stx12> and the best consitency is achieved with no exceptions.
[15:40] <rosanaardila> stx12: I agree
[15:41] <bedipp> Stick with the full white space or come to a compromise on the list
[15:42] <rosanaardila> stx12 proposed O/2 as compromise
[15:42] <stx12> the compromise finding on the list didn't work out in the last months
[15:42] <stx12> we had everything on the table - aeh list.
[15:42] <bedipp> The best consistency is achieved with a consistent branding - not with a logo in different surroundings
[15:43] <bedipp> stx12: we had different opinions and no moving towards a compromise. But let's stop this here
[15:44] <bedipp> I have to leave soon - other important topics?
[15:44] <stx12> i think this is impotant enough to conclude that we go with full white space and don't consider it worth the tijme to discuss the o/2 thing.
[15:45] <JensGH> it is a little difficult from my design point of view, but consistency is important, too. maybe we should post o/2 whitespace rule as RC on the list and wait if there are any vetos? If not we made it final?
[15:46] <stx12> i'm sure there will be vetos; but what are the consequences? full whitespace only.
[15:46] <stx12> the o/2 thing is an offer for certain ujse case. nobody is urged to use it.
[15:47] <rosanaardila> as I understand the O/2 offer would be for the exceptions such as NLC and OOoCon, right?
[15:47] <stx12> exactly
[15:48] <rosanaardila> should we post this to the list?
[15:49] <JensGH> we need, and we must decide based on reaction what todo next
[15:49] <stx12> ok, i assumne the log will be available anyway. right?
[15:50] <rosanaardila> as always
[15:51] <ivantm> sorry everyone I have to go, I'll have a look at the log and make any comments on the branding list
[15:51] <ivantm> have a good day all
[15:51] * ivantm has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
[15:51] <stx12> bye ivantm
[15:51] <rosanaardila> ok: so full whitespace as general rule and o/2 only for exceptions such as NLC and OOoCon
[15:52] <rosanaardila> I will post it and everyone can comment
[15:52] <JensGH> ok
[15:52] <bedipp> ok
[15:52] <stx12> do others hav ean opinion about a o/2 horizontal line?
[15:52] <stx12> just a curious question...
[15:53] <bedipp> Perhaps - need to be visualized first
[15:53] <bedipp> Might be more important than the round frame at the side
[15:53] <bedipp> thanks for mentioning it
[15:55] <stx12> if i understood rosanaardila correctly the red thing is to identify the creative area and doesn't have to be part of the final work.
[15:55] <stx12> that came up in the last meeting too
[15:55] <bedipp> but it was said, that the circle fits quite well with the gull orb
[15:56] <bedipp> I'll do some experiments and post them to the list
[15:56] <rosanaardila> that is a proposal
[15:56] <stx12> if people would like to have it as part of the work an dit looks good - why not
[15:56] <rosanaardila> the idea is to introduce the "frame" form to the proposals too
[15:56] <rosanaardila> otherwise it's hard to identify the rule
[15:57] <bedipp> I tried it with my proposals - but if you insist on O/2, there is not much space for a derived logo that includes the OOo logo in a appropriate size
[15:57] <bedipp> the OOo logo will become too small in relation to the entire design.
[15:58] <rosanaardila> I don't undestand you bedipp
[15:58] <stx12> i can imagine that it's hard to bring all these pieces on a stamp
[15:59] <bedipp> rosanaardila: In your design the logo covers less than the half space - it becomes a smaller part of the design
[15:59] * stx12 has to leave in a minute...
[15:59] <bedipp> But I have to leave too - more (with examples) on the list
[16:00] <stx> see you next time... bye all
[16:00] <bedipp> bye stx12
[16:00] <bedipp> bye all
[16:00] * bedipp has quit IRC (Quit: bye)
[16:01] <JensGH> yes time is running out... we should move this on the list and set up a new meeting after we have feedback from the list
[16:01] <rosanaardila> thanks all for articipating
[16:01] <rosanaardila> I'll post the log to the wiki
[16:01] <rosanaardila> and the minutes to the list
[16:02] <JensGH> ok - i will make the font examples later the day... bye all
[16:02] * JensGH has quit IRC (Quit: JensGH)
[16:03] <rosanaardila> bye


Retrieved from "https://wiki.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Application_Rebranding_-_Project_Home_Page/Logo_Guidelines/20100707&oldid=174781"
Personal tools