Application Rebranding - Project Home Page/Logo Guidelines/20100707

[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> [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? [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: [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 [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