Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

i love the website-design proposal!!
it doesn't just look AWESOME but could also make the website more
usable, as you said.

Am Sonntag, den 20.02.2011, 01:40 +1100 schrieb Nik:
Hullo Design!
(whoa, once again, LOOOOONG Email, sorry, but these issues were 
"circumnavigated", they really need to be brought up).

This will seem counter-productive to say but I REALLY don't want to slow 
us down! Especially now in this time of urgency.
*(I even have a very quick and stringent timeline/plan for execution of 
these suggestions at the bottom of this long email)*
But I've been putting this off for some time already and the situation 
will get worse if we do much more without considering it;

There are many *many* things that need to be designed RIGHT NOW: 
banners, cd covers, collateral, ads, website graphics, flyers.
The Community cannot wait any more.
Because we are unable to provide all of this right now, the community 
will go ahead and make their own (often harmful to our desire for a 
professional image). It is already happening.
Right now we are asked to make banners, the point of which is to be seen 
by as many people as possible.
I don't think we're ready for that yet to be quite frank. But we have 
to, nonetheless, it's for the best cause!

Since the MIME-type icons have been the only major work so far to go 
through rigorous iteration within this community, their design is being 
appropriated onto all the formats we are working on;
- The fund-raising banners are using the "pale innerborder + dark 
outerborder + clipped corner" treatment from the logo/icons
- The impress templates are using the radial gradient / vignette from 
the icons (this is a great project/initiative by the way)
- Paulo has turned the icons into --may I be so rude as to say-- F#©k!n% 
GORGEOUS wallpapers! =O

But there is a problem. These design elements made sense on the icons;
- Coloured outline: a folder lining
- Pale inner border: depth of paper-stack
- Radial gradient: top-lighting of pile
- Clipped corner: from our logo

But they don't make sense everywhere, and right now they are being 
carried over to other formats due to convenience/consensus-status.
*This problem and the other one mentioned above, could be fixed if we 
created a Design motif or theme;*
- We could use it (the motif) without mixing metaphors
- The /community/ could use it without having to design from scratch and 
undoing our work on brand consistency

This wasn't a problem in OOo because there was;
- The Seagulls = theme (openness, sky, flying, freedom)
- The wired gulls (as fugly as they were) = motif

The usual process for this (I know most of you will know this, but bare 
with me one sec) is that;
1. The chief characteristic of the company/org is identified. Specified 
as a desirable "image/perception".
2. A strong logo is created, which allows for;
3. The extrapolation/derivation of a design motif. (preferably VECTOR 
and simple, it will need to be printed on LARGE materials)
4. They form the basis for a start to the style guide, including Brand 
guidelines and colours which reflect the "image/perception"
5. High quality stock photography is used to support (which is glaringly 
absent in LibO)
6. Templates are made available to all, to make it easier to adhere to 
this consistent "image/perception"

I think it has (wisely) been decided that our LibO design /theme/ is: 
"paper". To build on user familiarity with a paper office. Good, "check".
I'll skip my reservations about the logo and deciding colours without a 
"theme" for now.
If anyone has a D90+ / 450D+ or other higher quality DSLR, please 
consider taking some stock photography we can use (the potential subject 
matter would need to be discussed in another thread).

Right now the closest thing we have to a motif is the clipped corner, 
which is promising, BUT...
At the moment *all* things are inheriting a "bordered box and corner" 
which creates many "cornered boxes" on one page, this isn't a great move.
It reduces the effectiveness of the corner design if it is in too many 
places, being used like a layout element rather than as a branding element.
For example, it is present on the LibO homepage in 6 places right now, 
with no rhythm or alignment.
One very prominent clipped corner on the page should be enough. This 
isn't to say it shouldn't reappear elsewhere, but the dark grey 
"floating" corner element should NOT appear elsewhere in the layout.
Repetition isn't always a sign of consistency, sometimes it's a great 
sign of limitations.
For example, I've uploaded a (nasty and rough) example of how I would 
imagine 1 corner would suffice and make a bigger impact;
It could also serve some important purpose: download button / 
back-to-top button / or if LibO is feeling adventurous and moves the 
Logo to the top-right, it could serve as the home button.

But this is all branding-speak. What I want to say, loud and clear;

I propose the following timeline because it is necessary and because I 
have heard a few people (Johannes? Paulo? Jaron?) suggest they may be 
available soon.
- *2 or 3 days* to discuss on this list ideas about what the motif 
should be. What the "perception" should be.
- *1 or 2 days* to design a vector composition
- *1 day* when Bernhard+Christoph+Ivan (as the most-active and senior 
members of the Design list) decide on 1 motif
- *1 day* to refine as per feedback.
So this could be all done in a week if we are agile.

I know it isn't ideal, but the current logo was made in the same 
circumstance. And we cannot go on treating the logo/icons as 
Design:formatting elements!!!
As soon as we have a Design motif, in a couple of variations, it will be 
easier to make everything look professional and clean (assuming the 
motif itself looks this way).

In the mean time, I strongly recommend that the fund-raising banners be 
So that they do not hint at a Design/style that we will not adhere to 
long-term, or create a perception of a Design direction which has not 
already been decided.
They should be as /neutral/ and /occasion/-specific as possible and bare 
no strong /stylistic/ elements whatsoever. Otherwise people will come to 
think of them as the LibO "style" and we will have to honour it.
Right now too many 
different/incomplete/disparate/unintentional/inconsistent design items 
are making their way to the public and our ability to intelligently 
"master" a design style or direction for LibO is slipping out of our 
hands. The more this continues, the more LibO will be a haphazard 
collection of randomly made design elements.
It'll be like OOo all over again.

I would really appreciate if some of the Design leadership (Bernhard, 
Christoph, Ivan) commented on whether they thought this plan is 
feasible. Or updated it with times that are more appropriate.

On 2/19/2011 9:28 AM, Christoph Noack wrote:
@ Paulo, Nik: If you have some time, could you please dive into working
on the missing graphics? It would be great if you could coordinate this
on this list, to avoid doubled effort. If you miss the time, I'll jump
in tomorrow ... but I'd like to work on other less visible funding
stuff :-\

The missing items are listed here:
Hi Paulo and Christoph,
I will work on some Community banners seeing as how they are urgent.
I think Paulo can work on the same thing without "doubling" our efforts 
seeing as how multiple banners are needed.
Whaddaya reckon?

you know, some people do also miss normal web banners.

Yes. Most of them are called "Marketing executives" ;)
But they invented Google-ads to satisfy /that/ crowd.


I know you're immensely busy old chap, but I'd be super-interested to 
know what you think about all this.


Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
List archive:
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.