Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hello Mirek,

I have taken a look at the elements below. I do find indeed some improvements with respect to the finition, but I'm still profoundly worried.
See my other comments inline.

Le 27.01.2013 19:25, Mirek M. a écrit :
Hi Charles, Italo,
The links to the proposed artwork are here:
* TDF artwork <>
* Community artwork without ® <> * Community artwork with ® <>
* sofficerc <>
* SVG sources <>

Please try it out before making a judgement.

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Charles-H. Schulz <> wrote:

Well. This mail is a bit difficult. I took a look at the design. It IS a
non standard logo on a white background.
There are two major issues.
* the logo is NOT the standard logo. You're using an old one from 2010.

The logo in the proposal comes straight from, where it's listed
as a valid option.

That said, we opted for a lighter, if a bit less standard, version of the
logo, as seen in Mateus's proposal.

* I don't have much to say for the startscreen, but honestly... the
splashscreen is something I could have done myself and I'm a profound idiot when it comes to design. This looks bad, unfinished, and I obviously do not have the documented rationale for your choice, but it's a bit like any
other choice would have been better.

A complex design doesn't necessary mean a good design. Here, simple tends
to be better.
And if you look, that's the design ethos of most successful software
To give examples -- look at Microsoft Word's new splash

And while iWork doesn't have a splash, it does have a

and the front is occupied solely by the logo.

On our social sites, the feedback seems mostly positive.

Indeed, and that feels a bit reassuring.I think I understand what you were trying to achieve and I completely agree that a complex design is not necessarily a good design. But there might be a disconnect between the intellectual approach, the concept if you will, and the final result. My point is this : you can see some contemporary artwork, being explained what's the reasonning behind them, even fully enjoy the reasonning behind it, and it still sucks. I think we might be in this situation :-)

I fundamentally believe we're heading in the wrong direction with this splashscreen although the files make it look a tad better than the original proposal.

Again, I'd encourage you to try it out before judging.
If you're still firmly opposed to it, we can revert back to the 3.6

I'll be honest with you, I don't know what we should do. Let me get back to you asap.

Thanks a lot for your patience and your work.


Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.