Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Drew,

Drew Jensen wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 01:16 +0100, Bernhard Dippold wrote:
Drew Jensen schrieb:
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 20:53 +0100, Volker Merschmann wrote:
Somewhat nice idea, but may I remind you to obey the branding rules:

sure - that is part of why I placed it up here - do you think it fails?

How could I make it pass - or you just want to see draft 2 and see if it
is closer?

... wrong font (Didn't you mention you used the SVG source of the logo?)
Yup that is it, it is directly from the logo.

Probably you used the version with text (left on the SVG) instead of the one turned into paths.

If you imported in in Draw, the font might have been replaced by your standard font (Liberation 
sans?), while the differentiation between bold and regular text wasn't imported correctly.

This is obviously our fault - we shouldn't provide the text version at all...

... wrong aspect ratio (probably related to the point above)
This is the problem - I didn't take the time to qualify the ratio, just
pulled it out for a basic layout pass.

Same as above - should work without problems if you take the path version

... bold "Office" part
hmm - yes noticed that, I think the svg file is out of date on
that..isn't it? I figured the one I was using form the wiki currently
was, so didn't really sweat it yet.

Not really out of date, just providing one version too much ;-)

... dark background

Yes - it is, but surely we aren't going to pass on all dark backgrounds-

This is a general problem with logos on colored backgrounds / photos.

From the branding aspect it should stand alone, not merged with the 
background (and without adding shadows, 3D-effects and so on).

It would work, if the logo would be taken as unity with a white 
background area - placing it as an opaque graphical element (with fading 
borders, if appropriate) on top of the image. But this will create a different 
general impression of the general design.

It's always a question about the importance of a strict branding design 
comparted to the creative liberty of artists. As we are the one to define it for
LibreOffice, it's up to us to decide about the priorities.

I can use the white out logo but it really doesn't come across as well,
IMO in a big way - still I can put one together and put it up to compare

Saw the link in your next mail (

It keeps the language of the poster while being more consistent with the 

I'd just propose to use the Vegur font (link at the branding wiki page) for the
additional text: Might improve the general impression even better.

Best regards


E-mail to for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at
All messages you send 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.