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

Hi Drew, Marc, all!

Stepping in here - could have commented on each of your previous mails, but you're quite fast ;-)

drew schrieb:
On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 07:01 -0400, Marc Paré wrote:
Hi Drew

Le 2011-04-25 05:23, drew a écrit :

I should expand on that - I would like the design team to be a resource
for the different groups/teams that will be working on specific items. I
would also expect it to continue generating guidelines, recommendations
or published best practices if you will.

Right - that's one of the reasons to establish a Visual Design team.

I would not be in favor it acting as a mandated certification body.

In my eyes the Design team defines a set of recommendations to follow in order to create and establish a consistent branding for LibreOffice.

All artwork following these recommendations can be seen as supporting the general branding language and doesn't need single case approval to be used.

>>> [...]

Thanks for the comments. We should however have some group ultimately
responsible for the release of new designed materials.

For new designs it depends for me if they reuse those pre-approved elements (in this case there is no need for anybody to comment/approve design-wise) or if they provide new, fresh, different elements that could or should expand our present set of branding elements.

An expansion of our branding elements can't be done without approval by the Design team, while for new graphics in marketing materials only to be used once it depends on the general impression:

If this is still consistent with our main branding language, nobody will object.

I don't know if this decision can be left over to the single designer, so I'd prefer a mandatory information of the Design team when some new introduced graphics are to be used for *official* material of the community.

IMO the marketing teams create and disseminate materials that often
contain pre-approved design elements (ex logos, graphics, fonts etc.)
from the design team.

Key phrase - pre-approved.

Right: Following the design recommendations and using the recommended pre-approved design elements should lead to a consistent visual design.

In these cases, and in particular marketing
materials and documents, these should be put to the scrutiny of the
design team when design elements are included.

No - this is not necessary, unless new elements are introduced.

Again, I simply disagree. As long as a good faith effort to comply with
the guidelines is being made then I see no reason for a vetting process
on each work item.

I agree.

But I also like to see a short information about new material sent to the design team.

In my eyes people working on design for LibreOffice *are* part of the design team. If they are able to read English, I recommend them to subscribe to the design list - if not, they should at least browse the wiki for information about our design language.

I want to reduce double work - and if a part of our community works on an item others need, it is not necessary to create two totally independent designs.

And for consistency and branding reasons a single design is much better than different ones.

I think we have been
using this process quite effectively with the marketing materials that
we have published thus far.

For myself I'm trying to set a good example, but if that is being taken
as a sign of my agreement that this one team has final say in all work
product then let me assuage you of that misconception without further

You are part of this team - so you have final say too.

Please compare it with any developing effort: If someone creates a patch solving a problem for him, he needs to upload it to the repository and send a mail to the developer list.

If this patch breaks some basic functionalities, it will not be included in the main package. If not, even if it is slightly different from what others would have been done, it gets approval.

Like the developer being allowed to implement his patch in his personal copy of LibreOffice every designer can use his design on his own.

If a developer wants to promote his version, he can't call it LibreOffice, if his changes are more than marginal. Same with design: If the new design adds value to the core design, it will be included in the official design, improved by others and provided to the community and public for their use.

If the person(s) working on a particular item wants to put their work up
for review, I would encourage them to do so, voluntarily.

Of course: Every action inside the community is voluntarily.

But if someone wants his artwork to be approved as official artwork (and remember, we hope to convince all community members to use official artwork and design for consistency reasons), it is necessary to present it to the design team.

As long as an "unofficial" design doesn't break any design guidelines, nobody will ask for it's removal or change - especially if there is no approved design in this area.

As far as the text in the material, in this particular case ...
marketing material, the marketing team would give approval for the text
included in document/materials. Marketing text is not the area of
expertise of the design team.

This should be clear to everybody:
For text in marketing material marketing expertise is crucial, so this list is the appropriate place to discuss and decide it.

It goes without saying that in both these cases the TDF membership is
involved through their participation in these groups giving validity to
the approval process of both groups.

Here I see it a bit differently: Merit can't be achieved by TDF membership, and if someone has been approved as TDF member because of contribution in any other area, this has nothing to do with his stand in the relevant team like marketing or design.

A TDF member can vote and can be voted to an official position in the community. And (s)he is bound to the bylaws.

But that's all. Real work in the community has nothing to do with the status of a contributor. Whether (s)he has been requested to become TDF member or not (people are not forced to do so): After some time a team member is known by his/her contributions - and based on this work his or her voice has more or less weight...

So, in this particular case, dealing with the 3rd party icons, it would
seem to me, the design team should be given mandate of assuring the
proper usage of these icons

On this one point - yes I agree.

And here I don't think it's necessary ;-)

Third party logos are not in the scope of the Design team, unless you think about their position and integration in the entire design.

It's a marketing question how to promote the file formats or entities behind these logos.

I could write much more on this topic - I hope you understand what I want to say.

One main point I have to mention:

The resources for "pre-approved" design elements are just in preparation, the guidelines are not finished.

Instead of waiting for final designs all artists and designers are invited to create what they think would fit best with the existing design for LibreOffice.

That's what you, Drew, did with really great results.

This artwork will be taken as basis for the "official" design that will be presented then on our gallery just started to create:

If you don't agree with some of my thoughts, it might be just a matter of misunderstanding. So please ask for explanation and provide your own opinion (like you already did here in the thread).

I think it is important to allow any artist and designer to work in the way (s)he likes best. But it's important at the same time to work on a consistent and professional branding and visual identity.

Combining these goals is not easy - but it is crucial if we consider our LibreOffice design as one of the goals to reach more users and contributors.

Best regards


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.