Hi Drew, Marc, all!
Stepping in here - could have commented on each of your previous mails,
but you're quite fast ;-)
On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 07:01 -0400, Marc Paré wrote:
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
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
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.
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
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.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: Third Party Logs wiki page · Tom Davies
Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Third Party Logs wiki page · Tom Davies
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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