Hi Bernhard ... sorry for the long answer (in-line), but some of the
answers didn't make much sense without the previous referenced text.
Le 2011-04-25 19:24, Bernhard Dippold a écrit :
Hi Drew, Marc, all!
Stepping in here - could have commented on each of your previous mails,
but you're quite fast ;-)
It's the coffee that keeps me going! (*grin*)
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 :
Hi,
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.
Agree with this.
>>> [...]
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.
This is what I was proposing. I also agree that re-use of pre-approved
designs, there is no or even little need to seek approval. New
elements or, as you say, an expansion of pre-approved elements should
be sent to the design team for scrutiny and approval. This does not
take much time out of people's time.
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.
Yes, I was speaking from the point of view of new design elements.
Sorry if this was not clear. But ... see below.
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.
Continuation from above ... I also believe that, by courtesy, if
design elements are included, the material should be sent to the
design team for scrutiny so that both groups (marketing and design)
are aware of the existence of such material. Best be informed than
left in the dark.
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.
Even more. We have an understanding that any new marketing material
should be "approved" or scrutinized by Italo. Most times, Italo will
simply give us a nod in approval.
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...
No problem with this. However, at this point in time, TDF members (I
guess I really meant SC members) who are members in mailists involving
their particular specialities tend to have the final deciding vote on
whether a design element or marketing item is accepted. This is quite
understandable at this point in time when we are still organising and
formalising the membership process as well as production processes.
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.
Until we sort out the restrictive license behind one 3rd party in
particular, it seems to me that the design team should be in charge of
assuring proper usage. This is its area of expertise ... logos, usage
guidelines and licensing. After the 3rd party logo licenses are
cleared, the marketing team could then assume the proper use of these
on marketing materials. This is how I view the process, but no problem
if this is seen more as a marketing item than design.
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:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Visual_Elements
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.
Thanks for clearing up some of the items.
Cheers
Marc
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.
