Hi Brian, Dennis, Art! Dennis Smolek <desopo...@gmail.com> wrote; > > I agree that the two are similar but I think thats just a coincidence. Equal > is constatly changing their packaging, and in most cases doesnt use the > multicolored orbs to represent anything. Especially in their most common > venue, that of restaurant sugar caddies. > > -Dennis >
With all due respect, I don't think the issue of the brand similarities that Brian raised, and illustrated here; http://briancoale.com/stuff/Equal-OOo3.png should be discarded so easily. The similarities are FAR too coincidental, and unintentional or not, this issue needs to be addressed otherwise it could lead to legal issues, or more pressing from my point of view, it would compromise the integrity of the Art project. I think we have too many fresh ideas here to be labelled unoriginal "brand borrowers". By looking at that image, I think it should be obvious that Equal has more right to use these motifs than OpenOffice.org does; - Their dots are following a curve that originates from the "q" in equal, a strong brand motif, based on the "peak" and "trough" in the curve, you get an impression of equilibrium. Hence "equal", Like a sine curve. Our splash screen curve is based on the SUN reverse-s, but when its lying down, where's the association? I think the reverse-S should always be vertical. Otherwise it dilutes the brand. This would be something for the new project to consider. - The "dots" they use relate to the product itself, little pieces of refined sweetener. I assume the multi-colour refers to the introduction of "flavour" or "taste". We use colours because of the different applications, but why do we use dots? where is the relevance of circles as applications? Even squares would be more appropriate. - The contour their coloured dots follow is used more consistently, more professionally, than anywhere in OpenOffice.org material. On that package alone, it is present on the "q", as the bottom border on the blue mast, in the arrangement of the slogan AND in the coloured dots. Besides, they did it first. We have a responsibility to change the Design now that we are aware of it. If we say that we will stick to it and simply "outlast" Equal, we will have adopted a series of irrelevant motifs based on stubbornness alone. Right now OOo is plagued with arbitrary Design motifs; - The mishaped gulls - The wireframe gulls (which are showing their age as Design elements) - The "reverse-s" which is used ad-hoc per design item - A "3" which appears every so often with no fixed location, scale or typeface I'm only saying this because I feel strongly that the coloured dots should not be added to the OOo identity, not with such little relevance or thought, and especially not now that we know they comprise the identity of another brand. They were part of a splash screen that was selected by the community, yes, but we shouldn't just start adopting elements because they were approved and it's easy to go with the flow. Every Design lecturers I've known has stressed this point: even though the market will determine the style, Designers should Design, based on their knowledge of Design theory, not the market themself ! OpenOffice.org's identity should be forged out of strong connections and intuitive analogies to the product and principles of the project. Not haphazardous "borrowing". Wow, long post. Sorry. You're all Designers, what do you think? How does everyone else feel about this? Doesn't this tickle anyone else's Design ethic? -Nik PS. This might have offended some people, but it wasn't meant to. I just feel strongly about the brand, and frankly, I'm watching it slip away. PPS. Hey Brian, welcome to the crew! __________________________________________________________________________________ See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now: http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/
