Hey everyone!
Nice to see so much discussion over this, it really shows that this is
an active community and that you care about what you are doing here.
That's a definite positive for me.
On 1/7/2010 4:24 PM, Dennis Smolek wrote:
To all,
I would re-examine when EQUAL started using this motif and branding image.
Equal isnt generally kept up with in standard design blogs so I cant really
find the date of the change.
I really don't think "who did what first" matters as much as having a
strong branding identity, perhaps we should look at it from this point
of view rather than that of entitlement.
But I have seen plenty of equal boxes that
DONOT use this design or standard. I think it may be a bit of mirror
thinking in the regards to the designers of the equal packaging. Honestly I
cant see a relationship between the colored dots and the actual product,
where the dots in OOo are representative of the software within the package.
After I read this I actually had to go back and look at the splash
screen and the start up screen to try to see which dots corresponded to
which applications. This representation is so loose that I totally
missed it. The shape of the 'dots' certainly have nothing to do with the
software in the package, and the colors, well maybe you can make an
argument there, but as I count 6 applications and 7 dots it leaves some
questions as to what goes with what. Whereas Nik was able to come up
with all of this just from looking at the Equal packaging:
"- 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.
- 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."
not bad...
"- The wireframe gulls (which are showing their age as Design elements)"
Although they bear a direct relation to the OOo branding, they are not an
indispensable element of the branding itself, and I have to agree, they look
very dated.
"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."
I absolutely agree with this. OpenOffice.org, after all, is a product of Sun
Microsystems, and should be treated as such. I would really like to see the branding and
image more closely relate to the branding and image of, hmmm, say Java? Sun and Java are
household names in the computer industry, and I think reminding people that they are
related will only strengthen the branding and legitimacy of OpenOffice.org. When I told
my boss we should migrate some of our dated Microsoft Office systems of OpenOffice.org
she said "who?", but I bet you if I told her we needed to update our Java she
wouldn't even blink an eye.
"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 this is a very valid point. Every element in a design should have a purpose, not just
thrown together because it "looks good"; Personal preference should take a back
seat to the message and the mission of a design piece. If we are serious about helping
this product become a real competitor, we have to be absolutely serious about it's image
and branding.
I do not think there would be much of a LEGAL argument here, the design is
simply a motif used by equal(a food product) compared to a representative
element of a software package.
This I agree with, they are not competing products, so there is little
issue of legality, and besides, the branding is not SO close as to be
considered theft.
I LIKE how OOo uses the dots, and unless we
really want to engineer a new concept I think we should keep it.
-Dennis
We can agree to disagree on the dots ;) --but I absolutely agree that
unless something solid is ready to take its place that all or most of us
can agree on, then keeping it will be a moot point.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Bernhard Dippold<
bernh...@familie-dippold.at> wrote:
Hi Steven, Nik, all,
Steven Shelton schrieb:
On 1/7/2010 7:31 AM, Nikash V. SINGH wrote:
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 don't really see this as a major issue. At least in the States
(and I'm assuming its similar elsewhere), there could only be "legal
issues" of the similarity of the logos would tend to create
confusion in the minds of consumers. I don't think there's any way
one could make any realistic argument that such is the case here.
I agree with you, Steven, on this point, but looking at the other point
Nik raises here, we should take the chance to use this coincidence to
drop at least the shape of the "dots" when we look for branding elements
to be kept for the new overall design.
Absolutely. Taking the idea of the colored dots, and building it into
something that clearly represents the product, or elements thereof, is a
great idea.
Nik wrote:
By looking at that image, I think it should be obvious that Equal
has more right to use these motifs than OpenOffice.org does [...]
I feel strongly that the coloured dots should not be added to the
OOo identity, not with such little relevance or thought [...]
I don't think that we can be called "brand borrowers" just because of the
dots (the wire gulls have been compared to Adobe IIRC), but they don't serve
well for a strong branding identity.
What I wanted to say is, that the community's vote has brought us the OOo3
splash screen that we use for over a year now. As long as we don't have a
general branding identity I want to keep the elements we have - but the new
project will probably be a good reason to replace weak elements by stronger
ones without waiting for OOo4.
Very well put. I know a lot of people here might not like the idea of
change to time-tested design elements, but without change, or at least
discussion about change, there can be no innovation. Are we to roll out
the same splash screen every version? Look at our competitor, Microsoft,
does Office 2004 look ANYTHING like Office 2007? They change the look
and feel ot their products for good reason: Obsolescence and "perceived"
obsolescence for one; Make the new stuff look new so you'll want it,
and so it will make the old stuff look old so you don't want it anymore.
A version number isn't always enough to make people want to jump on the
bandwagon, they want to "see" that it's better. And that's where we come in.
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 am totally on-board with you on these issues, however.
Same with me - there is quite a lot of work to do...
Let's find out what can be reached with Sun in the meeting next week.
Best regards
Bernhard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:art-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail:art-h...@marketing.openoffice.org
In summary, I think this is an unexpectedly great discussion over what
started out as a whimsical observation, and I think everyone has added
relevant and thoughtful insights to the overall discussion. I mean no
disrespect to the designers of the current packaging, it obviously had
support of the greater part of the community when it was voted for, and
for good reason, but no matter what any one of us can create, we can do
better as a team. Thanks everyone!
cheers,
-Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: art-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: art-h...@marketing.openoffice.org
