Hi *,
Ivan, as usual you're the rational and collected counter to my inadvertently
abrupt and hot-headed ramblings.
One thing I should mention straight off the bat, the legal issues; way out of
my area of expertise. I mention them because they are a possibility, but to
what extent, I really have no idea. More importantly, no one has responded to
the fact that keeping the startlingly similar design might alter people's
impression of the Art project. Perhaps even to the point where they assume we
aren't capable of delivering something new and innovative, which isn't true.
I don't know how it is in other countries, but Equal is more well-known here
than OpenOffice.org to the layman. No one I know uses it (Equal), yet everyone
knows what it is and does. Its at every coffee shop and restaurant. These same
people have never heard of OOo. They will not give OOo the benefit of the
doubt. Everytime I see a product copy the Cadbury "swirl" text effect, my
impression of the quality of that product drops, it doesn't matter if its
foodstuff or not. Latching onto the success of another brand is repulsive.
It would take only one prominent branding blog to catch wind of the similarity
and draw comparison, if they assessed it like we are doing here and found Equal
to have more cause to use the dots and wave, we would look amateur. "Why can't
an entire team of Designers just create a different and more relevant design?
It is relatively easy to change a digital splash-screen for a new software
release, it is difficult to change a manufactured product's print-run".
This is certainly not the concern of most OOo users, but if we want OOo to be
professional enough to compete with MSoffice, we shouldn't JUST be worried
about users, we should be looking to impress the Branding aficionados, achieve
media attention among Design publications and warrant comparison to MSoffice in
blogs and forums. Using branding that mirrors that of another companys further
propagates the negative impression of OOo as a "substitute" product to
MSoffice.
Ivan M <i2initiati...@gmail.com> wrote;
> ...
> It could be argued that whatever design we come up with, someone,
> somewhere has done something similar, or will do something similar
> independently in the future.
It's true, nothing is new anymore, but if we used a Logo + Design motifs + bugs
that had a theme, it woudn't matter. While right now; a gull, an "s", a
wireframe and coloured dots are very disparate Design elements.
> ...
> To give OOo a more independent (i.e., community driven) and
> unique identity this should be replaced with something more fitting
> (e.g. a feather outline, a wing outline, etc if we stick with gulls -
> even that is up for debate).
A feather, a quill, wings, gulls, flight, freedom, air, openness, blue, sky.
There was always this theme. It was strong. It worked visually and
metaphorically and reflected our principles. Where do dots fit in here? This
isn't a cheap-shot at the dots, if someone could suggest a meaningful reason
for their presence/inclusion, I would drop the subject. The colours make sense
for application differentiation, the shape however, has little meaning.
> ...
> +1. I think that the OOo logo is where our efforts should be focused,
> and branding elements should be secondary supports.
I agree. I think many people have mentioned that too over time,
but hopes of a new OOo logo is a dream constantly dashed for the Art project.
But you're right, motifs should be _derived_ for the identity to be consistent.
...
Well at least it got us talking =)
And it gives you chaps more to discuss during the brand meeting.
-Nik
__________________________________________________________________________________
See what's on at the movies in your area. Find out now:
http://au.movies.yahoo.com/session-times/
