Re: [art] OpenOffice.org Identity a little close to that of Coffee Sweetener?
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/
Re: [art] OpenOffice.org Identity a little close to that of Coffee Sweetener?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 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. 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. - -- Steven Shelton Twilight Media Design, LLC 17195 Silver Parkway #134 Fenton, MI 48430 www.TwilightMD.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFLRj/fKP0FWmSVanERAioUAKDkeYHS9ZfPCI4O1uX0r6v3FAHWtQCfRcYe bYNbD6EqAPTj+6Az2AT9v0Q= =uzaG -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: art-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: art-h...@marketing.openoffice.org
Re: [art] OpenOffice.org Identity a little close to that of Coffee Sweetener?
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. 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. 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
Re: [art] OpenOffice.org Identity a little close to that of Coffee Sweetener?
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. 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. 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. I LIKE how OOo uses the dots, and unless we really want to engineer a new concept I think we should keep it. -Dennis 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. 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. 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
[art] Open Office Icons
Hello my name is Mike W. I am making a resource for the open source community it's a icon resource free to use free to download free to upload on your site open office. Here are the Downloads: http://www.bitpic.com/downloads/ Project details: 3,956,995 True WxH Original Pictures using black pictures elements. Preview 4_4_8_1422 here http://www.bitpic.com/preview/index.php?id=1412 That's 4x4 8 picture elements 1422 possible True WxH Original Pictures pictures The following cells have been generated I will upload the others as the finish http://www.bitpic.com/pics/index.php?id=1 You can download these and offer them on Open Office for icon designers to use them.
Re: [art] OpenOffice.org Identity a little close to that of Coffee Sweetener?
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
