Hi Jürgen, all,
this is exactly the discussion we need. Thanks to everybody for joining in.
Of course it would have been better to discuss this topic before
implementing the icons in the first product (SO 9.2), but it's time
enough to find a way for OOo that is supported by the community.
Juergen Schmidt schrieb:
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Martin Hollmichel wrote:
>>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
again from my point of view there is no need, simply use the icons
as they are. As far as i know the icons were already suggested to
OASIS to become the default icon. Maybe it will change who knows
but then we should use the new ones, important is to use the
default ODF icons without any changes.
No - this is the wrong way from my point of view.
At first there has to be a consensus on the goals to achieve.
Second is to find a way to include most of the ODF supporting products
and distributions in these goals and in the symbol language to be used
to reach these goals.
Third is to define a specification covering all the aspects of the icons
(including a dedicated marketing strategy for this modification).
Fourth is about creating the icons and defining them to become the
default ones.
Fifth means including them in test surroundings (user survey?) to find
out backdrafts not noticed before.
Sixth and last point is the final implementation of the icons in the
product, running the marketing campaign and releasing the product.
As far as I know several points have not been worked on as thoroughly as
necessary, in time or at all...
If we implement the icons without modification, we'll have to be aware
of all the possibilities we missed during this path.
As this mail is long enough, I'm not replying here in detail - please
wait a bit for my next mail...
I'm not sure if I really understand your point why it is important
to have icons without any change, I can imagine that it will be
difficult enough to get an agreement of all teams (KDE, Gnome and
OpenOffice.org team) on an unified style at all, I would be fine if
there would are slight differences for the icons if the artistists
say they need to do some adoption to make them smoothly integrated
into their specific icon themes.
It's not only a question of style, but of symbolism. If we want a
certain symbol to be adopted among other applications, we need to talk
to them first.
Indeed. Jürgen, as Michael already pointed out: we'll need to lobby
for that icon idea *first*. And believe me, not even providing an easy
way to exchange colors is gonna fly in Linux land - just compare the
totally different icon themes in e.g. Gnome and KDE (in
the shapes, and metaphors used - and not even mentioning Moblin, Maemo
etc.).
Designers *will* veto anything that'll make their theme visually
inconsistent, ask Stella.
Same for marketing and branding: Only if there is a benefit for the
application (or the idea behind it), a change will take place.
i understand it and it is probably not easy to achieve. But i pointed
out my personal opinion and that is to use the default icons as they
are. Ok, maybe we need some more icons to address different design
principals in general (e.g. Gnome, KDE). In case of OOo we would need
all icons for the different themes as well, correct?
If such a design principle hinders the use of the ODF icons in general
(Apple Human Interface Guidelines don't allow to add an identifying
rethink the concept at all - before implementing icons that have to be
modified afterwards.
The general idea of unique icons for ODF is a good one and we should
better do promotion for it.
Sorry Jürgen - here I don't know if you have the support of the community.
The general idea of supporting ODF branding is a good one - I'm quite
sure, nobody disagrees.
Using icons on the users desktops to further this idea is good as well.
But the necessity to reduce or give up OOo branding in this area has
been decided without involvement of the marketing project (at least I
can't find any mails in the archives).
And not only myself, but others I spoke to (I know, this is not
representative) don't understand, why we can't keep a gull with the blue
bare - perhaps colored in the application colors.
Yes it would have been better to do this
first and involve more people and groups. I can't change it and i wasn't
involved too but i see the message and the idea behind it and that is
worth to support.
If we want the icons to be supported by other applications, I could
imagine, that they think similar: Add the branding "ODF" sign to the
icons, but keep another easy recognizable symbol for the application too.
I'm quite sure that such an approach would reach much more branding
recognition for ODF, if this could be more easily adopted by others than
your present way.
Are the icons really so bad? Or is it more a breached ego and of course
the mistake that is was done behind the doors? I think the lesson is
learned!
At least for myself: I don't feel bruised on my ego - I want to avoid
some in my eyes important negative aspects of this decision, as long as
they can be avoided.
If the result would have been OK, I would not insist on restarting the
discussion from the scratch. But already on the first point (consensus
of goals) the direction is a bit off the line I think the community is
willing to go.
Best regards
Bernhard
[1]:
http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/XHIGIcons/XHIGIcons.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/20000967-TPXREF124
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@marketing.openoffice.org
