https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=126074
--- Comment #10 from Bastián Díaz <diazbast...@protonmail.com> ---
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #8)
> I - again - suppose that having guidelines to icon creation when the icon is
> based on the official logo - is enough, vs making app icons part of the
> "branding".
>
It sounds good, but that does not currently exist. I already mentioned how some
styles totally differ from the concept of the original logo (karasa Jaga) and
how others only modify their color palette (Colibre). There is no consistency
nor at that level.
> You cannot limit the amount of UI elements appearing on
> different marketing materials, and if any of them would then fall into that
> category of "we want branding", we'll end up in a miserable state of having
> part of UI "customized" to match environment, and other - highly prominent -
> parts visually different-styled, creating very unprofessional, very untidy
> look and feel.
>
Do not get confused, we are not talking about Marketing and even only part of
what is Branding (visual identity). Come on, I'm not talking about changing
everything, you can match with the interface of a specific system by imitating
its design of "folder", "format", "undo", etc. Only maintain a consistent
visual identity that would apply to the logo and its derivatives.
What is not professional is not to consider it for a project as big as
LibreOffice. On the other hand if you want to improve the "look and feel" in
general, you can propose to improve the current visual elements, so that they
fit modern design trends.
> If we need something to represent apps in marketing papers, then better come
> with something very stylized and not related to icons in start center,
That is what is currently used!
> which
> would represent e.g. activity, not buttons used to start the apps. This way,
> you decouple the icons and marketing.
>
In practice it is the same and I insist, I mentioned that particular example
because it is the most obvious, but there are other places where those icons
are used.
> Also, I don't believe in a need to insist on "branding" for *users* of our
> software, who decide to customize. It's like "we insist that our app must
> look > this way, because "we want branding" - for unclear reason, maybe to
> keep
> reminding you, our existing user, that you are using our app, because we
> believe you may have forgotten that fact, and we won't let you choose a
> different look of some elements, because of BRANDING!!!1111 Or - maybe we
> consider *your workplace* our advertising facility, anticipating anyone
> approaching your monitor to get that BRANDING, and we don't care what you,
> our > user, thinks about that"?
Irony never brings a healthy discussion.
Nevermind, do you really believe that the intangible image of LibreOffice is so
solid to omit a clear visual identity? You can not put the customization above
everything else. The end user can always choose because thanks to FLOSS he can
do it, but that does not mean that there should not be minimum criteria of the
software that distributes TDF directly.
[1] https://www.libreoffice.org/discover/libreoffice/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
