You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> on 2012/01/04 00:04:01 UTC
[WWW] rebranding...
OK, we got to see the new logo and a bit of a discussion has ensued re the
now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the existing logo on that
site.
My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but should anticipate
changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache OpenOffice" as
well?
Thoughts on this?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
with strange cats."
-- *Colonial American
proverb*
RE: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Let's take this knot apart and work it more systematically.
1. I think there is alignment on what the logo is for Apache OpenOffice (incubating), in terms of text with gulls. That takes care of the one main logo.
2. With regard to branding on the web properties, and the references to Apache OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, I agree that it has to be staged properly and it is important to be clear when the context is OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 and earlier and when is about Apache OpenOffice pending.
3. I think a priority concern should be branding and links in the *releases* from the podling, including binary releases from the podling as well as the source release.
3.1 I've done one analysis of the Windows install that shows all of the places branding and branded-dependencies show up just in the installation process: <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Win-en-x86-Setup>. There is more to do simply in identifying all of the places where branding matters.
3.2 There is more related to the install, including the setup of icons for use by the Windows Explorer shell, text content in the installed location, etc.
3.3 Then there is the branding in the execution of a binary release, in dialogs, in links, in embedded and on-line help, in the handling of extensions and in the treatment of availability of updates, whether it is just a matter of URLs that are exercised from within the executable.
4. Under the ASF, there may also be some nuances regarding what a downstream provider of a binary release must do to honor Apache marks and not create confusion with "official" podling releases. (There are some authentication considerations here as well.)
I'm devoting as much of my attention as I can to (3) strictly from a QA perspective -- i.e., systematic identification of all the places where an end-user of a binary release will encounter branding in some form. When there is enough on the wiki where it is all visible and the cleanups, substitutions can be made visible, I think that will work well.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 16:17
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [WWW] rebranding...
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a bit of a discussion has ensued re the
>>>>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the existing logo on that
>>>>> site.
>>>>>
>>>>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Evolution-wise, at some point we'll have a logo without the
>>>> "incubating" in it. Hopefully we can slow the pace of branding changes
>>>> after that ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but should anticipate
>>>>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache OpenOffice" as
>>>>> well?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would not do a batch search and replace of OpenOffice.org to Apache
>>>> OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>>> A few considerations (these are my opinions only, of course):
>>>>
>>>> 1) Some places legitimately should be called OpenOffice.org, e.g.,
>>>> references to legacy downloads, documentation for legacy releases,
>>>> etc. OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 did not magically become Apache OpenOffice
>>>> 3.3.0. It is still OpenOffice.org.
>>>>
>>>> 2) If we're discussing historical information, like the history of the
>>>> project, then we would still use OpenOffice.org in that context, just
>>>> as we still refer to "StarOffice".
>>>>
>>>> 3) I would not change something that is considered a "record", like a
>>>> past communication or letter or email or press release, etc. If
>>>> something was an authorized communication of the project, we should
>>>> respect the words it used at the time.
>>>>
>>>> 4) But in general, we want to be consistent in the new branding as
>>>> "Apache OpenOffice". It should be clear to a user that this is the
>>>> branding and any other use should be a historical context.
>>>>
>>>> 5) It should be fine to refer to "Apache OpenOffice" initially on any
>>>> given page and then unambiguously refer to "OpenOffice" for
>>>> repetitions. We don't need to use the full form over and over and
>>>> over again on the same page. But we should use the full form on the
>>>> first occurrence on a page.
>>>>
>>>> 6) Maybe just start with the logo, the page footer and prominent other
>>>> pages, e.g., the blog, top level navigation on the website, how to get
>>>> involved, etc. I don't see much value in "hunting" for millions of
>>>> occurrences of "OpenOffice.org". But maybe we can search for all
>>>> <title> and <h1>'s that use that term?
>>>
>>> I just put the new Apache OpenOffice incubating logo on the project blog, changing the project name.
>>>
>>> One possibility would be to make logo changes to the banner based on whether the information is for a current release vs. information that is being updated for the project.
>>>
>>> It would be possible to make the top logo choice at the folder level.
>>>
>>
>> I'd avoid that approach. The logo that is on every page is part of
>> the site branding. It is like the footer. It is an attribute of the
>> site, not the specific page.
>>
>> Things that appear in the body of the page, between the header and
>> footer banner, there we might have some good reasons to refer to
>> OpenOffice.org, and maybe even show the old logo. But the site and
>> the project are Apache OpenOffice. There should never be an occasion
>> for removing the site branding from a page.
>>
>> Remember, someone could visit a page from an external URL reference.
>> When they are dropped onto a page it should be obvious to them that
>> this is the Apache OpenOffice project. It might also be obvious to
>> them that they are viewing documentation for OpenOffice.org, but we
>> should not need to drop the AOO branding in order for this to work.
>>
>>> download and api might remain with the old logo until release.
>>> why would remain legacy until it is updated.
>>> NLC projects could all be changed over. We want them to come to us.
>>>
>>> Do we want to pursue a pragmatic approach like that?
>>>
>>
>> Consistency on site branding is pragmatic, IMHO.
>
> My concern is users going to download.openoffice.org and thinking that they are downloading Apache OpenOffice when they are downloading OpenOffice.org.
>
> I am also concerned that when they look at API docs on api.openoffice.org for the legacy codebase they don't think they are looking at the API for Apache OpenOffice.
>
And if they start from a page that says Apache OpenOffice and view 5
other pages that say Apache OpenOffice, and then go to a page the
subtly changes the logo, then the user will also think they are
downloading an Apache release -- unless you take other and much more
obvious precautions. I don't think you can avoid that. A
Subtle".org" in a logo is not really adequate. We should probably
have a prominent note on the download there that makes it clear that
this is not ALv2 code, but a legacy LGPL release.
As for API doc, version to version differences are more critical than
the difference between the OOo and AOO version. A developer needs to
make sure they are looking at the right info, and the subtle change of
logo is not going to help much.
> The logo at the top is going to be subliminally the wrong message. It's a subtle point. This is why I think we should wait to change the logo until we are offering an Apache OpenOffice download from openoffice.org.
>
I'd recommend avoiding subliminal messages altogether. Have
consistent branding for the site and the project, and then where there
is an important distinction to make, make it clear, in writing. I
think you expect too much from the visitor if you think they will take
a subtle change of logo as implying something significant and specific
rather than just an error.
An alternative, for example, would be to have a consistently styled
<div> that we could place on selected pages, saying something like
"Note: the content on this page pertains specifically to the legacy
OpenOffice.org release X.Y.Z. This information is subject to change
when Apache OpenOffice is released".
I think that addresses your concern in a better way.
-Rob
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts on this?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> MzK
>>>>>
>>>>> "You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
>>>>> with strange cats."
>>>>> -- *Colonial American
>>>>> proverb*
>>>
>
Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 1/4/12 1:16 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Dave Fisher<da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Dave Fisher<da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a bit of a discussion has ensued re the
>>>>>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the existing logo on that
>>>>>> site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Evolution-wise, at some point we'll have a logo without the
>>>>> "incubating" in it. Hopefully we can slow the pace of branding changes
>>>>> after that ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but should anticipate
>>>>>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache OpenOffice" as
>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would not do a batch search and replace of OpenOffice.org to Apache
>>>>> OpenOffice.
>>>>>
>>>>> A few considerations (these are my opinions only, of course):
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Some places legitimately should be called OpenOffice.org, e.g.,
>>>>> references to legacy downloads, documentation for legacy releases,
>>>>> etc. OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 did not magically become Apache OpenOffice
>>>>> 3.3.0. It is still OpenOffice.org.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) If we're discussing historical information, like the history of the
>>>>> project, then we would still use OpenOffice.org in that context, just
>>>>> as we still refer to "StarOffice".
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) I would not change something that is considered a "record", like a
>>>>> past communication or letter or email or press release, etc. If
>>>>> something was an authorized communication of the project, we should
>>>>> respect the words it used at the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) But in general, we want to be consistent in the new branding as
>>>>> "Apache OpenOffice". It should be clear to a user that this is the
>>>>> branding and any other use should be a historical context.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5) It should be fine to refer to "Apache OpenOffice" initially on any
>>>>> given page and then unambiguously refer to "OpenOffice" for
>>>>> repetitions. We don't need to use the full form over and over and
>>>>> over again on the same page. But we should use the full form on the
>>>>> first occurrence on a page.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6) Maybe just start with the logo, the page footer and prominent other
>>>>> pages, e.g., the blog, top level navigation on the website, how to get
>>>>> involved, etc. I don't see much value in "hunting" for millions of
>>>>> occurrences of "OpenOffice.org". But maybe we can search for all
>>>>> <title> and<h1>'s that use that term?
>>>>
>>>> I just put the new Apache OpenOffice incubating logo on the project blog, changing the project name.
>>>>
>>>> One possibility would be to make logo changes to the banner based on whether the information is for a current release vs. information that is being updated for the project.
>>>>
>>>> It would be possible to make the top logo choice at the folder level.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd avoid that approach. The logo that is on every page is part of
>>> the site branding. It is like the footer. It is an attribute of the
>>> site, not the specific page.
>>>
>>> Things that appear in the body of the page, between the header and
>>> footer banner, there we might have some good reasons to refer to
>>> OpenOffice.org, and maybe even show the old logo. But the site and
>>> the project are Apache OpenOffice. There should never be an occasion
>>> for removing the site branding from a page.
>>>
>>> Remember, someone could visit a page from an external URL reference.
>>> When they are dropped onto a page it should be obvious to them that
>>> this is the Apache OpenOffice project. It might also be obvious to
>>> them that they are viewing documentation for OpenOffice.org, but we
>>> should not need to drop the AOO branding in order for this to work.
>>>
>>>> download and api might remain with the old logo until release.
>>>> why would remain legacy until it is updated.
>>>> NLC projects could all be changed over. We want them to come to us.
>>>>
>>>> Do we want to pursue a pragmatic approach like that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Consistency on site branding is pragmatic, IMHO.
>>
>> My concern is users going to download.openoffice.org and thinking that they are downloading Apache OpenOffice when they are downloading OpenOffice.org.
>>
>> I am also concerned that when they look at API docs on api.openoffice.org for the legacy codebase they don't think they are looking at the API for Apache OpenOffice.
>>
>
> And if they start from a page that says Apache OpenOffice and view 5
> other pages that say Apache OpenOffice, and then go to a page the
> subtly changes the logo, then the user will also think they are
> downloading an Apache release -- unless you take other and much more
> obvious precautions. I don't think you can avoid that. A
> Subtle".org" in a logo is not really adequate. We should probably
> have a prominent note on the download there that makes it clear that
> this is not ALv2 code, but a legacy LGPL release.
>
> As for API doc, version to version differences are more critical than
> the difference between the OOo and AOO version. A developer needs to
> make sure they are looking at the right info, and the subtle change of
> logo is not going to help much.
We always published the latest version of the the API reference. The
reference contains since tags helping users to find the correct types
they need or if necessary to which version they have to upgrade.
For an official AOO 3.4 release i will ensure that we have appropriate
since tags.
Juergen
>
>> The logo at the top is going to be subliminally the wrong message. It's a subtle point. This is why I think we should wait to change the logo until we are offering an Apache OpenOffice download from openoffice.org.
>>
>
> I'd recommend avoiding subliminal messages altogether. Have
> consistent branding for the site and the project, and then where there
> is an important distinction to make, make it clear, in writing. I
> think you expect too much from the visitor if you think they will take
> a subtle change of logo as implying something significant and specific
> rather than just an error.
>
> An alternative, for example, would be to have a consistently styled
> <div> that we could place on selected pages, saying something like
> "Note: the content on this page pertains specifically to the legacy
> OpenOffice.org release X.Y.Z. This information is subject to change
> when Apache OpenOffice is released".
>
> I think that addresses your concern in a better way.
>
> -Rob
>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts on this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> MzK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
>>>>>> with strange cats."
>>>>>> -- *Colonial American
>>>>>> proverb*
>>>>
>>
Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a bit of a discussion has ensued re the
>>>>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the existing logo on that
>>>>> site.
>>>>>
>>>>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Evolution-wise, at some point we'll have a logo without the
>>>> "incubating" in it. Hopefully we can slow the pace of branding changes
>>>> after that ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but should anticipate
>>>>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache OpenOffice" as
>>>>> well?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would not do a batch search and replace of OpenOffice.org to Apache
>>>> OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>>> A few considerations (these are my opinions only, of course):
>>>>
>>>> 1) Some places legitimately should be called OpenOffice.org, e.g.,
>>>> references to legacy downloads, documentation for legacy releases,
>>>> etc. OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 did not magically become Apache OpenOffice
>>>> 3.3.0. It is still OpenOffice.org.
>>>>
>>>> 2) If we're discussing historical information, like the history of the
>>>> project, then we would still use OpenOffice.org in that context, just
>>>> as we still refer to "StarOffice".
>>>>
>>>> 3) I would not change something that is considered a "record", like a
>>>> past communication or letter or email or press release, etc. If
>>>> something was an authorized communication of the project, we should
>>>> respect the words it used at the time.
>>>>
>>>> 4) But in general, we want to be consistent in the new branding as
>>>> "Apache OpenOffice". It should be clear to a user that this is the
>>>> branding and any other use should be a historical context.
>>>>
>>>> 5) It should be fine to refer to "Apache OpenOffice" initially on any
>>>> given page and then unambiguously refer to "OpenOffice" for
>>>> repetitions. We don't need to use the full form over and over and
>>>> over again on the same page. But we should use the full form on the
>>>> first occurrence on a page.
>>>>
>>>> 6) Maybe just start with the logo, the page footer and prominent other
>>>> pages, e.g., the blog, top level navigation on the website, how to get
>>>> involved, etc. I don't see much value in "hunting" for millions of
>>>> occurrences of "OpenOffice.org". But maybe we can search for all
>>>> <title> and <h1>'s that use that term?
>>>
>>> I just put the new Apache OpenOffice incubating logo on the project blog, changing the project name.
>>>
>>> One possibility would be to make logo changes to the banner based on whether the information is for a current release vs. information that is being updated for the project.
>>>
>>> It would be possible to make the top logo choice at the folder level.
>>>
>>
>> I'd avoid that approach. The logo that is on every page is part of
>> the site branding. It is like the footer. It is an attribute of the
>> site, not the specific page.
>>
>> Things that appear in the body of the page, between the header and
>> footer banner, there we might have some good reasons to refer to
>> OpenOffice.org, and maybe even show the old logo. But the site and
>> the project are Apache OpenOffice. There should never be an occasion
>> for removing the site branding from a page.
>>
>> Remember, someone could visit a page from an external URL reference.
>> When they are dropped onto a page it should be obvious to them that
>> this is the Apache OpenOffice project. It might also be obvious to
>> them that they are viewing documentation for OpenOffice.org, but we
>> should not need to drop the AOO branding in order for this to work.
>>
>>> download and api might remain with the old logo until release.
>>> why would remain legacy until it is updated.
>>> NLC projects could all be changed over. We want them to come to us.
>>>
>>> Do we want to pursue a pragmatic approach like that?
>>>
>>
>> Consistency on site branding is pragmatic, IMHO.
>
> My concern is users going to download.openoffice.org and thinking that they are downloading Apache OpenOffice when they are downloading OpenOffice.org.
>
> I am also concerned that when they look at API docs on api.openoffice.org for the legacy codebase they don't think they are looking at the API for Apache OpenOffice.
>
And if they start from a page that says Apache OpenOffice and view 5
other pages that say Apache OpenOffice, and then go to a page the
subtly changes the logo, then the user will also think they are
downloading an Apache release -- unless you take other and much more
obvious precautions. I don't think you can avoid that. A
Subtle".org" in a logo is not really adequate. We should probably
have a prominent note on the download there that makes it clear that
this is not ALv2 code, but a legacy LGPL release.
As for API doc, version to version differences are more critical than
the difference between the OOo and AOO version. A developer needs to
make sure they are looking at the right info, and the subtle change of
logo is not going to help much.
> The logo at the top is going to be subliminally the wrong message. It's a subtle point. This is why I think we should wait to change the logo until we are offering an Apache OpenOffice download from openoffice.org.
>
I'd recommend avoiding subliminal messages altogether. Have
consistent branding for the site and the project, and then where there
is an important distinction to make, make it clear, in writing. I
think you expect too much from the visitor if you think they will take
a subtle change of logo as implying something significant and specific
rather than just an error.
An alternative, for example, would be to have a consistently styled
<div> that we could place on selected pages, saying something like
"Note: the content on this page pertains specifically to the legacy
OpenOffice.org release X.Y.Z. This information is subject to change
when Apache OpenOffice is released".
I think that addresses your concern in a better way.
-Rob
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts on this?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> MzK
>>>>>
>>>>> "You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
>>>>> with strange cats."
>>>>> -- *Colonial American
>>>>> proverb*
>>>
>
Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
On 1/3/2012 4:03 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Dave Fisher<da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Kay Schenk<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a bit of a discussion has ensued re the
>>>>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the existing logo on that
>>>>> site.
>>>>>
>>>>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>>>>>
>>>> Evolution-wise, at some point we'll have a logo without the
>>>> "incubating" in it. Hopefully we can slow the pace of branding changes
>>>> after that ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but should anticipate
>>>>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache OpenOffice" as
>>>>> well?
>>>>>
>>>> I would not do a batch search and replace of OpenOffice.org to Apache
>>>> OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>>> A few considerations (these are my opinions only, of course):
>>>>
>>>> 1) Some places legitimately should be called OpenOffice.org, e.g.,
>>>> references to legacy downloads, documentation for legacy releases,
>>>> etc. OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 did not magically become Apache OpenOffice
>>>> 3.3.0. It is still OpenOffice.org.
>>>>
>>>> 2) If we're discussing historical information, like the history of the
>>>> project, then we would still use OpenOffice.org in that context, just
>>>> as we still refer to "StarOffice".
>>>>
>>>> 3) I would not change something that is considered a "record", like a
>>>> past communication or letter or email or press release, etc. If
>>>> something was an authorized communication of the project, we should
>>>> respect the words it used at the time.
>>>>
>>>> 4) But in general, we want to be consistent in the new branding as
>>>> "Apache OpenOffice". It should be clear to a user that this is the
>>>> branding and any other use should be a historical context.
>>>>
>>>> 5) It should be fine to refer to "Apache OpenOffice" initially on any
>>>> given page and then unambiguously refer to "OpenOffice" for
>>>> repetitions. We don't need to use the full form over and over and
>>>> over again on the same page. But we should use the full form on the
>>>> first occurrence on a page.
>>>>
>>>> 6) Maybe just start with the logo, the page footer and prominent other
>>>> pages, e.g., the blog, top level navigation on the website, how to get
>>>> involved, etc. I don't see much value in "hunting" for millions of
>>>> occurrences of "OpenOffice.org". But maybe we can search for all
>>>> <title> and<h1>'s that use that term?
>>> I just put the new Apache OpenOffice incubating logo on the project blog, changing the project name.
>>>
>>> One possibility would be to make logo changes to the banner based on whether the information is for a current release vs. information that is being updated for the project.
>>>
>>> It would be possible to make the top logo choice at the folder level.
>>>
>> I'd avoid that approach. The logo that is on every page is part of
>> the site branding. It is like the footer. It is an attribute of the
>> site, not the specific page.
>>
>> Things that appear in the body of the page, between the header and
>> footer banner, there we might have some good reasons to refer to
>> OpenOffice.org, and maybe even show the old logo. But the site and
>> the project are Apache OpenOffice. There should never be an occasion
>> for removing the site branding from a page.
>>
>> Remember, someone could visit a page from an external URL reference.
>> When they are dropped onto a page it should be obvious to them that
>> this is the Apache OpenOffice project. It might also be obvious to
>> them that they are viewing documentation for OpenOffice.org, but we
>> should not need to drop the AOO branding in order for this to work.
>>
>>> download and api might remain with the old logo until release.
>>> why would remain legacy until it is updated.
>>> NLC projects could all be changed over. We want them to come to us.
>>>
>>> Do we want to pursue a pragmatic approach like that?
>>>
>> Consistency on site branding is pragmatic, IMHO.
> My concern is users going to download.openoffice.org and thinking that they are downloading Apache OpenOffice when they are downloading OpenOffice.org.
Aren't these different versions of the same thing?
>
> I am also concerned that when they look at API docs on api.openoffice.org for the legacy codebase they don't think they are looking at the API for Apache OpenOffice.
again...
Aren't these different versions of the same thing?
>
> The logo at the top is going to be subliminally the wrong message. It's a subtle point. This is why I think we should wait to change the logo until we are offering an Apache OpenOffice download from openoffice.org.
openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice family of products.
The current name is Apache OpenOffice. (Other products that are
mentioned/covered on the site include StarOffice, Oracle Open Office,
LibreOffice, and OOo4Kids)
so the way to go forward (obviously - my opinion) is:
* openoffice.org when discussing the web site
* openoffice.org when discussing version 1.0 - 3.3 of the product
* Apache OpenOffice as the general product name (and for 3.4 and forward)
* Apache OpenOffice (with 'incubating' for the time being) as the
project name
thus - we would use the Apache OpenOffice logo at the top of all pages
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts on this?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> MzK
>>>>>
>>>>> "You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
>>>>> with strange cats."
>>>>> -- *Colonial American
>>>>> proverb*
Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a bit of a discussion has ensued re the
>>>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the existing logo on that
>>>> site.
>>>>
>>>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Evolution-wise, at some point we'll have a logo without the
>>> "incubating" in it. Hopefully we can slow the pace of branding changes
>>> after that ;-)
>>>
>>>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but should anticipate
>>>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache OpenOffice" as
>>>> well?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would not do a batch search and replace of OpenOffice.org to Apache
>>> OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> A few considerations (these are my opinions only, of course):
>>>
>>> 1) Some places legitimately should be called OpenOffice.org, e.g.,
>>> references to legacy downloads, documentation for legacy releases,
>>> etc. OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 did not magically become Apache OpenOffice
>>> 3.3.0. It is still OpenOffice.org.
>>>
>>> 2) If we're discussing historical information, like the history of the
>>> project, then we would still use OpenOffice.org in that context, just
>>> as we still refer to "StarOffice".
>>>
>>> 3) I would not change something that is considered a "record", like a
>>> past communication or letter or email or press release, etc. If
>>> something was an authorized communication of the project, we should
>>> respect the words it used at the time.
>>>
>>> 4) But in general, we want to be consistent in the new branding as
>>> "Apache OpenOffice". It should be clear to a user that this is the
>>> branding and any other use should be a historical context.
>>>
>>> 5) It should be fine to refer to "Apache OpenOffice" initially on any
>>> given page and then unambiguously refer to "OpenOffice" for
>>> repetitions. We don't need to use the full form over and over and
>>> over again on the same page. But we should use the full form on the
>>> first occurrence on a page.
>>>
>>> 6) Maybe just start with the logo, the page footer and prominent other
>>> pages, e.g., the blog, top level navigation on the website, how to get
>>> involved, etc. I don't see much value in "hunting" for millions of
>>> occurrences of "OpenOffice.org". But maybe we can search for all
>>> <title> and <h1>'s that use that term?
>>
>> I just put the new Apache OpenOffice incubating logo on the project blog, changing the project name.
>>
>> One possibility would be to make logo changes to the banner based on whether the information is for a current release vs. information that is being updated for the project.
>>
>> It would be possible to make the top logo choice at the folder level.
>>
>
> I'd avoid that approach. The logo that is on every page is part of
> the site branding. It is like the footer. It is an attribute of the
> site, not the specific page.
>
> Things that appear in the body of the page, between the header and
> footer banner, there we might have some good reasons to refer to
> OpenOffice.org, and maybe even show the old logo. But the site and
> the project are Apache OpenOffice. There should never be an occasion
> for removing the site branding from a page.
>
> Remember, someone could visit a page from an external URL reference.
> When they are dropped onto a page it should be obvious to them that
> this is the Apache OpenOffice project. It might also be obvious to
> them that they are viewing documentation for OpenOffice.org, but we
> should not need to drop the AOO branding in order for this to work.
>
>> download and api might remain with the old logo until release.
>> why would remain legacy until it is updated.
>> NLC projects could all be changed over. We want them to come to us.
>>
>> Do we want to pursue a pragmatic approach like that?
>>
>
> Consistency on site branding is pragmatic, IMHO.
My concern is users going to download.openoffice.org and thinking that they are downloading Apache OpenOffice when they are downloading OpenOffice.org.
I am also concerned that when they look at API docs on api.openoffice.org for the legacy codebase they don't think they are looking at the API for Apache OpenOffice.
The logo at the top is going to be subliminally the wrong message. It's a subtle point. This is why I think we should wait to change the logo until we are offering an Apache OpenOffice download from openoffice.org.
Regards,
Dave
>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thoughts on this?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> MzK
>>>>
>>>> "You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
>>>> with strange cats."
>>>> -- *Colonial American
>>>> proverb*
>>
Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a bit of a discussion has ensued re the
>>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the existing logo on that
>>> site.
>>>
>>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>>>
>>
>> Evolution-wise, at some point we'll have a logo without the
>> "incubating" in it. Hopefully we can slow the pace of branding changes
>> after that ;-)
>>
>>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but should anticipate
>>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache OpenOffice" as
>>> well?
>>>
>>
>> I would not do a batch search and replace of OpenOffice.org to Apache
>> OpenOffice.
>>
>> A few considerations (these are my opinions only, of course):
>>
>> 1) Some places legitimately should be called OpenOffice.org, e.g.,
>> references to legacy downloads, documentation for legacy releases,
>> etc. OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 did not magically become Apache OpenOffice
>> 3.3.0. It is still OpenOffice.org.
>>
>> 2) If we're discussing historical information, like the history of the
>> project, then we would still use OpenOffice.org in that context, just
>> as we still refer to "StarOffice".
>>
>> 3) I would not change something that is considered a "record", like a
>> past communication or letter or email or press release, etc. If
>> something was an authorized communication of the project, we should
>> respect the words it used at the time.
>>
>> 4) But in general, we want to be consistent in the new branding as
>> "Apache OpenOffice". It should be clear to a user that this is the
>> branding and any other use should be a historical context.
>>
>> 5) It should be fine to refer to "Apache OpenOffice" initially on any
>> given page and then unambiguously refer to "OpenOffice" for
>> repetitions. We don't need to use the full form over and over and
>> over again on the same page. But we should use the full form on the
>> first occurrence on a page.
>>
>> 6) Maybe just start with the logo, the page footer and prominent other
>> pages, e.g., the blog, top level navigation on the website, how to get
>> involved, etc. I don't see much value in "hunting" for millions of
>> occurrences of "OpenOffice.org". But maybe we can search for all
>> <title> and <h1>'s that use that term?
>
> I just put the new Apache OpenOffice incubating logo on the project blog, changing the project name.
>
> One possibility would be to make logo changes to the banner based on whether the information is for a current release vs. information that is being updated for the project.
>
> It would be possible to make the top logo choice at the folder level.
>
I'd avoid that approach. The logo that is on every page is part of
the site branding. It is like the footer. It is an attribute of the
site, not the specific page.
Things that appear in the body of the page, between the header and
footer banner, there we might have some good reasons to refer to
OpenOffice.org, and maybe even show the old logo. But the site and
the project are Apache OpenOffice. There should never be an occasion
for removing the site branding from a page.
Remember, someone could visit a page from an external URL reference.
When they are dropped onto a page it should be obvious to them that
this is the Apache OpenOffice project. It might also be obvious to
them that they are viewing documentation for OpenOffice.org, but we
should not need to drop the AOO branding in order for this to work.
> download and api might remain with the old logo until release.
> why would remain legacy until it is updated.
> NLC projects could all be changed over. We want them to come to us.
>
> Do we want to pursue a pragmatic approach like that?
>
Consistency on site branding is pragmatic, IMHO.
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Thoughts on this?
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
>>> with strange cats."
>>> -- *Colonial American
>>> proverb*
>
Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:16 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a bit of a discussion has ensued re the
>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the existing logo on that
>> site.
>>
>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>>
>
> Evolution-wise, at some point we'll have a logo without the
> "incubating" in it. Hopefully we can slow the pace of branding changes
> after that ;-)
>
>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but should anticipate
>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache OpenOffice" as
>> well?
>>
>
> I would not do a batch search and replace of OpenOffice.org to Apache
> OpenOffice.
>
> A few considerations (these are my opinions only, of course):
>
> 1) Some places legitimately should be called OpenOffice.org, e.g.,
> references to legacy downloads, documentation for legacy releases,
> etc. OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 did not magically become Apache OpenOffice
> 3.3.0. It is still OpenOffice.org.
>
> 2) If we're discussing historical information, like the history of the
> project, then we would still use OpenOffice.org in that context, just
> as we still refer to "StarOffice".
>
> 3) I would not change something that is considered a "record", like a
> past communication or letter or email or press release, etc. If
> something was an authorized communication of the project, we should
> respect the words it used at the time.
>
> 4) But in general, we want to be consistent in the new branding as
> "Apache OpenOffice". It should be clear to a user that this is the
> branding and any other use should be a historical context.
>
> 5) It should be fine to refer to "Apache OpenOffice" initially on any
> given page and then unambiguously refer to "OpenOffice" for
> repetitions. We don't need to use the full form over and over and
> over again on the same page. But we should use the full form on the
> first occurrence on a page.
>
> 6) Maybe just start with the logo, the page footer and prominent other
> pages, e.g., the blog, top level navigation on the website, how to get
> involved, etc. I don't see much value in "hunting" for millions of
> occurrences of "OpenOffice.org". But maybe we can search for all
> <title> and <h1>'s that use that term?
I just put the new Apache OpenOffice incubating logo on the project blog, changing the project name.
One possibility would be to make logo changes to the banner based on whether the information is for a current release vs. information that is being updated for the project.
It would be possible to make the top logo choice at the folder level.
download and api might remain with the old logo until release.
why would remain legacy until it is updated.
NLC projects could all be changed over. We want them to come to us.
Do we want to pursue a pragmatic approach like that?
Regards,
Dave
>
>
>> Thoughts on this?
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
>> with strange cats."
>> -- *Colonial American
>> proverb*
Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, we got to see the new logo and a bit of a discussion has ensued re the
> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the existing logo on that
> site.
>
> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>
Evolution-wise, at some point we'll have a logo without the
"incubating" in it. Hopefully we can slow the pace of branding changes
after that ;-)
> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but should anticipate
> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache OpenOffice" as
> well?
>
I would not do a batch search and replace of OpenOffice.org to Apache
OpenOffice.
A few considerations (these are my opinions only, of course):
1) Some places legitimately should be called OpenOffice.org, e.g.,
references to legacy downloads, documentation for legacy releases,
etc. OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 did not magically become Apache OpenOffice
3.3.0. It is still OpenOffice.org.
2) If we're discussing historical information, like the history of the
project, then we would still use OpenOffice.org in that context, just
as we still refer to "StarOffice".
3) I would not change something that is considered a "record", like a
past communication or letter or email or press release, etc. If
something was an authorized communication of the project, we should
respect the words it used at the time.
4) But in general, we want to be consistent in the new branding as
"Apache OpenOffice". It should be clear to a user that this is the
branding and any other use should be a historical context.
5) It should be fine to refer to "Apache OpenOffice" initially on any
given page and then unambiguously refer to "OpenOffice" for
repetitions. We don't need to use the full form over and over and
over again on the same page. But we should use the full form on the
first occurrence on a page.
6) Maybe just start with the logo, the page footer and prominent other
pages, e.g., the blog, top level navigation on the website, how to get
involved, etc. I don't see much value in "hunting" for millions of
occurrences of "OpenOffice.org". But maybe we can search for all
<title> and <h1>'s that use that term?
> Thoughts on this?
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
> with strange cats."
> -- *Colonial American
> proverb*
Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 4, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 7:47 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Mar 3/1/12, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a
>>>>>> bit of a discussion has ensued re the
>>>>>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the
>>>>>> existing logo on that
>>>>>> site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but
>>>>>> should anticipate
>>>>>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache
>>>>>> OpenOffice" as well?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts on this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it wouldn't hurt to leave some references to the
>>>>> old brand. Something like "Apache OpenOffice, formerly
>>>>> OpenOffice.org" in the main pages and Apache OpenOffice
>>>>> in the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting idea. I wonder whether it would work to have
>>>> such a "transition" graphic that we use prominently for the next
>>>> couple of months, until 3.4 is released?
>>>>
>>>> It might be worth thinking about how we could do something like that
>>>> on the website. So keep the main branding logo, but have the ability
>>>> to insert another banner ad or similar on each page that could be used
>>>> for things like a release announcement, conference promotion, or
>>>> similar announcement that we want to make broadly known.
>>>
>>> I think that most of this differentiation can be done at the first folder level using the same structure used for leftnav and topnav overrides.
>>>
>>> Here is how it is done.
>>>
>>> We add to templates a brand.mdtext which contains parameter definitions.
>>>
>>> home: Home
>>> search: Search
>>> name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
>>> bannercenter: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
>>> bannerlogo: ooo-logo.png
>>> legacytag: This page is for OpenOffice.org 3.3
>>>
>>> For NLC folders a file like "templates/de/brand.mdtext" would contain German language versions of these strings.
>>>
>>> Then skeleton.html is changed like so:
>>>
>>> <div id="bannerleft"><img id="ooo-logo" alt="{{ brand.name }}" src="/images/{{ brand.bannerlogo }}"/></div>
>>>
>>> <input name="Button" value="{{ brand.search }}" type="submit" class="topsrchbutton"/>
>>>
>>> <div id="bannercenter"><br/>{{ brand.bannercenter }}</div>
>>>
>>> <div id="content">
>>> {% block legacy %}{% if brand.legacytag %}<h1 class="legacy">{{ brand.legacytag }}</h1>{% endif %}{% endblock %}
>>>
>>>
>>> Add a .legacy tag to css/ooo.css.
>>
>> I implemented the above this evening. The www.openoffice.org/api/ section now has a "legacy" message.
>>
>> The main correction to the above plan is that brand.foo tags needed to be brand.headers.foo.
>>
>> Here are the brand.mdtext files I created:
>>
>> templates/api/brand.mdtext
>> home: home
>> search: search
>> name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
>> tagline: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
>> logo: ooo-logo.png
>> domain: www.openoffice.org
>> legacy: Content for OpenOffice.org version 3.3.
>>
>> templates/brand.mdtext
>> home: home
>> search: search
>> name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
>> tagline: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
>> logo: ooo-logo.png
>> domain: www.openoffice.org
>>
>> Any file like templates/foo/brand.mdtext completely replaces templates/brand.mdtext parameters. Ideally only the needed parameters like legacy would need to be in the "foo" brand.mdtext. In this case,
>>
>> templates/api/brand.mdtext
>> legacy: Content for OpenOffice.org version 3.3.
>>
>
> OK. I see it. The generated HTML comes out like this:
>
> <div class="legacy">Content for OpenOffice.org version 3.3.</div>
>
> We could style this in many different ways.
>
> How is it determined what pages get this inserted? Is it the presence
> of the brand.mdtext in a given directory that makes this apply to all
> other files in the dir? Or is it centrally managed, like a list of
> URL paths that get this applied?
It is controlled from ooo-site/trunk/templates/
These files apply to the whole website.
./brand.mdtext
./topnav.mdtext
./html_page.html
./single_narrative.html
./skeleton.html
These files apply to all of the content in ooo-site/trunk/content/api/
./api/brand.mdtext
./api/leftnav.mdtext
If the following files were present then they are applied to ooo-site/trunk/content/foo
./foo/brand.mdtext
./foo/leftnav.mdtext
./foo/leftnav.mdtext
It only goes to foo. ooo-site/trunk/templates/foo/bar/brand.mdtxt is NOT supported. It could be if that becomes needed but I would want to solve the override issue - each brand.mdtext completely overrides the lower levels.
>
> In any case, I like the general approach. You're introducing order
> and structure to the website, which is a good thing, even a necessary
> thing at this scale.
>
> But I must also admit that I don't get the point of having such a
> notice at all on this page. The API website applies as well to the
> 3.4 beta, to the test builds we're doing now, to the eventual released
> 3.4 AOO, etc. It is a living focus area and will be organically
> evolving to help OpenOffice users and developers of whatever version
> is active at the time.
>
> But maybe it is just not a good example page for this, Let's take a
> different example:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/
Sure that whole tree is historical.
> The above is historical information. It is not going to change. You
> could make the argument that it requires a notice that this
> information pertains to pre-Apache releases, and that we are
> preserving continuity of access to this information as a service to
> the broader community
>
> So maybe the right distinction is between:
>
> A) Pre-Apache "frozen in time" information that we preserve for
> historical reasons, like old release notes, design documents, even old
> releases. We never intend to revise this content, but we do preserve
> it. It should have a disclaimer of some sort.
>
> B) Pre-Apache content that is living, is being updated or we're
> planning to update it. Is not intended to an historical reference,
> but to represent the current state of the project whenever it is.
> Although today such content might be out-of-date, it is not
> intentionally frozen in that state. A project member could change
> that content at any minute, and in fact we should try to encourage
> their ability to do that. No disclaimer needed in that case.
Sure - feel free to remove templates/api/brand.mdtext and create a templates/dev_docs/brand.mdtext
Regards,
Dave
>
>
>> Suggestions?
>>
>>>
>>> If we want to add a metatag or comment to specific pages then we can extract that using the technique that Joe used to remove the use of sed today. Thanks Joe!
>>
>> If and when this distinction is needed changes can be made to view.pm and skeleton.html
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Pedro.
>>>
>>
Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 7:47 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- Mar 3/1/12, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a
>>>>> bit of a discussion has ensued re the
>>>>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the
>>>>> existing logo on that
>>>>> site.
>>>>>
>>>>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but
>>>>> should anticipate
>>>>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache
>>>>> OpenOffice" as well?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts on this?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it wouldn't hurt to leave some references to the
>>>> old brand. Something like "Apache OpenOffice, formerly
>>>> OpenOffice.org" in the main pages and Apache OpenOffice
>>>> in the rest.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's an interesting idea. I wonder whether it would work to have
>>> such a "transition" graphic that we use prominently for the next
>>> couple of months, until 3.4 is released?
>>>
>>> It might be worth thinking about how we could do something like that
>>> on the website. So keep the main branding logo, but have the ability
>>> to insert another banner ad or similar on each page that could be used
>>> for things like a release announcement, conference promotion, or
>>> similar announcement that we want to make broadly known.
>>
>> I think that most of this differentiation can be done at the first folder level using the same structure used for leftnav and topnav overrides.
>>
>> Here is how it is done.
>>
>> We add to templates a brand.mdtext which contains parameter definitions.
>>
>> home: Home
>> search: Search
>> name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
>> bannercenter: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
>> bannerlogo: ooo-logo.png
>> legacytag: This page is for OpenOffice.org 3.3
>>
>> For NLC folders a file like "templates/de/brand.mdtext" would contain German language versions of these strings.
>>
>> Then skeleton.html is changed like so:
>>
>> <div id="bannerleft"><img id="ooo-logo" alt="{{ brand.name }}" src="/images/{{ brand.bannerlogo }}"/></div>
>>
>> <input name="Button" value="{{ brand.search }}" type="submit" class="topsrchbutton"/>
>>
>> <div id="bannercenter"><br/>{{ brand.bannercenter }}</div>
>>
>> <div id="content">
>> {% block legacy %}{% if brand.legacytag %}<h1 class="legacy">{{ brand.legacytag }}</h1>{% endif %}{% endblock %}
>>
>>
>> Add a .legacy tag to css/ooo.css.
>
> I implemented the above this evening. The www.openoffice.org/api/ section now has a "legacy" message.
>
> The main correction to the above plan is that brand.foo tags needed to be brand.headers.foo.
>
> Here are the brand.mdtext files I created:
>
> templates/api/brand.mdtext
> home: home
> search: search
> name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
> tagline: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
> logo: ooo-logo.png
> domain: www.openoffice.org
> legacy: Content for OpenOffice.org version 3.3.
>
> templates/brand.mdtext
> home: home
> search: search
> name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
> tagline: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
> logo: ooo-logo.png
> domain: www.openoffice.org
>
> Any file like templates/foo/brand.mdtext completely replaces templates/brand.mdtext parameters. Ideally only the needed parameters like legacy would need to be in the "foo" brand.mdtext. In this case,
>
> templates/api/brand.mdtext
> legacy: Content for OpenOffice.org version 3.3.
>
OK. I see it. The generated HTML comes out like this:
<div class="legacy">Content for OpenOffice.org version 3.3.</div>
We could style this in many different ways.
How is it determined what pages get this inserted? Is it the presence
of the brand.mdtext in a given directory that makes this apply to all
other files in the dir? Or is it centrally managed, like a list of
URL paths that get this applied?
In any case, I like the general approach. You're introducing order
and structure to the website, which is a good thing, even a necessary
thing at this scale.
But I must also admit that I don't get the point of having such a
notice at all on this page. The API website applies as well to the
3.4 beta, to the test builds we're doing now, to the eventual released
3.4 AOO, etc. It is a living focus area and will be organically
evolving to help OpenOffice users and developers of whatever version
is active at the time.
But maybe it is just not a good example page for this, Let's take a
different example:
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/
The above is historical information. It is not going to change. You
could make the argument that it requires a notice that this
information pertains to pre-Apache releases, and that we are
preserving continuity of access to this information as a service to
the broader community
So maybe the right distinction is between:
A) Pre-Apache "frozen in time" information that we preserve for
historical reasons, like old release notes, design documents, even old
releases. We never intend to revise this content, but we do preserve
it. It should have a disclaimer of some sort.
B) Pre-Apache content that is living, is being updated or we're
planning to update it. Is not intended to an historical reference,
but to represent the current state of the project whenever it is.
Although today such content might be out-of-date, it is not
intentionally frozen in that state. A project member could change
that content at any minute, and in fact we should try to encourage
their ability to do that. No disclaimer needed in that case.
> Suggestions?
>
>>
>> If we want to add a metatag or comment to specific pages then we can extract that using the technique that Joe used to remove the use of sed today. Thanks Joe!
>
> If and when this distinction is needed changes can be made to view.pm and skeleton.html
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>>
>>>> Pedro.
>>
>
Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 4, 2012, at 4:18 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jan 3, 2012, at 7:47 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- Mar 3/1/12, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a
> >>>>>> bit of a discussion has ensued re the
> >>>>>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the
> >>>>>> existing logo on that
> >>>>>> site.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but
> >>>>>> should anticipate
> >>>>>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache
> >>>>>> OpenOffice" as well?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thoughts on this?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think it wouldn't hurt to leave some references to the
> >>>>> old brand. Something like "Apache OpenOffice, formerly
> >>>>> OpenOffice.org" in the main pages and Apache OpenOffice
> >>>>> in the rest.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That's an interesting idea. I wonder whether it would work to have
> >>>> such a "transition" graphic that we use prominently for the next
> >>>> couple of months, until 3.4 is released?
> >>>>
> >>>> It might be worth thinking about how we could do something like that
> >>>> on the website. So keep the main branding logo, but have the ability
> >>>> to insert another banner ad or similar on each page that could be used
> >>>> for things like a release announcement, conference promotion, or
> >>>> similar announcement that we want to make broadly known.
> >>>
> >>> I think that most of this differentiation can be done at the first
> >> folder level using the same structure used for leftnav and topnav
> overrides.
> >>>
> >>> Here is how it is done.
> >>>
> >>> We add to templates a brand.mdtext which contains parameter
> definitions.
> >>>
> >>> home: Home
> >>> search: Search
> >>> name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
> >>> bannercenter: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity
> >> Suite
> >>> bannerlogo: ooo-logo.png
> >>> legacytag: This page is for OpenOffice.org 3.3
> >>>
> >>> For NLC folders a file like "templates/de/brand.mdtext" would contain
> >> German language versions of these strings.
> >>>
> >>> Then skeleton.html is changed like so:
> >>>
> >>> <div id="bannerleft"><img id="ooo-logo" alt="{{ brand.name }}"
> >> src="/images/{{ brand.bannerlogo }}"/></div>
> >>>
> >>> <input name="Button" value="{{ brand.search }}" type="submit"
> >> class="topsrchbutton"/>
> >>>
> >>> <div id="bannercenter"><br/>{{ brand.bannercenter }}</div>
> >>>
> >>> <div id="content">
> >>> {% block legacy %}{% if brand.legacytag %}<h1 class="legacy">{{
> >> brand.legacytag }}</h1>{% endif %}{% endblock %}
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Add a .legacy tag to css/ooo.css.
> >>
> >> I implemented the above this evening. The www.openoffice.org/api/section
> >> now has a "legacy" message.
> >>
> >> The main correction to the above plan is that brand.foo tags needed to
> be
> >> brand.headers.foo.
> >>
> >> Here are the brand.mdtext files I created:
> >>
> >> templates/api/brand.mdtext
> >> home: home
> >> search: search
> >> name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
> >> tagline: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
> >> logo: ooo-logo.png
> >> domain: www.openoffice.org
> >> legacy: Content for OpenOffice.org version 3.3.
> >>
> >> templates/brand.mdtext
> >> home: home
> >> search: search
> >> name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
> >> tagline: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
> >> logo: ooo-logo.png
> >> domain: www.openoffice.org
> >>
> >> Any file like templates/foo/brand.mdtext completely replaces
> >> templates/brand.mdtext parameters. Ideally only the needed parameters
> like
> >> legacy would need to be in the "foo" brand.mdtext. In this case,
> >>
> >> templates/api/brand.mdtext
> >> legacy: Content for OpenOffice.org version 3.3.
> >>
> >> Suggestions?
> >>
> >
> > I think your original question concerned the logo, right? From my
> > perspective, ALL logos (i.e. top left banner images) should be the same
> for
> > ALL pages regardless of content. SO I agree with Rob on his earlier
> > response on this item
> >
> > Now, for your other suggestions regarding "page content" vis a vis OO.O
> vs
> > AOO. I think this has merit. But, I wonder about the ultimate overhead
> of
> > this in some cases with the template approach vs a page change approach.
> > This is worthwhile for something as important as the "api" reference
> > documents. In other cases, maybe just some less involved edits to pages
> > indicating the content pertains to the 3.3. version would suffice. It's
> > nice that we can tailor the site in this way, but, I’m just wondering
> about
> > the overhead.
>
> I agree. We've reached diminishing returns to special features. We can
> effectively treat focus areas and native language projects.
>
> >
> > Is the "template" area one of those areas that involves a VERY large
> > rebuild, for example?
>
> Currently yes. But if content is only changed in one folder and it is
> slight it will only be bad while staging. Publishing won't be so bad.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
OK, thanks for the update. I have yet a LOT to learn about the Apache CMS.
:(
> >
> > Just wondering.
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> If we want to add a metatag or comment to specific pages then we can
> >> extract that using the technique that Joe used to remove the use of sed
> >> today. Thanks Joe!
> >>
> >> If and when this distinction is needed changes can be made to view.pmand
> >> skeleton.html
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Pedro.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
> > with strange cats."
> > -- *Colonial American
> > proverb*
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
with strange cats."
-- *Colonial American
proverb*
Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 4, 2012, at 4:18 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 7:47 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Mar 3/1/12, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a
>>>>>> bit of a discussion has ensued re the
>>>>>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the
>>>>>> existing logo on that
>>>>>> site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but
>>>>>> should anticipate
>>>>>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache
>>>>>> OpenOffice" as well?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts on this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it wouldn't hurt to leave some references to the
>>>>> old brand. Something like "Apache OpenOffice, formerly
>>>>> OpenOffice.org" in the main pages and Apache OpenOffice
>>>>> in the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting idea. I wonder whether it would work to have
>>>> such a "transition" graphic that we use prominently for the next
>>>> couple of months, until 3.4 is released?
>>>>
>>>> It might be worth thinking about how we could do something like that
>>>> on the website. So keep the main branding logo, but have the ability
>>>> to insert another banner ad or similar on each page that could be used
>>>> for things like a release announcement, conference promotion, or
>>>> similar announcement that we want to make broadly known.
>>>
>>> I think that most of this differentiation can be done at the first
>> folder level using the same structure used for leftnav and topnav overrides.
>>>
>>> Here is how it is done.
>>>
>>> We add to templates a brand.mdtext which contains parameter definitions.
>>>
>>> home: Home
>>> search: Search
>>> name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
>>> bannercenter: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity
>> Suite
>>> bannerlogo: ooo-logo.png
>>> legacytag: This page is for OpenOffice.org 3.3
>>>
>>> For NLC folders a file like "templates/de/brand.mdtext" would contain
>> German language versions of these strings.
>>>
>>> Then skeleton.html is changed like so:
>>>
>>> <div id="bannerleft"><img id="ooo-logo" alt="{{ brand.name }}"
>> src="/images/{{ brand.bannerlogo }}"/></div>
>>>
>>> <input name="Button" value="{{ brand.search }}" type="submit"
>> class="topsrchbutton"/>
>>>
>>> <div id="bannercenter"><br/>{{ brand.bannercenter }}</div>
>>>
>>> <div id="content">
>>> {% block legacy %}{% if brand.legacytag %}<h1 class="legacy">{{
>> brand.legacytag }}</h1>{% endif %}{% endblock %}
>>>
>>>
>>> Add a .legacy tag to css/ooo.css.
>>
>> I implemented the above this evening. The www.openoffice.org/api/ section
>> now has a "legacy" message.
>>
>> The main correction to the above plan is that brand.foo tags needed to be
>> brand.headers.foo.
>>
>> Here are the brand.mdtext files I created:
>>
>> templates/api/brand.mdtext
>> home: home
>> search: search
>> name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
>> tagline: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
>> logo: ooo-logo.png
>> domain: www.openoffice.org
>> legacy: Content for OpenOffice.org version 3.3.
>>
>> templates/brand.mdtext
>> home: home
>> search: search
>> name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
>> tagline: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
>> logo: ooo-logo.png
>> domain: www.openoffice.org
>>
>> Any file like templates/foo/brand.mdtext completely replaces
>> templates/brand.mdtext parameters. Ideally only the needed parameters like
>> legacy would need to be in the "foo" brand.mdtext. In this case,
>>
>> templates/api/brand.mdtext
>> legacy: Content for OpenOffice.org version 3.3.
>>
>> Suggestions?
>>
>
> I think your original question concerned the logo, right? From my
> perspective, ALL logos (i.e. top left banner images) should be the same for
> ALL pages regardless of content. SO I agree with Rob on his earlier
> response on this item
>
> Now, for your other suggestions regarding "page content" vis a vis OO.O vs
> AOO. I think this has merit. But, I wonder about the ultimate overhead of
> this in some cases with the template approach vs a page change approach.
> This is worthwhile for something as important as the "api" reference
> documents. In other cases, maybe just some less involved edits to pages
> indicating the content pertains to the 3.3. version would suffice. It's
> nice that we can tailor the site in this way, but, I’m just wondering about
> the overhead.
I agree. We've reached diminishing returns to special features. We can effectively treat focus areas and native language projects.
>
> Is the "template" area one of those areas that involves a VERY large
> rebuild, for example?
Currently yes. But if content is only changed in one folder and it is slight it will only be bad while staging. Publishing won't be so bad.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Just wondering.
>
>
>>>
>>> If we want to add a metatag or comment to specific pages then we can
>> extract that using the technique that Joe used to remove the use of sed
>> today. Thanks Joe!
>>
>> If and when this distinction is needed changes can be made to view.pm and
>> skeleton.html
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Pedro.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
> with strange cats."
> -- *Colonial American
> proverb*
Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 7:47 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jan 3, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- Mar 3/1/12, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a
> >>>> bit of a discussion has ensued re the
> >>>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the
> >>>> existing logo on that
> >>>> site.
> >>>>
> >>>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
> >>>>
> >>>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but
> >>>> should anticipate
> >>>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache
> >>>> OpenOffice" as well?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts on this?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I think it wouldn't hurt to leave some references to the
> >>> old brand. Something like "Apache OpenOffice, formerly
> >>> OpenOffice.org" in the main pages and Apache OpenOffice
> >>> in the rest.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's an interesting idea. I wonder whether it would work to have
> >> such a "transition" graphic that we use prominently for the next
> >> couple of months, until 3.4 is released?
> >>
> >> It might be worth thinking about how we could do something like that
> >> on the website. So keep the main branding logo, but have the ability
> >> to insert another banner ad or similar on each page that could be used
> >> for things like a release announcement, conference promotion, or
> >> similar announcement that we want to make broadly known.
> >
> > I think that most of this differentiation can be done at the first
> folder level using the same structure used for leftnav and topnav overrides.
> >
> > Here is how it is done.
> >
> > We add to templates a brand.mdtext which contains parameter definitions.
> >
> > home: Home
> > search: Search
> > name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
> > bannercenter: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity
> Suite
> > bannerlogo: ooo-logo.png
> > legacytag: This page is for OpenOffice.org 3.3
> >
> > For NLC folders a file like "templates/de/brand.mdtext" would contain
> German language versions of these strings.
> >
> > Then skeleton.html is changed like so:
> >
> > <div id="bannerleft"><img id="ooo-logo" alt="{{ brand.name }}"
> src="/images/{{ brand.bannerlogo }}"/></div>
> >
> > <input name="Button" value="{{ brand.search }}" type="submit"
> class="topsrchbutton"/>
> >
> > <div id="bannercenter"><br/>{{ brand.bannercenter }}</div>
> >
> > <div id="content">
> > {% block legacy %}{% if brand.legacytag %}<h1 class="legacy">{{
> brand.legacytag }}</h1>{% endif %}{% endblock %}
> >
> >
> > Add a .legacy tag to css/ooo.css.
>
> I implemented the above this evening. The www.openoffice.org/api/ section
> now has a "legacy" message.
>
> The main correction to the above plan is that brand.foo tags needed to be
> brand.headers.foo.
>
> Here are the brand.mdtext files I created:
>
> templates/api/brand.mdtext
> home: home
> search: search
> name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
> tagline: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
> logo: ooo-logo.png
> domain: www.openoffice.org
> legacy: Content for OpenOffice.org version 3.3.
>
> templates/brand.mdtext
> home: home
> search: search
> name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
> tagline: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
> logo: ooo-logo.png
> domain: www.openoffice.org
>
> Any file like templates/foo/brand.mdtext completely replaces
> templates/brand.mdtext parameters. Ideally only the needed parameters like
> legacy would need to be in the "foo" brand.mdtext. In this case,
>
> templates/api/brand.mdtext
> legacy: Content for OpenOffice.org version 3.3.
>
> Suggestions?
>
I think your original question concerned the logo, right? From my
perspective, ALL logos (i.e. top left banner images) should be the same for
ALL pages regardless of content. SO I agree with Rob on his earlier
response on this item
Now, for your other suggestions regarding "page content" vis a vis OO.O vs
AOO. I think this has merit. But, I wonder about the ultimate overhead of
this in some cases with the template approach vs a page change approach.
This is worthwhile for something as important as the "api" reference
documents. In other cases, maybe just some less involved edits to pages
indicating the content pertains to the 3.3. version would suffice. It's
nice that we can tailor the site in this way, but, I’m just wondering about
the overhead.
Is the "template" area one of those areas that involves a VERY large
rebuild, for example?
Just wondering.
> >
> > If we want to add a metatag or comment to specific pages then we can
> extract that using the technique that Joe used to remove the use of sed
> today. Thanks Joe!
>
> If and when this distinction is needed changes can be made to view.pm and
> skeleton.html
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> >>
> >>> Pedro.
> >
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"You will always be lucky if you know how to make friends
with strange cats."
-- *Colonial American
proverb*
Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 3, 2012, at 7:47 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Mar 3/1/12, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a
>>>> bit of a discussion has ensued re the
>>>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the
>>>> existing logo on that
>>>> site.
>>>>
>>>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>>>>
>>>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but
>>>> should anticipate
>>>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache
>>>> OpenOffice" as well?
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts on this?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it wouldn't hurt to leave some references to the
>>> old brand. Something like "Apache OpenOffice, formerly
>>> OpenOffice.org" in the main pages and Apache OpenOffice
>>> in the rest.
>>>
>>
>> That's an interesting idea. I wonder whether it would work to have
>> such a "transition" graphic that we use prominently for the next
>> couple of months, until 3.4 is released?
>>
>> It might be worth thinking about how we could do something like that
>> on the website. So keep the main branding logo, but have the ability
>> to insert another banner ad or similar on each page that could be used
>> for things like a release announcement, conference promotion, or
>> similar announcement that we want to make broadly known.
>
> I think that most of this differentiation can be done at the first folder level using the same structure used for leftnav and topnav overrides.
>
> Here is how it is done.
>
> We add to templates a brand.mdtext which contains parameter definitions.
>
> home: Home
> search: Search
> name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
> bannercenter: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
> bannerlogo: ooo-logo.png
> legacytag: This page is for OpenOffice.org 3.3
>
> For NLC folders a file like "templates/de/brand.mdtext" would contain German language versions of these strings.
>
> Then skeleton.html is changed like so:
>
> <div id="bannerleft"><img id="ooo-logo" alt="{{ brand.name }}" src="/images/{{ brand.bannerlogo }}"/></div>
>
> <input name="Button" value="{{ brand.search }}" type="submit" class="topsrchbutton"/>
>
> <div id="bannercenter"><br/>{{ brand.bannercenter }}</div>
>
> <div id="content">
> {% block legacy %}{% if brand.legacytag %}<h1 class="legacy">{{ brand.legacytag }}</h1>{% endif %}{% endblock %}
>
>
> Add a .legacy tag to css/ooo.css.
I implemented the above this evening. The www.openoffice.org/api/ section now has a "legacy" message.
The main correction to the above plan is that brand.foo tags needed to be brand.headers.foo.
Here are the brand.mdtext files I created:
templates/api/brand.mdtext
home: home
search: search
name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
tagline: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
logo: ooo-logo.png
domain: www.openoffice.org
legacy: Content for OpenOffice.org version 3.3.
templates/brand.mdtext
home: home
search: search
name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
tagline: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
logo: ooo-logo.png
domain: www.openoffice.org
Any file like templates/foo/brand.mdtext completely replaces templates/brand.mdtext parameters. Ideally only the needed parameters like legacy would need to be in the "foo" brand.mdtext. In this case,
templates/api/brand.mdtext
legacy: Content for OpenOffice.org version 3.3.
Suggestions?
>
> If we want to add a metatag or comment to specific pages then we can extract that using the technique that Joe used to remove the use of sed today. Thanks Joe!
If and when this distinction is needed changes can be made to view.pm and skeleton.html
Regards,
Dave
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>>> Pedro.
>
Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jan 3, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- Mar 3/1/12, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>
>> ...
>>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a
>>> bit of a discussion has ensued re the
>>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the
>>> existing logo on that
>>> site.
>>>
>>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>>>
>>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but
>>> should anticipate
>>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache
>>> OpenOffice" as well?
>>>
>>> Thoughts on this?
>>>
>>
>> I think it wouldn't hurt to leave some references to the
>> old brand. Something like "Apache OpenOffice, formerly
>> OpenOffice.org" in the main pages and Apache OpenOffice
>> in the rest.
>>
>
> That's an interesting idea. I wonder whether it would work to have
> such a "transition" graphic that we use prominently for the next
> couple of months, until 3.4 is released?
>
> It might be worth thinking about how we could do something like that
> on the website. So keep the main branding logo, but have the ability
> to insert another banner ad or similar on each page that could be used
> for things like a release announcement, conference promotion, or
> similar announcement that we want to make broadly known.
I think that most of this differentiation can be done at the first folder level using the same structure used for leftnav and topnav overrides.
Here is how it is done.
We add to templates a brand.mdtext which contains parameter definitions.
home: Home
search: Search
name: Apache OpenOffice (incubating)
bannercenter: (incubating) | The Free and Open Productivity Suite
bannerlogo: ooo-logo.png
legacytag: This page is for OpenOffice.org 3.3
For NLC folders a file like "templates/de/brand.mdtext" would contain German language versions of these strings.
Then skeleton.html is changed like so:
<div id="bannerleft"><img id="ooo-logo" alt="{{ brand.name }}" src="/images/{{ brand.bannerlogo }}"/></div>
<input name="Button" value="{{ brand.search }}" type="submit" class="topsrchbutton"/>
<div id="bannercenter"><br/>{{ brand.bannercenter }}</div>
<div id="content">
{% block legacy %}{% if brand.legacytag %}<h1 class="legacy">{{ brand.legacytag }}</h1>{% endif %}{% endblock %}
Add a .legacy tag to css/ooo.css.
If we want to add a metatag or comment to specific pages then we can extract that using the technique that Joe used to remove the use of sed today. Thanks Joe!
Regards,
Dave
>
>> Pedro.
Re: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> --- Mar 3/1/12, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> ...
>> OK, we got to see the new logo and a
>> bit of a discussion has ensued re the
>> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the
>> existing logo on that
>> site.
>>
>> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>>
>> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but
>> should anticipate
>> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache
>> OpenOffice" as well?
>>
>> Thoughts on this?
>>
>
> I think it wouldn't hurt to leave some references to the
> old brand. Something like "Apache OpenOffice, formerly
> OpenOffice.org" in the main pages and Apache OpenOffice
> in the rest.
>
That's an interesting idea. I wonder whether it would work to have
such a "transition" graphic that we use prominently for the next
couple of months, until 3.4 is released?
It might be worth thinking about how we could do something like that
on the website. So keep the main branding logo, but have the ability
to insert another banner ad or similar on each page that could be used
for things like a release announcement, conference promotion, or
similar announcement that we want to make broadly known.
> Pedro.
R: [WWW] rebranding...
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Mar 3/1/12, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
...
> OK, we got to see the new logo and a
> bit of a discussion has ensued re the
> now Apache hosted http://www.openoffice.org/ and the
> existing logo on that
> site.
>
> My question concerns the extent of "future" rebranding.
>
> yes, it's pretty easy to just change out the logo, but
> should anticipate
> changing out ALL occurrences of OpenOffice.org to "Apache
> OpenOffice" as well?
>
> Thoughts on this?
>
I think it wouldn't hurt to leave some references to the
old brand. Something like "Apache OpenOffice, formerly
OpenOffice.org" in the main pages and Apache OpenOffice
in the rest.
Pedro.