[openbeos] Re: Haiku Logo
- From: "Haiku Security" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 01:15:17 -0400
Info wrote:
Who clearly contradicted the idea that there is an official logo by stating
that it was up to the wiki >maintainer to choose a logo; which is certainly
a branding problem.
After reviewing this again, I can see that the logo he is using is what can
be considered the "older official" logo. It matches up better with the main
site. If anything, keeping the current web site and wiki branded with the
old logo is appropriate. We don't need to wear out the new shiny logo until
the new shiny web site is up and running.
I think the reall issuue at hand is a lack of *clear* distinction of
authority.
No it is not. The wiki maintainer has the *clear* authority. Also, his
objections appear to be the changes you yourself made to the new "official"
logo. You made your own rendition of the logo. You will notice the word
"wiki" is not in the official logo. This is a reasonable objection.
Whoever is in charge of the Creative team should be answering the questions
I pose regarding logo-authority, >if, the devs, indeed, are not to be
authoritative on these issues.
Actually what you want is somebody to trump the existing authority in this
case. I'm personally disturbed by this since it seems to be a continued
personal attack against the wiki maintainer (backed up by your forum posts).
This is not productive.
Curtis
I've been pretty openly critical of quite a lot of the design team/web team
and its work. It certainly isn't limited to the wiki or its maintainer.
It's pretty disengenous to call it a personal attack. I used the wiki as an
example of where the leader makes on statement (the CVS logo is the
preferred logo) and another contributor doesn't agree (wiki maintainer). I
don't care who's logo is used. I only care that the branding be consistent.
I feel strongly about this as I recognize the importance of consistency in a
products image. In other words I want Haiku to succeed. I picked this
particular example (the wiki) because it is obvious. I wanted to get a
point accross. I don't think it quite made it, however.
None the less, it is spelled out pretty plainly by now. I think M.Phipps
put this issue to bed with his message. I think most people on the list
understand the problems at hand at one level or another. It's now just a
matter of getting things put together. We can debate it's success or
failure in a month or two.
Other related posts:
