[CREATE] LGM 2010 Website

[Louis Desjardins]

Alexandre Leray a écrit :
> Thanks Louis!
> 
> Sorry for being silent for a while: we do feel passionate about many of
> the issues discussed here, which is why our design looks the way it
> looks. Our first concern now is to get the LGM site launched sooner
> rather than later, so here's an attempt to go back to the concrete issue
> of the LGM site/logo:
> 
> First of all, we designed a visual/typographic identity to the yearly
> Libre Graphics Meetings (and not to all Libre Graphics projects).
> 
> To summarize (sorry if I misrepresent):
> 
> - it looks beautiful amazing etc. (some of you :-))
> - background yellow over-saturated (many of you)
> - concern about visual continuity (a.l.e, Tobias)
> - site looking 'too technical' (Tobias)
> - finding logo too generic (Tobias)
> 
> The main issue for OSP, is that we don't think continuity can be
> resolved by going back to the paint splash. We honestly feel it
> misrepresents the pleasure of using and developing Libre Graphics Tools
> and we have consciously decided to work with imagery that avoids such
> remediation.
> 
> So for us, it is a package deal! Diversity of projects and people
> present at LGM is important so the background represents the different
> materials we share between us (designers, developers, artists). Since
> the meeting is a yearly point of convergence, we thought it needed to
> mark the occasion by some kind of flag.
> 
> We think that the logo would look fantastic on LGM merchandising, it is
> a strong graphic signature and the site-background can be used in many
> other ways too.
> 
> We don't know really when/how to reach a consensus but hope your
> enthusiasm prevails :-)
> 
> all the best from Brussels
> 
> Alexandre Leray and OSP

The logo you have developed is actually very strong and I don’t see the 
point of going back to the splash now that we have this new logo. As for 
the webiste, I think it must be online asap. We cannot afford discussing 
about how the website looks too long unless someone come up identifying 
serious flaws in terms of communication and functionnality. Those 
comments would need to be based on an objective reality and not from a 
subjective point of view.

I agree that the actual proposal is way beyond the previous discussions 
we had about the logo. If the majority of LGMers think that we should 
keep on track with the work that was done previously, then we’re going 
to have to discuss more. But at the same time I must say that your 
explanation is cristal clear and speaking of priorities, I think that we 
need the website online asap.

In this discussion, unless someone comes up with another project, it’s 
going to be difficult to discuss every detail and try to make everyone 
happy. In fact, by experience, this will not happen. I *strongly* 
believe a committee cannot come up with a graphic solution. So, yes, 
it’s a package deal and I hope we can live with it and with enthusiasm !

While speaking about the communication, I would stress that this is the 
5th year. I think 5 is a strong number!

Can’t wait to be in Brussels!

Cheers!

Louis

> 
> 
> Louis Desjardins wrote:
>> Just as a friendly reminder to all participants to this delightful 
>> conversation, this thread is (was) about LGM 2010 Website. Can we 
>> either split the thread or get back to the original discussion or both 
>> ? I am trying to follow... :-)
>>
>> Louis
>>
>> 2009/10/7 Yuval Levy <create07 at sfina.com <mailto:create07 at sfina.com>>
>>
>>     Christoph Schäfer wrote:
>>     > Am Mittwoch, 7. Oktober 2009 08:33:26 schrieb Alexandre Prokoudine:
>>     >> Does Scribus import SVG flawlessly?
>>     >
>>     > No, and you know why.
>>
>>     I don't. would you care to enlighten me?
>>
>>     As a simple user I find it bizarre that when specs are publicly
>>     available; and Free implementations are available too; that it is not
>>     the same implementation used in all tools. Isn't this easier to do
>>     than
>>     trying to change UI toolkit?
>>
>>
>>     > How easy is it to use a program that's not part of a
>>     > certain vendor's portfolio, but actually more suited to the task
>>     in a
>>     > workflow?
>>
>>     Being part of the portfolio and having unified UI is mostly eye candy.
>>
>>     Being able to pass smoothly files through the different steps in the
>>     workflow is much more important.
>>
>>     File format support as precognized by Alexandre; and
>>     multi-platform support.
>>
>>     Ideally *all* file formats: existing and not yet invented;
>>     standardized
>>     and work in progress; obsolete and current; encrypted; approved;
>>     disapproved; and anything else I forgot. Same for platforms.
>>
>>     Give the user the freedom to choose which UI he wants to interact
>>     with.
>>     make sure he can open and use his files, no matter what tool/UI he
>>     chooses.
>>
>>     Yuv