[Libreoffice-bugs] [Bug 126074] Icon styles should not modify official application icons in start center (and other relevant places)

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=126074

--- Comment #11 from Mike Kaganski <mikekaganski at hotmail.com> ---
(In reply to Bastián Díaz from comment #10)
> (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.

Note that my wording doesn't imply that customized app icons *should* be based
on the logo; only that *if* they are based on it, *then* they should follow
some guidelines (and I suppose that existing guidelines wrt the logo is
enough). I would agree that KJ styling seems too resembling the logo (having
the page), but at the same time, is too different, breaking the logo guidelines
(already existing: they tell about the ratio, the position and styling of the
corner etc, and simply following that would already make it consistent). Again:
I don't think that the app icons should be based on the logo in all
customizations.

> > 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.

Heh, you seem to miss the idea I tried to emphasize by the irony: that your
proposal affects only those who are already using the software; and that
suggests that you must be right wrt "Irony never brings a healthy discussion".

I just don't agree that the app icons should be made part of that "intangible
image of LibreOffice". I find it nice that only the logo is part of it. The
more things you make part of it, the more difficult it becomes to maintain and
evolve. Without actual benefit really, because, as I already mentioned, the
discussed proposal tells about what already existing users may notice, and
which doesn't improve the "intangible image of LibreOffice" it the existing
userbase view.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-bugs/attachments/20190626/288c41a7/attachment.html>