[CREATE] LGM 2010 Website

[Yuval Levy]

a.l.e wrote:
> since the LGM has born (it's already 4 years old now!), several projects 
> have been started and i think we can say that we have something more 
> than just a bunch of programs: we have a whole environment for graphic 
> designers which is growing!

growing is often associated with growing pains :)


> today, there are several initiatives which are related to (or even 
> issued from)  the LGM and handle different aspects of the libre graphics 
> environemnt

and they look to outsiders as if they are completely uncoordinated. too 
many websites; too many overlaps; no explanation how they fit in the 
whole. Of course to insiders everything is clear and obvious...


> it would be nice if it was perceptible that all those projects are 
> related and work together!

I second that. And it would be also nice if the purpose of those 
projects would be clearer, if there was some sort of common strategy 
document, accessible to everybody, discussed and advanced publicly.


> i'm not against keeping the splash (or other graphical elements) nor i 
> want see it disappear (this will certainly a main point about the look 
> of LG, though). but i think the time has come, to create some detailed 
> "corporate identity" rules for the libre graphics, which could then be 
> used -- more or less strictly -- by each project which relates to LG.

+1. I am agnostic with respect to the splash. Speaking for myself I 
could imagine adopting it as a background to the Hugin logo if it would 
associate us with other software packages that I feel affinity to.


> personally, i think that to get there we need:
> - a logo, with variations for different sizes and contexts,

Rather than a logo I would want to see a background as a unifying 
element (the color splash would have been one possibility, and there are 
surely others too). Maybe with different colors, matched to the 
individual logos; a common shading; common proportions of logo to 
background, etc. Somebody with better designer skills than me can surely 
come up with a visual proposal.

To be somewhat serious the background should be trade-marked and 
protected so that only software that qualifies (e.g. that is FLOSS) can 
use it. And there would need to be some coordination in terms of colors, 
so that we can present a whole palette of tools. Look at the palette of 
colored squares with white two-character "codes" for each of the tools 
in Adobe's Creative Suite.


> - a font for the "libre graphics meeting" text,
> - a color or a color type/set

Unified font and color palette would be the logical consequence.

The color palette could have sub-palettes, one for each project, with 
e.g. 4 unifying colors and 4 projects specific colors. Each project 
would have its own 8 colors palette but they would still look 
matching/fitting.

Probably the color for headlines and for plain text would be part of the 
common four colors, while the background color for inserts and sidebars 
could be one of the project-specific colors.

At Hugin our website is hopelessly outdated. One community member showed 
a nice mockup, but nobody has taken it to the next level. "Identity 
guidelines" would surely help propel this kind of effort forward, and if 
there was a single template they would also save us (and probably the 
other individual projects too) time.


> i'm eager to read what the create community thinks of it!

I would love to see some sort of unifying identity. Not necessarily a 
"corporate identity" (CI). I've been through a couple of CI exercises, 
it's top-bottom. Like the much more ambitious idea, which I cherish but 
I know is extremely unlikely to happen - of a common user interface. 
Incompatible with the bottom-up nature of open source.

What I find disturbing in the current cacophony is the term "Libre 
Graphics". "Libre Graphics" is insider terminology. It rings a bell with 
you, but the best association it gets from the general public is with a 
Cuba Libre at the bar! Contrast the self-explaining "Creative Suite".

"Creative Suite" refers to the most important feature of that software: 
it is part of a suite and it is for creative use.

What is most important about our projects as a group? FLOSS?  Important, 
sure, but not *most* important IMO.

How do other people feel about this terminology thing? I currently do 
not have an alternative to "Libre Graphics" to suggest. Developing one 
would require some deep thinking and introspection and I'd like to have 
an indication whether such an effort would be welcome.

If I abstract from "Creative Suite" being owned by Adobe, I could very 
well imagine to call the next Hugin "Hugin CS 2009.4.0". I could not 
imagine calling it "Hugin LG 2009.4.0" - not because of the association 
with other *L*ibre *G*raphics tools, but because of the term "libre 
graphics" itself.

The version numbering is also something that could be used for unification.

Hugin was stuck for too long with a 0.x version number, giving the 
impression that it is incomplete. The decision whether to uptick the 
major or the minor version is too subjective in our case. So we decided 
to use a simple convention:

* The major version number is the year when the release was branched out 
of trunk.

* The minor version is a sequence number, odd for development 
snapshots/trunk; even for stable releases.

* The patch version is unchanged and is in case we have a pressing 
reason to issue a patched version.

Adopting a common version naming convention would bring us closer as well.

my 2 cents
Yuv