control-center-3.8.0-2.fc19 added the Fedora logo (instead of the GNOME logo) on the details panel of the GNOME desktop control center. This is a good idea, but I see two problems:
1) Use the full logotype, not just the logomark 2) The lack of the ™ symbol next to the logomark violates our own logo usage guidelines [1].
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines
On 04/03/2013 03:33 AM, Elad Alfassa wrote:
control-center-3.8.0-2.fc19 added the Fedora logo (instead of the GNOME logo) on the details panel of the GNOME desktop control center. This is a good idea, but I see two problems:
- Use the full logotype, not just the logomark
- The lack of the ™ symbol next to the logomark violates our own logo
usage guidelines [1].
It would certainly be nice in the future when the Fedora logo's display and appearance is being modified that the appropriate Fedora team (in this case, the folks who maintain the logo) were consulted.
Is this fair to suggest? Can we make this a policy?
~m
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Is this fair to suggest?
Yeah it makes sense.
Can we make this a policy?
Does everything has to be a policy?
On 04/03/2013 02:38 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Is this fair to suggest?
Yeah it makes sense.
Can we make this a policy?
Does everything has to be a policy?
Well, we've had 2 or 3 Fedora logo usage controversies in the past 3 weeks or so, so I am assuming that past experience is not working effectively to teach the appropriate way of doing things moving forward. So yes, I think a policy might be warranted.
~m
Máirín Duffy (duffy@fedoraproject.org) said:
On 04/03/2013 03:33 AM, Elad Alfassa wrote:
control-center-3.8.0-2.fc19 added the Fedora logo (instead of the GNOME logo) on the details panel of the GNOME desktop control center. This is a good idea, but I see two problems:
- Use the full logotype, not just the logomark
- The lack of the ™ symbol next to the logomark violates our own logo
usage guidelines [1].
It would certainly be nice in the future when the Fedora logo's display and appearance is being modified that the appropriate Fedora team (in this case, the folks who maintain the logo) were consulted.
Is this fair to suggest? Can we make this a policy?
It's a fair policy, although given that this is merely using the logos present in the fedora-logos package as-is (as I understand from Ryan's mail), I don't know that this counts as modification.
Bill
On Thu 04 Apr 2013 09:41:14 AM EDT, Bill Nottingham wrote:
It's a fair policy, although given that this is merely using the logos present in the fedora-logos package as-is (as I understand from Ryan's mail), I don't know that this counts as modification.
It does; the context in which the logo is displayed is dictated by the guidelines just as much as the actual logo graphics themselves. A specific example of this is the clearspace rule in the logo usage guidelines. For a specific example - the logo used here has no TM. There are (very few) contexts in which it's probably okay and we've gotten appropriate permission to display the logo without a TM, but it's pretty obvious no such permission was sought when using the TM-less logo in this instance.
~m
Máirín Duffy (duffy@fedoraproject.org) said:
On Thu 04 Apr 2013 09:41:14 AM EDT, Bill Nottingham wrote:
It's a fair policy, although given that this is merely using the logos present in the fedora-logos package as-is (as I understand from Ryan's mail), I don't know that this counts as modification.
It does; the context in which the logo is displayed is dictated by the guidelines just as much as the actual logo graphics themselves. A specific example of this is the clearspace rule in the logo usage guidelines. For a specific example - the logo used here has no TM. There are (very few) contexts in which it's probably okay and we've gotten appropriate permission to display the logo without a TM, but it's pretty obvious no such permission was sought when using the TM-less logo in this instance.
What I'm trying to say is that if the logo requires a TM to be used, the logo in the fedora-logos package should have it - the expectation would be that the logos in that package are the proper ones to use without any modification.
Bill
Bill Nottingham (notting@redhat.com) said:
Máirín Duffy (duffy@fedoraproject.org) said:
On Thu 04 Apr 2013 09:41:14 AM EDT, Bill Nottingham wrote:
It's a fair policy, although given that this is merely using the logos present in the fedora-logos package as-is (as I understand from Ryan's mail), I don't know that this counts as modification.
It does; the context in which the logo is displayed is dictated by the guidelines just as much as the actual logo graphics themselves. A specific example of this is the clearspace rule in the logo usage guidelines. For a specific example - the logo used here has no TM. There are (very few) contexts in which it's probably okay and we've gotten appropriate permission to display the logo without a TM, but it's pretty obvious no such permission was sought when using the TM-less logo in this instance.
What I'm trying to say is that if the logo requires a TM to be used, the logo in the fedora-logos package should have it - the expectation would be that the logos in that package are the proper ones to use without any modification.
... especially since packagers aren't allowed to ship their own versions of any logos.
Bill
On 04/04/2013 10:33 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
... especially since packagers aren't allowed to ship their own versions of any logos.
My team and I are more than happy to discuss any new or modified usages of the logo and produce appropriate artwork, getting it added to the fedora-logos package as necessary, for any packager who has the need and comes to us.
~m
Máirín Duffy (duffy@fedoraproject.org) said:
On 04/04/2013 10:33 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
... especially since packagers aren't allowed to ship their own versions of any logos.
My team and I are more than happy to discuss any new or modified usages of the logo and produce appropriate artwork, getting it added to the fedora-logos package as necessary, for any packager who has the need and comes to us.
I understand your desire to have input into how the logo is used. My point is that if the logos provided *as the only logos that software in Fedora can use* aren't suitable to use as is, it amounts to merely playing "GOTCHA!" with people who are trying to use the right thing that the design team has already provided them.
If fedora-logos doesn't provide an actual version of the logomark that corresponds to the guidelines, it's not the fault of other groups for using the only version that's there.
Bill
Bill Nottingham (notting@redhat.com) said:
Máirín Duffy (duffy@fedoraproject.org) said:
On 04/04/2013 10:33 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
... especially since packagers aren't allowed to ship their own versions of any logos.
My team and I are more than happy to discuss any new or modified usages of the logo and produce appropriate artwork, getting it added to the fedora-logos package as necessary, for any packager who has the need and comes to us.
I understand your desire to have input into how the logo is used. My point is that if the logos provided *as the only logos that software in Fedora can use* aren't suitable to use as is, it amounts to merely playing "GOTCHA!" with people who are trying to use the right thing that the design team has already provided them.
If fedora-logos doesn't provide an actual version of the logomark that corresponds to the guidelines, it's not the fault of other groups for using the only version that's there.
I'll file an RFE for fedora-logos to replace the large sprite with the one from the logos page on the wiki - that should solve this issue at least.
Bill
On 04/04/2013 11:01 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I'll file an RFE for fedora-logos to replace the large sprite with the one from the logos page on the wiki - that should solve this issue at least.
Please do not take any PNG graphics from the logo usage guidelines wiki page, as they are not meant to be used this way.
Please email logo@fedoraproject.org to obtain the correct graphic. This has been the official process to obtain logo artwork since 2006 or so, and there are legal reasons as to why we can't just put the full logo pack up on the wiki (would certainly save a lot of manual work if we could!!)
~m
Máirín Duffy (duffy@fedoraproject.org) said:
On 04/04/2013 11:01 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I'll file an RFE for fedora-logos to replace the large sprite with the one from the logos page on the wiki - that should solve this issue at least.
Please do not take any PNG graphics from the logo usage guidelines wiki page, as they are not meant to be used this way.
Please email logo@fedoraproject.org to obtain the correct graphic. This has been the official process to obtain logo artwork since 2006 or so, and there are legal reasons as to why we can't just put the full logo pack up on the wiki (would certainly save a lot of manual work if we could!!)
Oh, sure - the fedora-logos maintainer should get the official versions rather than screenscraping the wiki. I'm just saying that if guidelines state:
"The 'TM' trademark symbol must always be visible and readable for both the Fedora logomark (infinity symbol) and the Fedora logotype ('fedora' text) in the placements shown in these guidelines."
then the scalable logomark in fedora-logos should probably be the one that actually contains that, and the weird logomark that's in fedora-logos that uses a gradient for the infinity symbol (!?!?!) should probably be nuked from orbit. By doing that we still may not be providing the *right* version for every use by in-Fedora software, but we at least won't be providing an clearly wrong version of the logo.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948319, FWIW.
Bill
I would just like to ask people to remember we are all on the same team here and want to achieve the same thing, to see Fedora succeed.
Adding the Fedora logo to the details panel was not done with the intent to slight or demean anyone, in fact it was the opposite, it was meant as gesture of good will and to show that we too understand that Fedora has a need for branding and visibility.
That the wrong logo ended up being used is unfortunate, but F19 is still not out so there should be no problem replacing it with the correct logo without any harm done.
I am sure there will be mistakes made also in the future of one kind or the other, but lets start giving each other the benefit of the doubt and respond to such mistakes based on an assumption that everyone involved wants to do the right thing and thus be happy to correct the error once pointed out in a friendly way.
Christian
On 04/05/2013 07:20 AM, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
I am sure there will be mistakes made also in the future of one kind or the other, but lets start giving each other the benefit of the doubt and respond to such mistakes based on an assumption that everyone involved wants to do the right thing and thus be happy to correct the error once pointed out in a friendly way.
It would be hard to assume anything but the best of intentions with the placement of the logo in this specific situation.
But everyone else who uses the logo (t-shirts, posters, conference flyers, books, etc.) is required to seek advisement with the logo maintainers as to which logo to use and in what contexts the logo usage is appropriate. This has been a Fedora policy for years. I am questioning why this is not the case when the logo is used in Fedora itself as well; the Fedora designers don't use rawhide or really any pre-beta builds (the tools we rely on are too unstable for us to get our jobs done with) so it was sheer chance that Ryan even noticed this before it was too late.
~m
On 04/05/2013 10:06 AM, Máirín Duffy wrote: it was sheer chance that Ryan even noticed this
before it was too late.
Apologies, Elad spotted it this time, I crossed the logo thread streams. :(
~m
On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 10:08 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
On 04/05/2013 10:06 AM, Máirín Duffy wrote: it was sheer chance that Ryan even noticed this
before it was too late.
Apologies, Elad spotted it this time, I crossed the logo thread streams. :(
I sent mail about this to spot last week, no extra spotting needed. :-)
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller < cschalle@redhat.com> wrote:
I would just like to ask people to remember we are all on the same team here and want to achieve the same thing, to see Fedora succeed.
Adding the Fedora logo to the details panel was not done with the intent to slight or demean anyone, in fact it was the opposite, it was meant as gesture of good will and to show that we too understand that Fedora has a need for branding and visibility.
That the wrong logo ended up being used is unfortunate, but F19 is still not out so there should be no problem replacing it with the correct logo without any harm done.
I am sure there will be mistakes made also in the future of one kind or the other, but lets start giving each other the benefit of the doubt and respond to such mistakes based on an assumption that everyone involved wants to do the right thing and thus be happy to correct the error once pointed out in a friendly way.
Christian
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
Not only I assumed best intentions, I did say I like the idea and that I think It's a good idea. Kudos to Matthias for doing it. We just need to change it to fit to our logo usage guidelines, and perhaps adjust it further so when we finally release Fedora it'll be as beautiful as possible.
I really think this is a good time to split this thread, because we have two issues at hand: 1) We need to change (a bit) they way this dialog looks 2) We need to devise a policy for usage of the Fedora logo inside the Fedora operation system.
While both these things are related, having them both in the same thread is confusing. So, please continue discussion related to how this dialog should look (and which logo file it should use exactly) in the Desktop list, and discussion about the logo usage policy in the Design list.
Thanks.
On Thu 04 Apr 2013 10:53:30 AM EDT, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I understand your desire to have input into how the logo is used. My point is that if the logos provided *as the only logos that software in Fedora can use* aren't suitable to use as is, it amounts to merely playing "GOTCHA!" with people who are trying to use the right thing that the design team has already provided them.
It's not just a desire to have input into how the logo is used. If you don't understand the logo usage guidelines (and experience has taught me that very few people actually take the time to read and understand them) it is very easy to misuse the logo, whether or not you use 'approved' artwork. It's not about trapping people into making a mistake, it's about using the logo correctly.
If fedora-logos doesn't provide an actual version of the logomark that corresponds to the guidelines, it's not the fault of other groups for using the only version that's there.
Bill, I think you missed my point.
It is simply not possible - even if every single logo graphic file in fedora-logos was vetted and approved (and I'm pretty sure they have been) by the folks in charge of the logo as being appropriate for their current usages - for us to say that packagers can use any file in that package and not have to worry about breaking logo usage guidelines. We have no way of knowing ahead of time the specific contexts those packagers mean to use the logos in.
For example, some of the logo files in fedora-logos have no padding whatsoever around the logo. The logo has a clearspace guideline that dictates a bare minimum margin around the logo in any usage. The version of the logo without any padding was created for a specific usage in which the application calling the logo added the necessary margin in the application code. Someone could very easily come along and use this padding-less version of the logo and be violating the logo usage guidelines if they didn't consult the guidelines or talk to somebody familiar with the logo's usage who could have advised them of the appropriate padding to use or of an alternative file that has the padding pre-included. This happened quite recently in the reverse - the Fedora logo mark + word mark was shoved in the upper left corner of the GNOME 3 panel in GDM, and even though that panel is approx. 22 pixels tall, the logo literally displayed as somewhere between 7-9 pixels tall - because a version of the logo that was padded was used in an instance where an unpadded version of the logo would have been more appropriate!
Just because a version of the logo is 'approved' and meets the guidelines, doesn't mean it's approved and meets the guidelines for all possible usages, nor is such a thing actually possible. Logo usage is far too contextual to just slap a bunch of graphics in a package or a repo and be guaranteed when anybody uses them that they'll be used correctly. I gave you the greyscale version of the logo as a specific example of how this might be so: the guidelines do state that you should be using the color version of the logo, but there are specific scenarios in which your usage of a greyscale logo would be approved, in which case you could use the greyscale version. If we put a greyscale version in fedora-logos, though, that certainly opens the possibility - if we let any packager use any graphic in that file however they want - of violating the logo usage guidelines, because without consulting with the folks maintaining the logo and/or reading and understanding the usage guidelines, it would be quite possible to use the greyscale logo when the more appropriate logo to use would be the full-color version.
~m
On 04/04/2013 10:29 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that if the logo requires a TM to be used, the logo in the fedora-logos package should have it - the expectation would be that the logos in that package are the proper ones to use without any modification.
The logo in the package with the TM was put there for a specific, approved purpose. Just because a graphic is in the fedora-logos package doesn't mean it's a free-for-all to use however you want. For example, we have an approved version of the logo that is in greyscale, and there may be limited instances in which you would want to use a greyscale Fedora logo in Fedora - that doesn't mean that in writing or modifying an application in Fedora that you can just snag that greyscale logo and not be in any violation of the logo usage guidelines or the intended usage of the logo. The vast majority of usages of the Fedora logo (which I admit are dwindling down to 1 or 2 at this point) should be in full-color, and the usage of the approved greyscale version is meant to be really limited.
The context in which the logo is displayed, outside of whether or not it has a TM, is also important, and really should be discussed before it is changed. I believe all of these changes to the logo's display taking place without any discussion is a big reason why the changes have blown up into these long and upsetting threads.
~m
desktop@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Bill Nottingham -
Christian Schaller -
drago01 -
Elad Alfassa -
Matthias Clasen -
Máirín Duffy