Forum header update

[floris v]

I like that!

[lgusaas]

I am sorry but what you are suggesting is a 72hrs timeline on mailinglist then 72hrs on bugzilla then 72 on forums. The thread was started on Sunday EST we are on thursday. Its well beyond the period.

There were questions raised here, on the mailing list, and on the bug report about the colour of the orb being too light. No corrections were made before it was arbitrarily changed.

Questions were raised on the mailing list about the proposal being done without discussion. It was also recommended that discussion takes place here. There has been no consensus reached. This is unacceptable.

[jza]

Well, many volunteers here don't regularly visit the mailing lists.

Neither the bugzilla where the comments should have been submitted. And haggar did post the link to it from the first post.

[jza]

I am sorry but what you are suggesting is a 72hrs timeline on mailinglist then 72hrs on bugzilla then 72 on forums. The thread was started on Sunday EST we are on thursday. Its well beyond the period.

There were questions raised here, on the mailing list, and on the bug report about the colour of the orb being too light. No corrections were made before it was arbitrarily changed.

No proposal or alternative were given either. For me, a comment saying something without offering an alternative means, that the original proposal will remain until a further solution is offered -- how can we evaluate if there is nothing to evaluate from?

[jza]

Anyway, I don't think we have much choice. Nobody has proposed any alternative. So I'm not against the already made change.

However, there is still the problem with the color of the orb logo that is not right.
Does it mean that we need to change the background of the banner so that we have the right set of colors?

There was a parallel conversation on adopt the new look and feel from the Template/Extension site. But this will require a whole theme (new CSS/HTML).
http://extensions.openoffice.org/

[lgusaas]

No proposal or alternative were given either. For me, a comment saying something without offering an alternative means, that the original proposal will remain until a further solution is offered -- how can we evaluate if there is nothing to evaluate from?

The defects of the design were pointed out. It was unacceptable. It should not be changed until an acceptable design is approved.

Saying there were no solution offered is a cop out. Quit imposing your unacceptable work until it is approved.

[jza]

Color looks fine for me (and others also agreed, notice the +1 on the thread). You can argue the same thing about that comment imposing his-her will.

ATM the dialog uses 2 colors which is what the original logo uses. Inserting a third color or changing one of the original ones is a modification that could be evaluate if there was one.

[pescetti]

About the decisional process: it is clear that Alexandro's header had been pushed to the forums (on the eve of a system-wide upgrade, moreover) in error. No consensus had been reached, no concerns had been addressed.

Until there is a consensus, the status quo prevails: so the logo in both the internal forums and the homepage has now been reverted to what it looked like before this change. And the change should never have happened: it was inappropriate that Alexandro asked, it was wrong that the admin applied the change without notice or without a quick check here or on the mailing list. I trust this won't happen again.

Does the revert mean that the discussion about the logo is over, or that Alexandro's proposal is ruled out? Not at all. And I'll happily continue the conversation on that.

The revert just means that we take community processes very seriously. An important feature of the community self-governance is to respect the decisional processes. A decision takes a minimum of 72 hours (to give everybody the possibility to comment) and can take much longer (several weeks, hundreds of e-mails). Any attempt to bypass the processes is insulting for the other community members and must be avoided or, when it slips through like it happened this time, reverted.

[floris v]

Because so many of us don't check the mailing lists (I was subscribed, but hey, that was one hell of a lot of mails about subjects that I wasn't interested in), it'd make more sense to put the matter to the vote on this forum instead of the mailing lists; and don't forget that while this forum is kindly hosted by Apache, we are an independent set of people, catering to the needs of LibreOffice as well.

[jza]

About the decisional process: it is clear that Alexandro's header had been pushed to the forums (on the eve of a system-wide upgrade, moreover) in error. No consensus had been reached, no concerns had been addressed.

Until there is a consensus, the status quo prevails: so the logo in both the internal forums and the homepage has now been reverted to what it looked like before this change. And the change should never have happened: it was inappropriate that Alexandro asked, it was wrong that the admin applied the change without notice or without a quick check here or on the mailing list. I trust this won't happen again.

Does the revert mean that the discussion about the logo is over, or that Alexandro's proposal is ruled out? Not at all. And I'll happily continue the conversation on that.

The revert just means that we take community processes very seriously. An important feature of the community self-governance is to respect the decisional processes. A decision takes a minimum of 72 hours (to give everybody the possibility to comment) and can take much longer (several weeks, hundreds of e-mails). Any attempt to bypass the processes is insulting for the other community members and must be avoided or, when it slips through like it happened this time, reverted.

Actually the proposal was up for 120hrs from Sunday 11 to Thursday 15, and the issues were addressed (logo from gull to orb on BZ) and constant branding need (forum ML), and jagged edges as well(forum). There were some +1 and there were some concerns, which were acknowledge but no further proposals were made. So I don't see why the process wasn't applied, furthermore there was no further communication on the mailing list (since tuesday), and the forum was pretty much just performing minor tweaks (space between orb and name) and such.

AFAIK this was pretty much approved well surpassed the minimum, and I did notify a 'go' to apply the changes almost 105 hours from the proposal and 20 hours from the last message.

[jani]

I think its super to get proposals and discuss the direction.

But I think the main question should be answered first. Should www, wiki, forum and extensions have the same header/footer.

Let me just comment on a couple of issues:

Concern has been raise that the html/css structures are different, that is correct, but it is equally correct thats its no real problem to make them identical.

The idea has also been raised, that we do not copy the logo but simply reference it from www, that is a very bad idea, especially when we change from http to https, default in most browsers are not to allow cross-host html.

I would like to see a future where www, wiki and forum grows together, with not only common header/footer but also interlinking so users can e.g. start searching on our www, continue on wiki and end reading in here about the newest trends.

just my thoughts.
Jan I.

[jza]

But I think the main question should be answered first. Should www, wiki, forum and extensions have the same header/footer.

Althought the the title of the thread is Forum header, is really a discussion about the logo. To change the header (which I agree) we actually need to do webwork, not only design a new logo.

Web work cant only affect forum, but at this point is wiki and other sites (forum front, www, bugzilla, template site, codesnippets etc). Each with a unique CSS and HTML structure.

The most I can see is agreen to have a common logo, and moving the conversation toward the rest of the site.

Here is a sample of a common header.

Common headers

[andrew.rist]

I really like the proposal by jza:
Postby jza » Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:12 pm

The one change I would make is to change the background to white - this matches the current general AOO site look.

[lgusaas]

I really like the proposal by jza:
Postby jza » Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:12 pm

The one change I would make is to change the background to white - this matches the current general AOO site look.

AOOheaders.png

White works much better as the background. However the Icon/name for each variation is not very attractive.

It would work better to have the name of particular site below Apache/OpenOffice like the design on the current English forum page.

The design is missing "User community support forum for Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice and all the OpenOffice.org derivatives" on the forum page. This is essential to indicate the purpose of the page.

The home page should also have the current "The Free and Open Productivity Suite" in the header.

[jza]

I didn't create or coded this design, janIV tweak the conversation to focus on the whole header (not just the logo which is what this discussion is about) to all the sites. I did a mockup of how will the websites be under the new design, already implemented in Extensions and Templates.

[lgusaas]

I didn't create or coded this design, janIV tweak the conversation to focus on the whole header (not just the logo which is what this discussion is about) to all the sites.

And I suggested changes to the design. The discussion needs to focus on the whole header, not just the logo. The logo you put on the forum without consensus didn't work because of the blue on blue design.

The header and it's content needs to be discussed and designed as a whole.

[jza]

This is completely out of the scope of the proposal, plus there is no patch (nor will there be) anytime soon. Please read the bug report and dont try to change it.

FYI Currently the logo is blue on blue, the previous logo used the same colors as the current ones.

Is this just a tactic to delay things until oblivious? you just tried to stop the wiki proposal that hasn't received any comments on the mailing list this whole time.

[lgusaas]

This is completely out of the scope of the proposal, plus there is no patch (nor will there be) anytime soon. Please read the bug report and dont try to change it.

FYI Currently the logo is blue on blue, the previous logo used the same colors as the current ones.

Is this just a tactic to delay things until oblivious? you just tried to stop the wiki proposal that hasn't received any comments on the mailing list this whole time.

Why do you keep cramming your proposal down people's throats? You changed the logo before without consensus. It was changed back. When someone objects to your tactics you accuse them of "delaying things". This is not your fiefdom. Your way is not the "Apache way".

[jza]

This is completely out of the scope of the proposal, plus there is no patch (nor will there be) anytime soon. Please read the bug report and dont try to change it.

FYI Currently the logo is blue on blue, the previous logo used the same colors as the current ones.

Is this just a tactic to delay things until oblivious? you just tried to stop the wiki proposal that hasn't received any comments on the mailing list this whole time.

Why do you keep cramming your proposal down people's throats? You changed the logo before without consensus. It was changed back. When someone objects to your tactics you accuse them of "delaying things". This is not your fiefdom. Your way is not the "Apache way".

The logo was change with consensus. It was change back because of the SVN staging based on a code freeze from several days before done by infra.

I am objecting to the scope of the bug. This is not a header proposal but a logo proposal. And this was the Apache way until it got stagnated. There has been 0 objections raised on the wiki header proposed, (which was also rolled back cuz of the SVN staging). And it's been 2 weeks without a comment. Way above and beyond the minimum of the "apache way" (400hrs) with +1 and 0 alternatives.

There is also no 'logic' to raise any objection, the new logo is already approved for 4.0, we change from the 3.0 to the 4.0... what exactly is there to object.

If your objection is change the whole skin of the wiki, then create a bug for the Wiki skin with a patch, but don't try to put it as a reason to stop any further implementations (logo).

[lgusaas]

The logo was change with consensus. It was change back because of the SVN staging based on a code freeze from several days before done by infra.

Bullshit. Quit making stuff up. See this earlier post on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=50&t=63523&p=282792#p282436

Also this comment on the mailing list from Juergen Schmidt at the start of this header fiasco.

Is it possible that you work on your own and don't communicate with others here on the list?
This images are not known, not discussed, not approved not anything... Why should they be used at all?

If you want to join any effort and collaboration on further new images using the new logo, you are invited to do do via the list and with others. If you don't want this it' fine as well but don't check in or overwrite any existing logo of images without discussion ...

Juergen

Now, why don't you go........

[jza]

The logo was change with consensus. It was change back because of the SVN staging based on a code freeze from several days before done by infra.

Bullshit. Quit making stuff up. See this earlier post on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=50&t=63523&p=282792#p282436

Also this comment on the mailing list from Juergen Schmidt at the start of this header fiasco.

Is it possible that you work on your own and don't communicate with others here on the list?
This images are not known, not discussed, not approved not anything... Why should they be used at all?

If you want to join any effort and collaboration on further new images using the new logo, you are invited to do do via the list and with others. If you don't want this it' fine as well but don't check in or overwrite any existing logo of images without discussion ...

Juergen

Now, why don't you go........

I replied to juergen and precetti, quote that. They both kept quiet after that.

[lgusaas]

I replied to juergen and precetti, quote that. They both kept quiet after that.

Why would the need to? They had made their point. Yet you continue to do stuff your way. Do you think that if you make the last post you win?

Your changing the icon on this forum was not approved. Period. Nothing you say will make that otherwise. It seems you have a long history of trying to do things your way.

Quit trying to bully everyone. Now go take your meds and do something useful.

[Hagar Delest]

Hey, could we concentrate on the constructive part of this topic?

I created this topic for the whole header, not just the logo because we need to be consistent with the other areas (www, extensions, wiki, ...). I linked the bug report because the logo is part of the header, that's all.

If the header needs to be revamped, then this discussion has to be broadened to that extent, there was no tweak of the discussion at all.

Personally, even if the logo change was done rather quickly, it would have been acceptable (at least as a temporary change to be more consistent than the current header) IF the color problem had been fixed (see acknak's post from Aug. 15th).

Now, to keep going, the main points I see are:
- What is needed to make the header compatible with a common look (vs. the other areas www, extensions, ...): is there any issue with the current layout (CSS) of the forum?
- As a side question, can we keep the current comment about the User community somewhere (it needs to be kept) with a consistent design?
- Is there any consensus on the look of the banner? the proposal in jza's post (and the one from Andrew Rist after) makes sense. OTOH, the proposal from RGB is very attractive too.
Perhaps we should have something below the banner (like the line used in wiki for the links to Home / Search / Templates / Get Apache OpenOffice / Extensions / Login) for the forum customization (nice logo + User community comment.

[jza]

I dont think we can't concentrate on a constructive part of a discussion when there is no construction going on. Beside the few opinions. There is only 2 patches provided.

The header is not only an svg/patch, but a whole redesign of phpBB which require a different set of skillsets, which currently there is no access to it. We would need infra (or people with access to vm) to publish the code for the skin, so people can hack upon it, and create a patch. And unless you run your own version of phpBB you wont be able to test the patch. (there could be a sandbox). I can only validate this if there is a proposal/patch/css file to hack upon.

But all this doesn't really matter with the bug report asking for a consistent "branding" with the latest approved logo. Notice difference between branding and look and feel.

I mentioned my concerns with RGB proposal including the breakage of the branding guidelines by adding things like a "lifesaver" and a "gradient/shadow". Also having the same spectrum of blue (or close enough) to the background.

[pescetti]

To start agreeing on something concrete, could we at least agree about the following?

1) Hagar's proposal to update the "download" logo (page footer) seems a no-brainer.



Any objections to that?

2) Can the two logos at http://forum.openoffice.org/ and http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/ be consolidated into one? I mean: they are now very different and I see no reason for that. I'm not saying they must be 100% identical (one is a logo, one is a full header), but they should become similar enough to discuss them as if they were the same graphic concept: once we agree on the header, we will extract the logo from it.

[lgusaas]

To start agreeing on something concrete, could we at least agree about the following?

1) Hagar's proposal to update the "download" logo (page footer) seems a no-brainer.



Any objections to that?

+1 Looks good

2) Can the two logos at http://forum.openoffice.org/ and http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/ be consolidated into one? I mean: they are now very different and I see no reason for that. I'm not saying they must be 100% identical (one is a logo, one is a full header), but they should become similar enough to discuss them as if they were the same graphic concept: once we agree on the header, we will extract the logo from it.

I did a quick layout design based on the look of the openoffice.org home page. Would be easy to implement for someone with knowledge of the html and css of the website.

For http://forum.openoffice.org/

For http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/

[jza]

2) Can the two logos at http://forum.openoffice.org/ and http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/ be consolidated into one? I mean: they are now very different and I see no reason for that. I'm not saying they must be 100% identical (one is a logo, one is a full header)

Actually they are both logos:
http://forum.openoffice.org/forum-logo.png
styles/prosilver/imageset/logo_forum_en.png

Header was never proposed in it's entirety nor there is no header patch.

However it makes sense that they use the original logo from the website.

It makes sense we re-use already an approved header, like the one currently held on Extension/Templates:

[lgusaas]

Header was never proposed in it's entirety nor there is no header patch.

The title of this thread is "Forum header update". We have been talking about the header, not just the logo.

It makes sense we re-use already an approved header,

Approved? Where? Shouldn't all headers be similar to the one on http://www.openoffice.org/ ?

As I mentioned somewhere before, the use of two variant hues of blue is poor design. The header needs to stand out and attract attention. The icons for each variant aren't very attractive. The Forum heading lacks the vital information "User community support forum for Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice and all the OpenOffice.org derivatives"

[Hagar Delest]

Header was never proposed in it's entirety nor there is no header patch.

Please don't go that way again.

[jza]

Header was never proposed in it's entirety nor there is no header patch.

Please don't go that way again.

I can only comment on what is available, mockups of the header are a long way from having actual code to evaluate or approve.

On the other side, the logo is ready to just apply, and there are several patches already.