Giant Blue Screen Tax (time to lose the border ?)
I came to the Interfaces wiki and immediately felt relieved. It is so much faster and more useful without the familiar blue signal-free zones top and left. In zope.org's lifetime I have almost never clicked on anything there (ok I use the top links and search field once in a while). If all blue zones vanished from zope.org overnight, or at least from the wiki pages, you'd see an upturn in wiki participation and general satisfaction with the site I reckon. I realize there might be one or two out of you there who don't agree.. :) How about making it an option ? Perhaps CMF skins/prefs will facilitate this. -Simon (*) http://www.zope.org/Members/michel/Projects/Interfaces/
Simon Michael writes:
If all blue zones vanished from zope.org overnight, or at least from the wiki pages, you'd see an upturn in wiki participation and general satisfaction with the site I reckon. I would be happy...
But, I know that corporate identity (CI) always tends to add them back or introduce them, if not there already. CI needs a place to live in, to make its colors and its style felt... Dieter
But, I know that corporate identity (CI) always tends to add them back or introduce them, if not there already. CI needs a place to live in, to make its colors and its style felt...
...but I thought that's what Zope.com was for? ;-) Chris
On 05 Aug 2001 22:47:27 +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
But, I know that corporate identity (CI) always tends to add them back or introduce them, if not there already. CI needs a place to live in, to make its colors and its style felt...
...but I thought that's what Zope.com was for? ;-)
Well... Community identity then? BTW, while I understand the reasoning behind the name change of Digital Creations -> Zope Corporation, and feel that DC certainly has justification for 'taking credit' in this way, I am less comfortable with the possible confusion that will result in both entities (the community and the company) using similar names name *and* logos. Some distiction needs to be made between the two entities. The separate domain names work so far as they go, but separate logos are needed too, in my opinion. So who switches? Michael Bernstein.
"Michael R. Bernstein" wrote:
Some distiction needs to be made between the two entities. The separate domain names work so far as they go, but separate logos are needed too, in my opinion.
So who switches?
Who switches to what?
On 06 Aug 2001 09:34:47 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
"Michael R. Bernstein" wrote:
Some distiction needs to be made between the two entities. The separate domain names work so far as they go, but separate logos are needed too, in my opinion.
So who switches?
Who switches to what?
Who switches their logo to a different one? Michael Bernstein.
We had started some work on this and we simply need to follow through. At a minimum, we'll make sure the "Corporation" word clearly appears in the ZC version of the mark. --Paul Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
On 05 Aug 2001 22:47:27 +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
But, I know that corporate identity (CI) always tends to add them back or introduce them, if not there already. CI needs a place to live in, to make its colors and its style felt...
...but I thought that's what Zope.com was for? ;-)
Well... Community identity then?
BTW, while I understand the reasoning behind the name change of Digital Creations -> Zope Corporation, and feel that DC certainly has justification for 'taking credit' in this way, I am less comfortable with the possible confusion that will result in both entities (the community and the company) using similar names name *and* logos.
Some distiction needs to be made between the two entities. The separate domain names work so far as they go, but separate logos are needed too, in my opinion.
So who switches?
Michael Bernstein.
_______________________________________________ Zope-web maillist - Zope-web@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web
Michael R. Bernstein writes:
Some distiction needs to be made between the two entities. The separate domain names work so far as they go, but separate logos are needed too, in my opinion. Do you really believe in logos?
I do not and therefore would not mind when the logos remain the same. Dieter
On 06 Aug 2001 19:48:25 +0200, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Michael R. Bernstein writes:
Some distiction needs to be made between the two entities. The separate domain names work so far as they go, but separate logos are needed too, in my opinion.
Do you really believe in logos?
I do not and therefore would not mind when the logos remain the same.
Well, that depends on what you mean by 'believe in logos'. If you mean do I neccessarily do I automatically assume that an entity is reputable because they have a logo, then the answer is no. I do however, view logos as a convenient visual shorthand to signify a brand, and if I trust that brand (based on my past experiences) then that trust does spill over to the visual representation itself. This is what logos are *supposed* to do. Any brand, however, can be undermined by a cynical misapplication of the logo. That is why the most powerful and trusted brands police the use of their marks so diligently. Most importantly, I beleive based on my experience that logos are used as this sort of visual 'memory hook' by most people, whether hackers, Dilberts or PHBs. Therefore, Zope corporation must guard it's own brand (as well as the communities) by maintaining the distinction between the community and the company. Michael Bernstein.
Michael R. Bernstein writes:
.... I do however, view logos as a convenient visual shorthand to signify a brand, and if I trust that brand (based on my past experiences) then that trust does spill over to the visual representation itself. This is what logos are *supposed* to do. .... Therefore, Zope corporation must guard it's own brand (as well as the communities) by maintaining the distinction between the community and the company. But, if you can trust the corporation and the community in a similar way, would you really need a difference in the visual "annotation"?
Dieter
On 07 Aug 2001 18:42:56 +0200, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Michael R. Bernstein writes:
.... Therefore, Zope corporation must guard it's own brand (as well as the communities) by maintaining the distinction between the community and the company.
But, if you can trust the corporation and the community in a similar way, would you really need a difference in the visual "annotation"?
Hmm. While I can say that I trust the corporation and the community roughly to the same degree, I don't think that I trust them the same way, or for the same things. If there was truly no need to distinguish between the community and the corporation, then it wouldn't have been neccessary for various DC employees to say "I am not speaking for the company" at during various mailing-list discussions over the last two years. The line was clearer before (when ZC was DC), but there were still problems. As an example, DC and it's employees released various products that were clearly labled as 'unsupported', but people still expected the same level of free support on the mailing lists for those products (I've done this myself, a little). This is unreasonable, yet understandable. That sort of expectation is going to be even stronger in the future, now that the two entities names are so similar. Whatever can be done to create distinct identities for ZC and the community (that are nonetheless related) should be done. All of this is my own opinion only, and does not neccessarily reflect the opinion of my employer. :-) Michael Bernstein.
participants (6)
-
Chris McDonough -
Chris Withers -
Dieter Maurer -
Michael R. Bernstein -
Paul Everitt -
Simon Michael