MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
66 messages Options
Next » 1234
bedipp bedipp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

Hi all,

I finished the first draft of the mimetype icons for the "initial branding".

PNG version:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/3/31/LibO_icons_draft.png

SVG source:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/6/61/LibO_icons_draft.svg

They contain:

- Main application icon
(could look a bit cooler, but I didn't want to add additional graphical
elements - if anybody has a good idea, please post it)

- combined application / document icons for the modules: Writer, Calc,
Impress, Draw, Base, Math as well as Masterdocuments and Macros

- template icons for Writer, Calc, Impress and Draw

All of them in scalable vector versions (PNG representations in 128x128
px and 48x48 px) plus manually rendered versions for 32x32 px and 16x16 px.

Do you think we can ship LibO 3.3.0 with these icons?

Of course they can be optimized - for example the larger ones could have
more details or 3D / shading effects.

But as time is more than limited, I'd like to have genuine LibO icons
included in one of the next Release Candidates - there is still quite a
lot to do...

Please comment / criticize / improve the icons...

Best regards

Bernhard

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

bedipp bedipp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

just forgot something:

These iconset doesn't contain icons for
- Chart documents
- HTML documents
- Printer Administration
- Installer

even if they are mentioned on the OOo3.0 MimeType website:
http://ui.openoffice.org/VisualDesign/OOo30MimeType.html

They are not contained in the ODF icons presented here:
http://odftoolkit.org/pages/ODF-Icons

So I don't know if they are necessary for versions from 3.2.1 on.

Perhaps we need an "empty document" icon, but this is easy to create...

Best regards

Bernhard


Bernhard Dippold schrieb:

> Hi all,
>
> I finished the first draft of the mimetype icons for the "initial
> branding".
>
> PNG version:
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/3/31/LibO_icons_draft.png
>
>
> SVG source:
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/6/61/LibO_icons_draft.svg
>
>
> They contain:
>
> - Main application icon
> (could look a bit cooler, but I didn't want to add additional graphical
> elements - if anybody has a good idea, please post it)
>
> - combined application / document icons for the modules: Writer, Calc,
> Impress, Draw, Base, Math as well as Masterdocuments and Macros
>
> - template icons for Writer, Calc, Impress and Draw
>
> All of them in scalable vector versions (PNG representations in 128x128
> px and 48x48 px) plus manually rendered versions for 32x32 px and 16x16 px.
>
> Do you think we can ship LibO 3.3.0 with these icons?
>
> Of course they can be optimized - for example the larger ones could have
> more details or 3D / shading effects.
>
> But as time is more than limited, I'd like to have genuine LibO icons
> included in one of the next Release Candidates - there is still quite a
> lot to do...
>
> Please comment / criticize / improve the icons...
>
> Best regards
>
> Bernhard
>


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Jaron Kuppers Jaron Kuppers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

Hi Bernhard,

Overall, I think the icons are great!  I have a few quick comments about
your last email and the icon set in general:

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Bernhard Dippold <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> These iconset doesn't contain icons for
> - Chart documents
> - HTML documents
>
- Printer Administration
> - Installer
>
These should probably be de-emphasized; I think these, (if they are needed)
can be modifications of the gray gradient background of the "Math" and
"Macros" icon set.

*Macros Icon:
*The icon concept is great, but the gears look a little too much like stars
to me, especially in the larger icons.  The "axle" circle could also be
smaller, and potentially not included in the small logo icons (I can't say
for sure and Inkscape is currently not working for me so I can't try it
out).  Additionally, (though this is a minor issue) the gears have small
graphical issues in the .png file, small white lines between the objects you
used to make the "teeth."

*Draw Icon:*
There simply isn't a 16 px one... is this simply an oversight?

*16 bit Calc Icon:*
Have you considered making the "squares" (that is the white space) another
pixel larger?  I think it would look clearer.

*Main application Icon:*
For Macs, since they use vector application icons, I think a little of the
gradient grid (the stuff in the corners of the 128px template icons) would
look nice for the main application icon.

*Lastly... template vs. doc/app Icons:*
I personally prefer the simplicity of the template icons over the brightness
of the colors in the app/doc icons.  In my every day work I would much
rather see the "template" icon set.  I believe that you are using the
"white" to convey the concept of a template but perhaps there is a different
way to express that.  Just my opinion though... perhaps others would
disagree...

Once again, overall I think they are just great!  Clean lines and simple
concepts are expressed in a way that is intuitive.  :o)

Cheers,
Jaron

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Christoph Noack Christoph Noack
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

Hi Jaron, hi Bernhard, all!

Am Samstag, den 11.12.2010, 17:25 -0500 schrieb Jaron Kuppers:
> Hi Bernhard,
>
> Overall, I think the icons are great!  I have a few quick comments about
> your last email and the icon set in general:

I have to second this :-) Thanks for your work during the last days to
make that possible!

Bernhard requested some feedback by the SC whether the icons can be
included in the upcoming releases (release candidates). Here is a
summary, since the SC minutes are not yet published:
      * Adding the icons to the release candidates is technically "zero
        risk". The worst case is to forget an icon, but this has to be
        identified e.g. via testing (Michael, Thorsten).
      * The icons are generally accepted; the SC is in favor of adding
        the "LibreOffice" icons than adding modified ODF icons (which
        would be an alternative). Even, if the new icons are just used
        for one or two releases.
      * Adding the icons should be done as fast as possible - further
        tweaking might be done within the next release candidate(s).
        Thus, Thorsten asked for a first set by Monday morning (if
        possible).
      * The final release is expected to be done in January - so there
        is some (but not that much) time for tweaking.

I hope I did not forget anything important, but - at least - it looks
very promising. Promising, that is a good point. A Belgian guy (to be
honest, I did not get his affiliation), told me that they do have
contact to a graphics designer who might help us with tweaking /
finalizing the icons. Thus, I proposed them to join our Design mailing
list (a warm "welcome" if you are already here ...)

Jaron, thanks for your great feedback - we share many of the question,
therefore I'd like to add some new ones.

> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Bernhard Dippold <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > These iconset doesn't contain icons for
> > - Chart documents
> > - HTML documents
> >
> - Printer Administration
> > - Installer

There might be some more - from the user's point-of-view, it would be
great to also have icons for "Open" and "Templates" with regard to a
consistent visual representation within the StartCenter. There are even
some more icons, but they fit to the grayish look we already have.
"Done", so to say ;-)

> These should probably be de-emphasized; I think these, (if they are needed)
> can be modifications of the gray gradient background of the "Math" and
> "Macros" icon set.

Yep, that was some initial idea Bernhard and I talked about - keep the
colors for the main applications and "just" use a neutral design for the
many other components and tools. I think that should work fine without
throwing to much color at the user ;-)

> *Macros Icon:
> *The icon concept is great, but the gears look a little too much like stars
> to me, especially in the larger icons.  The "axle" circle could also be
> smaller, and potentially not included in the small logo icons (I can't say
> for sure and Inkscape is currently not working for me so I can't try it
> out).

For the 32px icons, this is emphasized by the "two gears up"
visualization - it looks like a flower (beautiful, but maybe the gear
works better in this case...).

And by the way, thanks for picking a consistent metaphor - I've seen
this in OOo before.

> [...]
> *16 bit Calc Icon:*
> Have you considered making the "squares" (that is the white space) another
> pixel larger?  I think it would look clearer.

Yes, that would make sense, I think.

And by the way, concerning the visually "unique" items here ... I'd like
to slightly adapt these with regard to the size of the icons itself.
Personally, I really don't know whether this will cause further issues,
but I tried to be a bit more detailed (and also balanced) when I made my
proposals (but please, forget about the Draw icon which looks ugly):
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/5/52/ChristophIconDraft.svg

Concerning balance, I'd like to refine some of the symbolism within the
icons. I played with it - and to me it works rater fine:
      * Writer: How about adding a picture box like in the new ODF
        icons? I did that in my proposals (see link above) and it made
        some things more clear to me. Additionally, I used one more text
        line ... the current ones in you proposal grow from line to line
        - this feels a bit unnatural to me.
      * Calc: At the moment, it sometimes looks like a window to me ;-)
        So ow about adding one more row - this also helps for larger
        icon sizes to provide more detail.
      * Impress: At the moment, the presentation content looks too
        "light" in comparison to the bold frame. How about making them a
        bit bolder? I think the line width of the current Calc item will
        work well here.
      * Draw: Works reasonable well (sorry to say, I never expected that
        people will get the idea of this symbolism). But, I don't have a
        better proposal ... the last time I tried to add some more
        "basic" shapes to better reflect the drawing capabilities, but I
        failed to come up with a really good proposal.
      * Base: Like above, how about adding one more "stack" to the
        database?
      * Masterdoc: The master documents refer to "Writer" items. Thus, I
        propose to use only "blue" items within the symbol.

> *Main application Icon:*
> For Macs, since they use vector application icons, I think a little of the
> gradient grid (the stuff in the corners of the 128px template icons) would
> look nice for the main application icon.

Well, I'd like to avoid this - this icon should really match the current
branding / document symbol. Although it might look a bit (too) neutral,
I'd like to keep this here.

> *Lastly... template vs. doc/app Icons:*
> I personally prefer the simplicity of the template icons over the brightness
> of the colors in the app/doc icons.  In my every day work I would much
> rather see the "template" icon set.  I believe that you are using the
> "white" to convey the concept of a template but perhaps there is a different
> way to express that.  Just my opinion though... perhaps others would
> disagree...

I agree here, in my original design, I tried to make the icons a bit
more subtle ... Maybe we can apply this here as well.

The thing which I do not understand are the triangle patterns. There are
only visible in the 128px versions - and thus, most of the users will
never see them. Due to it's size, the simplified versions for the
remaining icon sizes don't convey the message sufficiently (in my
opinion, because it appears to be gray shades, only).

Thus, I propose to use the (how to say that) "rip-off line" that is
currently used for the ODF icons. To me, it seems to be far easier to
understand ... also in small sized icons.

Here, it would help if all of the symbolic elements could consider some
kind of "bounding" box - so all of the symbols are within this region.
This may help to refine other regions of the icons, since a certain
region is reserved. It would also help to improve the consistency of the
icons, e.g. by making the Writer icon symbol use the same size like the
Calc icon. Does this make sense? It would also support ... wait, I think
we should add a new topic.


*Overal visual design *

The overall design could be described with "fun", integrating some of
the branding style characteristics. At least, this is my
understanding ... it would be great if you (all) could help me to find
some description for that.

Well, I think that the filters which are currently applied (causing the
"inner shadows within the borders of the icons") don't work that well
for the icons (the emboss effect and the plain large scale symbols with
the bright "background shadow"). Do you think the filter effects could
be reduced, or even removed?

What also puzzles me, is how the icons look on different backgrounds -
have you tried that?

Another thing that makes me a bit clueless is the use of the additional
border lines (for the light symbol background) within the 32px icons -
it doesn't appear in the other ones.

Finally, the pixel perfect representation can be improved ... but this
is something that can be done in the further refinement process. But now
I really hope that at least some of the feedback is somehow helpful. I
feel a bit bad to not provide any proposal, but I (still) have to
prepare personal things ... in the best case, I try to come up with one
proposal this late evening. Let's see...

Bernhard, Jaron, all! Thanks for your help and support for LibO - it's
great to see things moving on :-)

Cheers,
Christoph


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
bedipp bedipp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

Hi Christoph, Jaron, all,

thanks for your feedback (and thanks to the SC for the possibility to
replace the Galaxy icons in the RC phase)!

All of your points are reasonable and should be considered in the next
iteration of the icons.

Unfortunately I will probably have nearly no time today (and perhaps
tomorrow) to work on the icons.

So everybody: feel free to pick the SVG file [1] and improve the icons.

Please tell the list what you are going to do, so we can avoid 20 people
working on an optimized Writer icon in 16x16 size, while everything else
stays unchanged...

Best regards

Bernhard

[1]:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/6/61/LibO_icons_draft.svg

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Christoph Noack Christoph Noack
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

Hi Bernhard, all!

Just a short notice - I've started with the 16px application/document
icons. There might be also some other changes ... but I'll present my
proposal on the list, of course.

Cheers,
Christoph

Am Sonntag, den 12.12.2010, 15:45 +0100 schrieb Bernhard Dippold:
> Please tell the list what you are going to do, so we can avoid 20
> people
> working on an optimized Writer icon in 16x16 size, while everything
> else
> stays unchanged...
>
>


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
bedipp bedipp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

Hi Christoph, all

thank you very much for stepping in - I still don't have the time to
contribute much more than a short notice:

Reading your mail I thought you had created larger icons as well, not
understanding how you manage to do this in such a short time.

Looking at the links I realized, that you just worked hard (while still
being a magician...)

I like your 16x16 icons - they look clear and distinguishable.

Template discrimination is not easy in this small scale, but your
approach is more promising (especially in larger scales) than mine.

There are some minor comments on one or another icon I'd like to post,
but I can't at the moment.

Looking forward to anybody working on enlarging these icons!

And not to forget: thanks for the structurized approach with your
placeholders in the source file.

Best regards

Bernhard

Christoph Noack schrieb: [...]

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Christoph Noack Christoph Noack
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

Hi Bernhard,

trying to speed up, I totally forgot about thanking you for your great
and hard work. Sorry for that ... I hope you don't mind :-\

Am Montag, den 13.12.2010, 23:44 +0100 schrieb Bernhard Dippold:
[...]
> Reading your mail I thought you had created larger icons as well, not
> understanding how you manage to do this in such a short time.

If I really could ... then we would also have more progress for the rest
of the Design (Team) topics. Sigh.

> There are some minor comments on one or another icon I'd like to post,
> but I can't at the moment.

Take the time you need for managing your private stuff, please. There is
still some time ... and as I said, it is just another iteration. Maybe
the other's join to provide feedback, or to work on that.

> Looking forward to anybody working on enlarging these icons!

Yes, I do, too.

Good night! :-)

Christoph


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Jaron Kuppers Jaron Kuppers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

Hi Christoph, Bernhard,

I still am having problems with .svg program so I can't work on enlarging
the icons. :-(

Template icons:
I did however play around with the 16 px icons Christoph uploaded.  The
changes to the template icons are quite nice; the "binder" graphics (I am
not sure if the word "binder" translates to other cultures, I essentially
mean a bound notebook) makes the icons quite unique looking.  On a pixel by
pixel basis if you get rid of the 2 light gray pixels that are in between
each dark pixel that makes up the "binder" the icon really cleans up nicely.

Writer icon:
I also tried my hand at adding a "picture" to the Writer icon as can be seen
in Christoph's original posted icons, and it could look good.  Something at
the 16 px scale doesn't quite look correct about it but I can't currently
figure out what I don't like.

I uploaded a file with the two previously mentioned changes.  I also played
around with the other icons but you can ignore those changes (I don't like
them at all):
http://picasaweb.google.com/JaronBaron/LibreOffice#5550335957628801266

On a side note, I like that the focus of the discussion has changed at least
for now to the 16 px icons... if we can express a concept in only 16 pixels
then we can certainly express it clearly at a larger scale.  By the way,
where is the "draw" icon?  Hopefully, if I can get Inkscape working on my
Mac I will try my hand at enlarging the icons.

Cheers,
Jaron




On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Christoph Noack <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Hi Bernhard,
>
> trying to speed up, I totally forgot about thanking you for your great
> and hard work. Sorry for that ... I hope you don't mind :-\
>
> Am Montag, den 13.12.2010, 23:44 +0100 schrieb Bernhard Dippold:
> [...]
> > Reading your mail I thought you had created larger icons as well, not
> > understanding how you manage to do this in such a short time.
>
> If I really could ... then we would also have more progress for the rest
> of the Design (Team) topics. Sigh.
>
> > There are some minor comments on one or another icon I'd like to post,
> > but I can't at the moment.
>
> Take the time you need for managing your private stuff, please. There is
> still some time ... and as I said, it is just another iteration. Maybe
> the other's join to provide feedback, or to work on that.
>
> > Looking forward to anybody working on enlarging these icons!
>
> Yes, I do, too.
>
> Good night! :-)
>
> Christoph
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]<design%[hidden email]>
> List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Björn Balazs Björn Balazs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: [libreoffice-design] MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

In reply to this post by Christoph Noack
On Monday 13 December 2010 23:02:34 Christoph Noack wrote:

[...]
> @ Björn (if you read this):

Of course I do. At least scanning mails, to be honest. You digged so deep into
the topic that I did not feel I would manage to catch up - esp. seeing the
tight timeline. But still scanning closely enough to see my name in mails :)

> Does it make sense to check some of the
> icons, e.g. I'm still unsure, which template icons people are most
> comfortable with. Looking at the ODF icons, they introduced some more
> characteristics to distinguish them from the default document icons.

Answering your question: A test would make sense if we have alternatives for
the icons. Help me if there are any - but I can't find them. If we have them I
am very happy to set-up a test (not a lot of work) - then we can decide if it
makes any sense to publish this test or not.

But apart from a test... Your mail has been the trigger for me to dig a bit
deeper into the disussion and I would like to give my 2 cents to it:

I have done three live tests (yes: not representative) in my company with the
current design. I showed a couple of people this page:

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:ChristophNoack/Initial_MIME_Icons#Proposals_by_Christoph

I explained to them what application icons are and what template icons are. I
had them look at the icons for about a minute. Then I asked them to explain
how to differentiate application from template icons. The result: All they
remembered was the coloured background.

This does not suprise me as colour is the visually dominant element in the
design - but it is not used in a consistent way (sep. when the icons are
getting smaller).

So, how can we get to a solution? I think we could try to formulate some rules
for the design of the icons (perhaps you have them already? - I don't know and
a quick search did not bring any up...). So here is my suggestion for the
needed rules in the icon design:

1. Show that it is LO:
Triangle to the top right is a good and distinguishable code - keep that.

2. Code the type of application:
Clear and easy to recognize icon (e.g. line, table) works well - even in small
sizes. Colour (type of) is a good hint, but needs to be better distinguishable
for the colourblinded and should never be used as a primary code. Current
state of colouruse is probably good enough if used only as secondary
(supporting) code.

3. Code application vs. template:
This is a tough one, because there already is a lot of information in the icon
up to here. The code could be to use colour (yes / no) as primary code for
this. Template icons would not have any color at all (aka grey), while
application icons are colourfull - but this would make colour a primary code
again (at least only in terms of colour vs. no-colour and not putting any
information into the colour itself). Perhaps something more obvious would be
more helpful, like inverting the icon? Do you have any better suggestions?

With explicit rules like these it should be easy to develop the according
icons - and then we have material to test ;)

Is there anything else we need to code into the icons? What about math,
masterdoc and macros?

Best,
Björn

--
www.OpenSource-Usability-Labs.com

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
bedipp bedipp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

In reply to this post by Christoph Noack
Hi Christoph, all,

when I finally started working on the icons again, I got a few questions
we should solve:

Christoph Noack schrieb:
> [...]
> * Graphical Design *
>
> My changes address most of my concerns I've stated in one of my last
> mails, so here some summary:
>        * Slightly larger icons in general

Your icons are broader by keeping the height.

This means that we will have to decide, if larger icons (from 32x32px)
will keep the relation of the 16px icons (now 14:16 in width:height) or
the relation from the TDF symbol (13,2:16). My icons have been 13:16,
allowing to have a middle line on the sub-application symbols.


>        * Larger and more detailed document/application symbols

Did you already create some of them?

If not, what do you think about the following ideas (just repeating some
of them):

Writer: an image of a mountain behind a sea at the right upper corner

Calc: a chart in the right lower corner

Impress: a detailed slide (header, sub-header, a few bullet points and a
chart?)

Draw: a floor plan with measurements

Base: a relational database model

Chart: two or three different charts along with a small table

Math: more mathematical symbols (integral, root, log ?)

MasterDoc: 4 miniaturized Writer icons

Macro: two gear wheels, a macro structured text window

Details should only be present on 128px and 256px, perhaps somehow
reduced in 64px.

I don't know how much I can work on them, but perhaps someone else has
similar / different ideas and is willing to join in?


>        * Template icons now feature some "college block binding"

I like these binders, they have to be created in detail for the larger
icons.

For the small 16px icons I prefer Jaron's smaller binding because they
seem to be a bit better to discriminate.

>        * Some more icons (Chart, Printer Setup, Installer, ...)

Thanks for them.

By the way: Are you sure, that we need templates for Base?

They are not contained in the ODF definition (v. 1.2), where we can find
other template mime types that might come one day (Chart, Math, Writer/web):
http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.2/OpenDocument-v1.2-part1.html#a_Appendix_C_
(huge page, long loading, not moving to Appendix C)

Best regards

Bernhard

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Christoph Noack Christoph Noack
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

Hi Bernhard,

before I start: Jaron and Björn (if you might read this), thanks a lot
for your feedback some days ago. I'll try to answer within the next
hours after having finished to work on my mail stack ;-)

Am Dienstag, den 21.12.2010, 15:18 +0100 schrieb Bernhard Dippold:
> Hi Christoph, all,
>
> when I finally started working on the icons again, I got a few questions
> we should solve:

Great (the working, not the questions *g*)! My basic question is, how we
can work together to come up with a complete set - since I may have
missed some activity: is there anybody else working on the set at the
moment? Or, are all other guys busy to improve the website ;-)

> Christoph Noack schrieb:
> > [...]
> > * Graphical Design *
> >
> > My changes address most of my concerns I've stated in one of my last
> > mails, so here some summary:
> >        * Slightly larger icons in general
>
> Your icons are broader by keeping the height.

Yep, I did that for the 16px version to improve the clarity. Here, each
pixel counts :-) In general, I'd like to keep the original aspect ration
if the size permits.


> This means that we will have to decide, if larger icons (from 32x32px)
> will keep the relation of the 16px icons (now 14:16 in width:height) or
> the relation from the TDF symbol (13,2:16). My icons have been 13:16,
> allowing to have a middle line on the sub-application symbols.

The latter sounds good! I think it is acceptable to (since the document
symbol within the logo is somehow set at the moment) slightly adapt the
representation for the application/document icons to align with the
screen pixels.

> >        * Larger and more detailed document/application symbols
>
> Did you already create some of them?

No, sorry.

> If not, what do you think about the following ideas (just repeating some
> of them):

So, this is about the characteristic symbol for each of the documents? I
assume (please correct me, if I'm wrong) that highly detailed symbols
are only used for larger versions of the icons? The smaller will contain
less details, or?

I'm basically fine with all of the proposals below. Might this be a good
point to talk to Björn to check some of the symbols (variations) with
some users?

> Writer: an image of a mountain behind a sea at the right upper corner

Fine with that.

> Calc: a chart in the right lower corner

Also fine with that.

> Impress: a detailed slide (header, sub-header, a few bullet points and a
> chart?)

Well, we don't support automatic sub-headers along with "normal" slide
content ;-) And, I'd skip the chart ... to avoid misinterpretations with
regard to Chart.

> Draw: a floor plan with measurements

Mmh, this sounds very detailed ... and Draw does not work that well with
measurements, because it lacks (or let's say: it does not fit to a
drawing program) page size independent measurements.

How about some drawing primitives?


> Base: a relational database model

Aehm, how does that look like? ;-)


> Chart: two or three different charts along with a small table

Yep. But, I think it would be helpful to omit the table ... although it
is based on structured data, most people won't be aware of the fact that
Chart does incorporate own table data. So we focus on the visual
representation ...


> Math: more mathematical symbols (integral, root, log ?)

Fine with that - but we should somehow incorporate that it is only the
visual representation and not the calculation. So how about adding
"drawing lines/guides" around/within the elements?


> MasterDoc: 4 miniaturized Writer icons

Yep. Or, 4 miniaturized versions of the symbolism (only.)


> Macro: two gear wheels, a macro structured text window

Might work - if the text window is distinctive with regard to the
Impress symbol.


> Details should only be present on 128px and 256px, perhaps somehow
> reduced in 64px.

Oh, sorry, forget my question above ;-) But, I keep it in the text.


> I don't know how much I can work on them, but perhaps someone else has
> similar / different ideas and is willing to join in?

That would be - indeed - great! Anybody who might jump in to help here?
(I know that we do have several interesting tasks at the moment, but it
I'd feel much better to know who is working on what).

> >        * Template icons now feature some "college block binding"
>
> I like these binders, they have to be created in detail for the larger
> icons.
>
> For the small 16px icons I prefer Jaron's smaller binding because they
> seem to be a bit better to discriminate.

I will have a look at it, again.

> >        * Some more icons (Chart, Printer Setup, Installer, ...)
>
> Thanks for them.
>
> By the way: Are you sure, that we need templates for Base?
>
> They are not contained in the ODF definition (v. 1.2), where we can find
> other template mime types that might come one day (Chart, Math, Writer/web):
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.2/OpenDocument-v1.2-part1.html#a_Appendix_C_
> (huge page, long loading, not moving to Appendix C)

Oh, maybe I missed that we don't need it ... but having something that
is not required rather feels like a luxury at the moment.

Bernhard, thanks for your work!

Cheers,
Christoph


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
bedipp bedipp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

Hi Christoph, all,

Christoph Noack schrieb:
> Hi Bernhard,
>
> before I start: Jaron and Björn (if you might read this), thanks a lot
> for your feedback some days ago. I'll try to answer within the next
> hours after having finished to work on my mail stack ;-)

I'm sorry that I didn't reply to you directly - but I read your mails
and used them as basis for my last mail.

Björn, just one comment on your idea about inverting template icons: I
had mainly the same thoughts, but this means that one set of icons
(document or template) would be darker in color. As I believed the
document icons to be more important, I created the templates in lighter
color. But they looked more clear than the document icons, so we used
their color as basis and searched for another element to discriminate
the different sets.

>
> Am Dienstag, den 21.12.2010, 15:18 +0100 schrieb Bernhard Dippold:
>> [...]
>> Christoph Noack schrieb:
>>> [...]
>>> * Graphical Design *
>>>
>>> My changes address most of my concerns I've stated in one of my last
>>> mails, so here some summary:
>>>         * Slightly larger icons in general
>>
>> Your icons are broader by keeping the height.
>
> Yep, I did that for the 16px version to improve the clarity. Here, each
> pixel counts :-) In general, I'd like to keep the original aspect ration
> if the size permits.

Even the 16px size would permit it, but we would lose one pixel in width
(13x16 px instead of 14x16 px). I don't think that this pixel is
important in recognition, but causes the imbalance look of the Calc
icon, because there is no middle pixel...
>
>> This means that we will have to decide, if larger icons (from 32x32px)
>> will keep the relation of the 16px icons (now 14:16 in width:height) or
>> the relation from the TDF symbol (13,2:16). My icons have been 13:16,
>> allowing to have a middle line on the sub-application symbols.

If we go with 14x16 px icons (relation 14:16), the next size (32px)
could be 27x32 (relation 13,5:16) and larger scales (from 48 px) would
fit better and better with the original 13,2:16 relation.

An alternative approach would be to stay with 13:16 for all sizes (if we
can live with the smaller 16 px icons), thus modifying the official TDF
symbol a (nearly invisible) bit by reducing it's width by about 2 px in
128 px size.
>
> The latter sounds good! I think it is acceptable to (since the document
> symbol within the logo is somehow set at the moment) slightly adapt the
> representation for the application/document icons to align with the
> screen pixels.

With a 13:16 approach we wouldn't need to align the icons with the
screen pixels in all common scales, as they are a multitude of 16...


>
>>>         * Larger and more detailed document/application symbols
>>
>> Did you already create some of them?
>
> No, sorry.

Didn't think you should have to, so no need to apologize - I just wanted
to avoid double work.

>
>> If not, what do you think about the following ideas (just repeating some
>> of them):
>
> So, this is about the characteristic symbol for each of the documents? I
> assume (please correct me, if I'm wrong) that highly detailed symbols
> are only used for larger versions of the icons? The smaller will contain
> less details, or?
>
> I'm basically fine with all of the proposals below. Might this be a good
> point to talk to Björn to check some of the symbols (variations) with
> some users?

Yes please.

Perhaps we can create raw drafts of the symbols to present them?

>
>> Writer: an image of a mountain behind a sea at the right upper corner
>
> Fine with that.
>
>> Calc: a chart in the right lower corner
>
> Also fine with that.
>
>> Impress: a detailed slide (header, sub-header, a few bullet points and a
>> chart?)
>
> Well, we don't support automatic sub-headers along with "normal" slide
> content ;-) And, I'd skip the chart ... to avoid misinterpretations with
> regard to Chart.

We can use different levels of bullet points instead...
>
>> Draw: a floor plan with measurements
>
> Mmh, this sounds very detailed ... and Draw does not work that well with
> measurements, because it lacks (or let's say: it does not fit to a
> drawing program) page size independent measurements.

But it work ;-)
>
> How about some drawing primitives?

I want to show that it is a vector based application - the present
symbol doesn't contain this at all.

3D-Effects, wireframes: These are not the primitives you have in mind ? ;-)
>
>
>> Base: a relational database model
>
> Aehm, how does that look like? ;-)

Just the present symbol with some additional arrows, file stacks and
other symbols (forms, reports) - something like this:
http://www.itnomy.com/images/image002.jpg
>
>
>> Chart: two or three different charts along with a small table
>
> Yep. But, I think it would be helpful to omit the table ... although it
> is based on structured data, most people won't be aware of the fact that
> Chart does incorporate own table data. So we focus on the visual
> representation ...

+1
>
>
>> Math: more mathematical symbols (integral, root, log ?)
>
> Fine with that - but we should somehow incorporate that it is only the
> visual representation and not the calculation. So how about adding
> "drawing lines/guides" around/within the elements?
>
I did never use Math for any real task, so please help me with the idea...
>
>> MasterDoc: 4 miniaturized Writer icons
>
> Yep. Or, 4 miniaturized versions of the symbolism (only.)

Depends on how they look like. If the symbols contain the cut-off
corner, I'm fine with them.
>
>
>> Macro: two gear wheels, a macro structured text window
>
> Might work - if the text window is distinctive with regard to the
> Impress symbol.

Should be - as the icon has grey borders, we could add the color coding
from the macro window.
>
>
>> [...]but having something that
>> is not required rather feels like a luxury at the moment.

Same might be true for larger scale high contrast icons: OOo
(ODF-toolkit) doesn't provide them in scales larger than 32x32 px.

Best regards

Bernhard

PS: Does anybody know if we can use vector graphics for the larger scales?

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Björn Balazs Björn Balazs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: [libreoffice-design] MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

Hi Bernhard, all,

On Tuesday 21 December 2010 21:00:25 Bernhard Dippold wrote:

> Hi Christoph, all,
>
> Christoph Noack schrieb:
> > Hi Bernhard,
> >
> > before I start: Jaron and Bj�rn (if you might read this), thanks a lot
> > for your feedback some days ago. I'll try to answer within the next
> > hours after having finished to work on my mail stack ;-)
>
> I'm sorry that I didn't reply to you directly - but I read your mails
> and used them as basis for my last mail.
>
> Bj�rn, just one comment on your idea about inverting template icons: I
> had mainly the same thoughts, but this means that one set of icons
> (document or template) would be darker in color. As I believed the
> document icons to be more important, I created the templates in lighter
> color. But they looked more clear than the document icons, so we used
> their color as basis and searched for another element to discriminate
> the different sets.

Thanks for the reply. Coming to think about it a little more: Why not
inverting the template icons - but dont make it black and white, but the
colour of type of aplication and white. Then adjust both to have the same
brightness (perhaps dont use black in the document icon at all?).

This way colour could even be used as an secondary hint for the type of
aplication next to the icon, use in both template and document.

I would really like to see that for one icon :) - perhaps a grafically more
gifted person than me gives it a try?

Best,
Björn

--
www.OpenSource-Usability-Labs.com

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Christoph Noack Christoph Noack
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

In reply to this post by bedipp
Hi Bernhard, all!

Let's continue with the icon topic ... anybody, feel free to jump in as
well.

Am Dienstag, den 21.12.2010, 21:00 +0100 schrieb Bernhard Dippold:
[...]

> >>> * Graphical Design *
> >>>
> >>> My changes address most of my concerns I've stated in one of my last
> >>> mails, so here some summary:
> >>>         * Slightly larger icons in general
> >>
> >> Your icons are broader by keeping the height.
> >
> > Yep, I did that for the 16px version to improve the clarity. Here, each
> > pixel counts :-) In general, I'd like to keep the original aspect ration
> > if the size permits.
>
> Even the 16px size would permit it, but we would lose one pixel in width
> (13x16 px instead of 14x16 px). I don't think that this pixel is
> important in recognition, but causes the imbalance look of the Calc
> icon, because there is no middle pixel...

I'm fine with anything that suits our needs :-) Originally, I didn't
need the middle pixel when I created the small website icon that was
meant to "fill" the available space.

> >> This means that we will have to decide, if larger icons (from 32x32px)
> >> will keep the relation of the 16px icons (now 14:16 in width:height) or
> >> the relation from the TDF symbol (13,2:16). My icons have been 13:16,
> >> allowing to have a middle line on the sub-application symbols.
>
> If we go with 14x16 px icons (relation 14:16), the next size (32px)
> could be 27x32 (relation 13,5:16) and larger scales (from 48 px) would
> fit better and better with the original 13,2:16 relation.
>
> An alternative approach would be to stay with 13:16 for all sizes (if we
> can live with the smaller 16 px icons), thus modifying the official TDF
> symbol a (nearly invisible) bit by reducing it's width by about 2 px in
> 128 px size.

As I said, I don't have any hard feelings here ... but since the smaller
icons are already there, we might start to use 13:16 for the other
icons. One thing I am still unsure is, whether the icons will look good
(in terms of their size and position) on all the platforms; but maybe we
have to accept compromises here.

The other way round, I do think that the "symbolism" is the bigger
challenge ;-)

[...]

> Perhaps we can create raw drafts of the symbols to present them?

Good thing!

> >> Writer: an image of a mountain behind a sea at the right upper corner
> >
> > Fine with that.

Okay, so similar to: http://odftoolkit.org/pages/ODF-Icons#ODF_Icons

> >> Calc: a chart in the right lower corner
> >
> > Also fine with that.
> >
> >> Impress: a detailed slide (header, sub-header, a few bullet points and a
> >> chart?)
> >
> > Well, we don't support automatic sub-headers along with "normal" slide
> > content ;-) And, I'd skip the chart ... to avoid misinterpretations with
> > regard to Chart.
>
> We can use different levels of bullet points instead...

Okay. If we do have even more space, we might even symbolize a data
project, which should be rather distinctive ...

> >> Draw: a floor plan with measurements
> >
> > Mmh, this sounds very detailed ... and Draw does not work that well with
> > measurements, because it lacks (or let's say: it does not fit to a
> > drawing program) page size independent measurements.
>
> But it work ;-)
> >
> > How about some drawing primitives?
>
> I want to show that it is a vector based application - the present
> symbol doesn't contain this at all.
>
> 3D-Effects, wireframes: These are not the primitives you have in mind ? ;-)

Oh, I thought about even simpler things like triangles, circles,
rectangles, ...

> >> Base: a relational database model
> >
> > Aehm, how does that look like? ;-)
>
> Just the present symbol with some additional arrows, file stacks and
> other symbols (forms, reports) - something like this:
> http://www.itnomy.com/images/image002.jpg

That is indeed rather detailed ... having in mind that some people "see"
databases via input fields and custom dialogs, maybe this would be an
alternative. The good thing about dialogs is, that they do have a
rectangular shape - that should help us to "fit in" this object.

> >> Chart: two or three different charts along with a small table
> >
> > Yep. But, I think it would be helpful to omit the table ... although it
> > is based on structured data, most people won't be aware of the fact that
> > Chart does incorporate own table data. So we focus on the visual
> > representation ...
>
> +1
> >
> >
> >> Math: more mathematical symbols (integral, root, log ?)
> >
> > Fine with that - but we should somehow incorporate that it is only the
> > visual representation and not the calculation. So how about adding
> > "drawing lines/guides" around/within the elements?
> >
> I did never use Math for any real task, so please help me with the idea...

Oh, that was some time that made my hands feel dumb ... because the main
elements in Math are curly braces. No problem on an English keyboard,
but on a German one this requires some artistic skills.

However, I made up a very rough draft ...
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/xzucK_ybZDoBqpdb9jrbBQ?feat=directlink

Does that suit?

We may start with the sum symbol on small sizes, then add the additional
elements, and finally add the drawing guide lines.


> >> MasterDoc: 4 miniaturized Writer icons
> >
> > Yep. Or, 4 miniaturized versions of the symbolism (only.)
>
> Depends on how they look like. If the symbols contain the cut-off
> corner, I'm fine with them.
> >
> >
> >> Macro: two gear wheels, a macro structured text window
> >
> > Might work - if the text window is distinctive with regard to the
> > Impress symbol.
>
> Should be - as the icon has grey borders, we could add the color coding
> from the macro window.

I don't mind that much ... I've never seen any user having such kind of
document on the desktop (which doesn't mean that this won't happen). So
I'm a bit relaxed, here.

> >> [...]but having something that
> >> is not required rather feels like a luxury at the moment.
>
> Same might be true for larger scale high contrast icons: OOo
> (ODF-toolkit) doesn't provide them in scales larger than 32x32 px.

Mmh, although the creation might be rather simple for us.

> Best regards
>
> Bernhard
>
> PS: Does anybody know if we can use vector graphics for the larger scales?

You mean, if we can skip the export of the graphics to PNG (or some
other pixel based format)? As far as I know - no. Okay, I'm a bit unsure
with regard to Windows 7 ...

Cheers,
Christoph


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
bedipp bedipp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

Hi Christoph, all,

just to inform you with a short notice:

I tried to create a small image to be added to the Writer icon.

Please have a look here - it is just a very first draft...

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:LiBO_Writer_128_draft.png

Some more ideas to improve it:

* Text lines length and spacing (showing header - perhaps still over the
image -, more distance between paragraphs and so on).

* Details in image (remove second line of mountains, add some darker
lines for ridges and gorges)

...

Best regards

Bernhard

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Ivan M. Ivan M.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

Hi Bernhard,

A few brief comments...

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Bernhard Dippold
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Christoph, all,
>
> just to inform you with a short notice:
>
> I tried to create a small image to be added to the Writer icon.
>
> Please have a look here - it is just a very first draft...
>
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:LiBO_Writer_128_draft.png
>
> Some more ideas to improve it:
>
> * Text lines length and spacing (showing header - perhaps still over the
> image -, more distance between paragraphs and so on).

If the larger icon is going to have more lines, then I would recommend
that they be justified so that the right border of the image lines up
with the end of each line of text.

Also, the width disparity between the image border (thin) and text
(chunky) is a little jarring: we have a rectangle with high detail
contained in it surrounded by blocky, low-detail elements. I would
suggest something similar to the new high-res OOo 3.3 icon in terms of
design [1].

Regards,
Ivan.

[1] http://www.patentpending.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/OOo3.2.1-ODFTextDocument.png

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

bedipp bedipp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - first draft ready for discussion

Hi Ivan, *

thanks for your suggestions :-)

Ivan M. schrieb:

> Hi Bernhard,
>
> A few brief comments...
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Bernhard Dippold
> <[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> Hi Christoph, all,
>>
>> just to inform you with a short notice:
>>
>> I tried to create a small image to be added to the Writer icon.
>>
>> Please have a look here - it is just a very first draft...
>>
>> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:LiBO_Writer_128_draft.png

I uploaded a new version to the same file (if it still looks the same,
please refresh your browser cache...).
>>
>> Some more ideas to improve it:
>>
>> * Text lines length and spacing (showing header - perhaps still over the
>> image -, more distance between paragraphs and so on).
>
> If the larger icon is going to have more lines, then I would recommend
> that they be justified so that the right border of the image lines up
> with the end of each line of text.

Done - except of the last line in every paragraph.
>
> Also, the width disparity between the image border (thin) and text
> (chunky) is a little jarring: we have a rectangle with high detail
> contained in it surrounded by blocky, low-detail elements. I would
> suggest something similar to the new high-res OOo 3.3 icon in terms of
> design [1].

It is not as detailed as in the 256px version you refer to. But the
128px version in http://odftoolkit.org/pages/ODF-Icons is a bit more
comparable.

My picture is smaller to prioritize the text (same reason not to use
columns). The picture itself is detailed enough for 256px icons -
perhaps we need to reduce the contrast between dark and light (snowy)
areas on the mountains.

Best regards

Bernhard

> [1] http://www.patentpending.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/OOo3.2.1-ODFTextDocument.png
>


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

bedipp bedipp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - template

In reply to this post by Christoph Noack
Hi all, Christoph,

replying to this mail, because we discussed here the template symbols...

Christoph Noack schrieb:

> [...]
>
>>>         * Template icons now feature some "college block binding"
>>
>> I like these binders, they have to be created in detail for the larger
>> icons.
>>
>> For the small 16px icons I prefer Jaron's smaller binding because they
>> seem to be a bit better to discriminate.
>
> I will have a look at it, again.

I tried to create some binders for the large detailed icons:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Writer_template_spiral_binding.png

I'm not really satisfied with them:

The upper version (a) with binding spiral adds some 3D-effect that is
not present in the document icons. The binding spiral is very prominent.

The lower version (b) shows only the holes, but they are very similar to
the surrounding grey sheet.

Perhaps there might be a solution in-between, but I'd like to ask you
before I go on:

What do you think should be the way to go?

Best regards

Bernhard

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Jaron Kuppers Jaron Kuppers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MimeType icons - template

Hi Bernhard,

I think the large 3D binder spirals are too prominent.  They distract me
from the document and seem to over-shadow the components of the LibreOffice
logo.

The holes are not prominent enough...

I am not able to try my hand at anything at the moment but I would recommend
you try horizontal binders, similar to the small icon.  Perhaps a gradient
can give the binders a 3D ring effect.  Horizontal binders might give us
some freedom to find that happy medium between too big and too small.  The "
Goldilocks <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_the_Three_Bears>"
size. :-)

Happy new year everyone!

Cheers,
Jaron



On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Bernhard Dippold <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all, Christoph,
>
> replying to this mail, because we discussed here the template symbols...
>
> Christoph Noack schrieb:
>
>> [...]
>>
>>         * Template icons now feature some "college block binding"
>>>>
>>>
>>> I like these binders, they have to be created in detail for the larger
>>> icons.
>>>
>>> For the small 16px icons I prefer Jaron's smaller binding because they
>>> seem to be a bit better to discriminate.
>>>
>>
>> I will have a look at it, again.
>>
>
> I tried to create some binders for the large detailed icons:
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Writer_template_spiral_binding.png
>
> I'm not really satisfied with them:
>
> The upper version (a) with binding spiral adds some 3D-effect that is not
> present in the document icons. The binding spiral is very prominent.
>
> The lower version (b) shows only the holes, but they are very similar to
> the surrounding grey sheet.
>
> Perhaps there might be a solution in-between, but I'd like to ask you
> before I go on:
>
> What do you think should be the way to go?
>
> Best regards
>
> Bernhard
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]<design%[hidden email]>
> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/
> *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
>

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Next » 1234