[Members] XMPP Logo (was: Re: Promotion: FOSDEM)

Jonathan Schleifer js-xmpp-members at webkeks.org
Wed Nov 26 09:41:02 CST 2008


Am 26.11.2008 um 16:27 schrieb Matt Tucker:

> Jonathan,
>
> Comparing a standards body/protocol to Open Source projects like  
> Linux and Firefox isn't a very good analogy. :)

Well, I was more thinking about Average Joe users here than companies,  
I have to admit. I think that if we want to be successful, our target  
group should be Average Joe, just like for other proprietary  
protocols. ICQ started with this target group and later also provided  
a version for companies.

Also, I think that if we want XMPP to be well-known, Average Joe has  
to know it, and not a few CEOs etc. If Average Joe knows it, it will  
be known in companies as well.

> There were many goals we had when going through the most recent logo  
> project, so maybe it would be helpful to list them out:
>
> * Project a more professional image. XMPP/Jabber already has good  
> hacker/tinkerer mindshare. The next level of growth is going to  
> depend on penetrating companies like Cisco, Facebook, IBM, etc. Plus  
> toys and cute animals are fun, but don't help spread the message  
> that XMPP is ready for serious investment.

Cute animals help to spread it among the Average Joe users.

I for example know female users who switched to XMPP + Gajim just  
because I gave them a pink design. She wanted ICQ in pink, so I did a  
Gtk theme for Gajim and suddenly she liked it :).
It are the small things that convince Average Joe users, not the  
technical arguments. And a mascot is just one of those small things.

I can understand that we don't want a mascot for the professional  
audience. Those might actually prefer the current logo. So maybe we  
should have a mascot *AND* a logo, even though that might create  
confusion.

Maybe we should even differentiate between corporations and Average  
Joe user. Maybe we should talk about XMPP in the professional  
environment, but about Jabber to Average Joe?

> * We wanted something more friendly and better looking than other  
> standards bodies. For example, check out the IETF logo on their home  
> page (http://www.ietf.org/).

Well, IETF isn't really for standards for which Average Joe has to  
decide. There is no proprietary alternative to HTTP which is commonly  
used, for example. But for XMPP, there unfortunately is.

> * We wanted a mark that would feel current but that wasn't so trendy  
> that it would have to be changed every year (i.e., latest rounded  
> corner, drop shadow stuff).

I can understand that, yes.

> * The logo needs to work when it's large and small so that it can  
> work in a bunch of settings.

Well, that should be possible with almost any SVG graphics that's  
designed properly.

> I personally feel that the latest XMPP logo is great. It's walks the  
> right line between being professional and looking dynamic/appealing.

It might be a good logo when giving technical presentations etc, and I  
agree on that. But if we try to advocate XMPP for the Average Joe  
user, it's not so good.

--
Jonathan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20081126/4204d4d0/attachment.pgp 


More information about the Members mailing list