Difference between revisions of "AboutUsLogo:Status"

NotYet ---------- NotYet

ActiveMembers

1. Abu Ari (ActiveMember)

   Inactive I want to see the version in size 16x16 that will become the favicon. 32x32 and 48x48 is less interesting, but I'd still like to see them. edit

   Abu Ari's last edit on AboutUs was Jun 25. TedErnst sent an email July 5. Brandon CS Sanders sent an email with invitation for call on July 9. On 13 July an "inactive " in 7 days note" was put on status page.

   Discussion

   Hello Abu, there is a movement afoot to create a new version of the AboutUsLogo. I'd love it if you would come to AboutUsLogo and participate in creating this important decision about the look/feel for our site, after all ItsYourWiki! Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

   Hello Abu, thanks for helping out with the AboutUsLogo decisions. As I work out the next iteration of the design I will make sure to post the favicons. Aside from the favicons, however, do you see the logo as being representative of AboutUs in any way? What does AboutUs mean to you? Thanks! -Vinh Nguyen

   No, I don't. But then this site is a graphical challenge. A wiki. Metadata. About the home sites of host names. dc:description, dc:relation, dc:publisher... All clear concepts, but I have no visual model of any of them. (Digression: RDF pages describing that http://valravn.net has dc:relation http://virelai.dk, has dc:description http://www.aboutus.org/Valravn.net, dc:isPartOf http://www.aboutus.org/Category:Bands etc would be way cool. No application is yet able to consume such data, though.) Abu Ari 01:23, 15 June 2007 (PDT)

   Hi Abu, I added the favicon candidates. Any new thoughts about what it would take to get to yes? Also, I'd encourage you to take a scroll through AboutUsLogo:Discussion and see what you think of this logo in comparison to the other candidates. Vinh Nguyen

   I'm noticing two strong interests that seem to be occurring in various folks:

   One group seems to be feeling that we've worked for hundreds of hours over the last few months to replace the ragged yellow man with something stronger and more refined (scroll through AboutUsLogo:Discussion for a better taste of the effort that has gone on so far). This group seems to feel that the current version is good enough and represents the Topsoil metaphor very well.

   A second group is arriving a little later in the process and feels that the design doesn't evoke the identity they wish for their site. It feels like this group would appreciate a process of shared discovery where we first come to consensus about who we are and what our purpose is -- then move on to figuring out metaphors and logos that do a great job conveying that identity.

   I wonder how we could move to honor both? Any thoughts on this? Brandon CS Sanders

   Riff off Brandon's comments here, one idea is to call this proposal better than the listening man and thus worthy of approval now, and then start a new process to explore what AboutUs really IS, and what might best represent it. If this idea works for you, please change your status above to YES and your status message as you like. If it doesn't please comment back here and we'll go from there. peace, TedErnst

   Inactive notice

   I notice you've been away for a couple of weeks. That's no problem, of course. And, we're going to move you from NotYet to "Inactive" on this consensus poll in one week if you're still away. Feel free to make yourself active again at any time. If you'd like us to contact you directly in future, please leave an email address in your preferences or on your PersonalPage. Thank you. TedErnst 16:28, 13 July 2007 (PDT)

2. Di (Active Member)

   YES It looks better after a few looks. While it doesn't immediately say what we are "about", it does invoke curiosity. I like it now. Also I like the leaf concept that to me speaks of growth and emergence. edit

   Discussion

   I'm noticing two strong interests that seem to be occurring in various folks:

   One group seems to be feeling that we've worked for hundreds of hours over the last few months to replace the ragged yellow man with something stronger and more refined (scroll through AboutUsLogo:Discussion for a better taste of the effort that has gone on so far). This group seems to feel that the current version is good enough and represents the Topsoil metaphor very well.

   A second group is arriving a little later in the process and feels that the design doesn't evoke the identity they wish for their site. It feels like this group would appreciate a process of shared discovery where we first come to consensus about who we are and what our purpose is -- then move on to figuring out metaphors and logos that do a great job conveying that identity.

   I wonder how we could move to honor both? Any thoughts on this?

   An additional piece of news is that we've begun the WhoWeAre process. Check it out? TedErnst

3. Diana Demarest (Active Member)

   YES We need to first define WhoWeAre and then choose an AboutUsLogo. (lots more discussion - click "show" in the yellow bar to see) edit

   Discussion

   The logo is beautifully done but for me it just doesn't "say" About Us. Perhaps an element could be added that says "look" or "investigate further" or "community building".

   EDIT 7/20/07: I still feel the same way - I still feel that the logo doesn't say what we do. For me it would make a great logo for a gardening company or a plant nursery. It needs an element that indicates what this site is about.

   Ted: Thanks for the call. It was great to talk to you.

   I completely agree with Tak’s comments on this.

   What sets About Us apart from other portals and Wikis? User involvement . Unlike other Wiki's out there, About Us involves users in every aspect of the community, from permitted content, to logo decisions, to the identity itself. This is HUGE to me and for me, the largest highlight of the identity. It's part Wiki, part search engine, part portal, but the biggest factor that sets it apart is the sense of community, caring and users and staff assisting one another for the common good of the community as a whole.

   When I first came to this site, I was pretty intimidated and quite frankly, overwhelmed. The way I have been treated by Tak and the other folks here made me want to come back and be part of it. I was never made to feel stupid when I asked a question and everyone has been extremely helpful. That is hard to find anymore. My About Us experiences is what gives me the sense of community that truly exists here.

   I feel that WhoWeAre and the AboutUsLogo are not separate entities but are two entities attached at the hip. We can’t have one without the other. As a result, I feel that since a logo is the branding of About Us as an entity, the logo should reflect who we are. I don’t wish hold up the process but the leaves just don’t say community to me. It doesn’t reflect the mosaic the About Us community really is. Rather than rush to come up with a logo fast, I’d rather the process be slower so we get it right the first time and not keep rebranding ourselves.

   Successful branding is what sets one logo apart from another. We don’t need to see the name of the company on the logo to recognize immediately whose logo it is. Examples which come to mind are the Chevrolet logo, the multicolored Microsoft “Window”, the McDonald’s golden arches. We need something really recognizable that when one sees the logo they say “Oh – that’s the About Us website.” Thanks for the opportunity to participate! I hope this helps. Di :) "Diana Demarest 16:27, 31 July 2007 (PDT)"

   Template:Yes Hello again folks. I truly appreciate your attempt to address my concerns, more than you know. I have a question - what's the rush? Is this because of a go live launch? I truly believe that we are putting the cart before the horse. I feel that we should figure out who we are and base the logo on that, not the other way around. In reading the comments from the folks who gave it a Yes, I was disturbed by how many said the logo didn't really represent who we are. Based on this and my feelings that we shouldn't brand ourselves and then re-brand ourselves again, I am still in the not yet camp. Sorry - it is how I feel. "Diana Demarest 08:36, 1 August 2007 (PDT)"

   I'm noticing two strong interests that seem to be occurring in various folks:

   One group seems to be feeling that we've worked for hundreds of hours over the last few months to replace the ragged yellow man with something stronger and more refined (scroll through AboutUsLogo:Discussion for a better taste of the effort that has gone on so far). This group seems to feel that the current version is good enough and represents the Topsoil metaphor very well.

   A second group is arriving a little later in the process and feels that the design doesn't evoke the identity they wish for their site. It feels like this group would appreciate a process of shared discovery where we first come to consensus about who we are and what our purpose is -- then move on to figuring out metaphors and logos that do a great job conveying that identity.

   I wonder how we could move to honor both? Any thoughts on this? Brandon CS Sanders

   Hi Diana Demarest, Did you see the recent change made to AboutUsLogo text? How do you feel about it? As a result of this logo process, we've created the WhoWeAre page. What we're asking people now is if the logo proposed is better than the listening man we have right now. If it is, then please change yourself to YES and visit WhoWeAre to say you'd like to work on that. If not, please say that as well, and leave yourself at not yet for now. Thanks! Looking forward to hearing from you soon! Best, Obed Suhail 01:23, 23 July 2007 (PDT)

   Diana, I'd love to talk with you by phone before this logo gets adopted Tuesday night. When would work for you? TedErnst

   AboutUs is in conversations with VCs, so yes, I think people are feeling a sense of urgency. I don't mean urgency like it has to be done today or even this week, but my sense is that the WhoWeAre process could take several months, and the yellow clipart just looks crappy, in my opinion. TedErnst

   Ok I get that but the fact is though the new logo isn't "crappy", it doesn't reflect the community either. So IMHO, either way, both logos are wrong for the site. So are we saying we want to be wrong a second time but not crappy? I realize you guys want to get this done. I am just in the camp of let's get it right the first time instead of causing a confusion to the masses with the brand. Of course, I realize that the group has pretty much decided so I guess the new logo will be. Aren't you sorry you asked? :-D Diana Demarest 11:28, 1 August 2007 (PDT)

   :-) No, I'm not sorry I asked. :-) In fact, I'm a NotYet myself right now, in solidarity with your concerns. I actually think the proposed logo is a great image for our community. I feel that we are growing community. Community cannot be built, in an engineering process, but must be grown, in an organic process. I find the image very compelling, personally. And, I also feel it's really important to do everything we can to satisfy the concerns of all, including you. I don't know if that's possible, but let's try, shall we? I hear that one way to satisfy your concerns is to finish the WhoWeAre process first, so we're sure that whatever logo we choose is the permanent one, correct? TedErnst

   Well, yes. :)

   I have been involved, a few times, with my biggest client, in logo processes for their products and websites. Their Madison Avenue-type advertising firm, the corporate marketing team and we as their webmasters, were locked up in a conference room for hours on end, defining the product/website goal in question. Once we defined it, then we went through a logo process to determine if the logo conveyed the thought or idea in question. Sorry for being a PIA on this but because of my previous experiences, it just seems like a better way of doing things.

   Branding is so important for the reasons I outlined earlier. For them, it gave the customers and audience an immediate visual "burn in" of the brand. I think it is confusing for the audience to change oars mid-stream and make changes later, making the identity harder to remember, which I think in the goal with a logo in the long run - no? Diana Demarest 12:42, 1 August 2007 (PDT)

   Okay. Just to clarify to make things crystal clear. One way to satisfy your concern about branding is to work on WhoWeAre first, and only when that's done, come back to the AboutUsLogo, yes? Sorry for being pedantic. Just want to be clear that this possible solution would work for you. If so, great, we can talk more. If not, then it's important to get clarification. TedErnst

   Yes. For me, first things first. Define WhoWeAre, then do the logo. You got it. Crystal clear. :) Diana Demarest 13:55, 1 August 2007 (PDT)

   Great. Hope you don't mind that I made an EfficientlyExpressedSuggestion by changing your status message and moving the rest of the discussion behind the "show" link. Fell free to change and/or revert if that's not okay. TedErnst

   Diana, I'm so glad that you are here! I find myself vigorously nodding my head as I read your comments. I too think that we're getting the horse in front of the cart to choose a logo before we have agreement about WhoWeAre. Like you, I get the feeling that a lot of folks are at yes "in spite" of the logo rather than "in love" with the logo.

   AND

   I really do love this logo! The element of "emergence" from the interactions of diverse individuals is the most powerful part of it for me. Emergence is a tough concept to represent visually and I think the logo does a great job of that. I worry that perhaps it is a bit too abstract for people to take in at a glance.

   There are only 40 of us here participating in this poll, and I'd like to involve more of the folks who visit and contribute to AboutUs. So I imagine this as an experiment with a very large focus group. We've tried the yellow man for a few months, let's try the leaves for a few months as we are working on WhoWeAre. I think we can learn from having them up as our logo. Brandon CS Sanders

   Gee thanks! I'm glad to be here! I don't mean to be the weenie in the group. I truly want a logo that reflects the many facets of this awesome place. I think it is worth investing the time. Ted it is fine that you moved the comments - they should have been there in the first place. I am still having a learning curve on how to use the Wiki environment. What do you want from a database geek? :-D

   Diana, you're not being a weenie. How do you feel about Brandon's idea of trying the new logo for a few months after trying the (placeholder) yellow clipart for a few months? Also, there were some edits to the text underneath the logo today. Have you seen them? TedErnst

   I don't think you are being a weenie at all either :-) I think we've been doing some great collaborative thinking together! In a traditional environment the inside of the organization carefully controls what those outside see of their process. This makes change expensive because only truly finished products can be released into the wild. Here on the wiki, ChangeIsCheap and we have the opportunity to try lots of different experiments. There is an emphasis on iterating our way to perfection rather than trying to achieve it in one big step.

   Also, we're doubling our traffic every three months. Three months of the public seeing leaves rather than the "real" logo doesn't make such a huge difference from a branding perspective, because in 6 months only 25% of all visitors ever will have seen the old logo. On the other hand, as we are raising money to sustain the project, the "slickness" of the appearence of the site does matter to potential investors as we negotiate with them over the next three months.

   I ordinarily don't like to sign my comments because I want others to feel comfortable editing them and deleting them. But I'll continue signing them because I'd like to continue to get to know you. Warm Regards, Brandon CS Sanders

   OK my friends, I'll change it to a yes with the hopes that we keep an eye toward a permanent logo that better suits the community. I suppose we are still in Beta. BTW, I wanted to make note that in reading the web stats on my site, I have been getting quite a few hits from About Us, so I am a happy camper about that! Anyone who doesn't want to be here is nuts. I look forward to working with you guys on other things! :)

4. Kiwi (ActiveMember)

   Inactive It is a very attractive logo, but it doesn't seem to have any connection with AboutUs. If I knew nothing about the site and only saw the logo, I might assume it was about gardening or genealogy. edit

   Kiwi's last edit on AboutUs was Jun 9. july 9 Brandon CS Sanders left a comment on hrwiki inviting to chat. On 13 July an "inactive " in 7 days note" was put on status page.

   Discussion

   I'm noticing two strong interests that seem to be occurring in various folks:

   One group seems to be feeling that we've worked for hundreds of hours over the last few months to replace the ragged yellow man with something stronger and more refined (scroll through AboutUsLogo:Discussion for a better taste of the effort that has gone on so far). This group seems to feel that the current version is good enough and represents the Topsoil metaphor very well.

   A second group is arriving a little later in the process and feels that the design doesn't evoke the identity they wish for their site. It feels like this group would appreciate a process of shared discovery where we first come to consensus about who we are and what our purpose is -- then move on to figuring out metaphors and logos that do a great job conveying that identity.

   I wonder how we could move to honor both? Any thoughts on this? Brandon CS Sanders

   Just riffing on Brandon's comment and question above, there seems to be an emerging idea that I'd love your thoughts on. What if we approve this proposed logo (attractive, as you say!) now, because it is better than the listening man, and then start a new process of "What is AboutUs?" and then replace this new logo with a new, new logo if necessary at that time? What do you think? If this works for you, please change your status to YES and adjust your comment above as appropriate. If not, please comment back here and we'll go from there. Thanks! TedErnst

   Inactive notice

   I notice you've been away for a couple of weeks. That's no problem, of course. And, we're going to move you from NotYet to "Inactive" on this consensus poll in one week if you're still away. Feel free to make yourself active again at any time. If you'd like us to contact you directly in future, please leave an email address in your preferences or on your PersonalPage. Thank you. TedErnst 16:31, 13 July 2007 (PDT)

5. Sam Shefrin (Active Member)

   YES Better than what you have now, but still needs work. Let's work to make it better. It still doesn't tell me anything about what the company does. A logo should invoke a viewer to visualize an instant correlation between the logo image and the company's mission. I don't know if anyone will look at the current logo and know what About Us does or stands for. Have you considered a tagline? edit

   Discussion

   Hi Sam. There's a new idea taking shape I'd love your reaction to. The idea is that the proposed logo is better than what we have now, as you say above, and we don't have a clear agreement on what AboutUs is or what logo should show that. So, let's approve this new logo proposal because it is a step forward, and then immediately begin working on WhoWeAre. How 'bout it? If this works for you, please adjust your status to Yes and your comment above accordingly. If not, then please comment back here and we'll go from there. Thanks! TedErnst

6. Saudiqbal (ActiveMember)

   Inactive The logo is clean but it does not look good for AboutUs system. The color brown is also not looking good. It should be colorful like Image:Saudlogo.jpg. Make it cool and simple. edit

   Saudiqbal's last edit on AboutUs was Jun 26. Brandon CS Sanders emailed via http://www.saudiqbal.com/saud.php?page=contactme web form on July 9 and invited for chat. On 13 July an "inactive " in 7 days note" was put on status page.

   Discussion

   Saudiqbal, there is a new idea taking shape, which is to approve this logo for now, and then immediately begin another consensus poll about "What is AboutUs, and what should our permanant logo be?" Does that idea work for you? If so, please change your status to yes, and change your comment above to something that reflects your current thinking (including your concerns that are already above, if you like). If this doesn't work for you, please comment back here and we can talk about your further concerns. peace, TedErnst

   Inactive notice

   I notice you've been away for a couple of weeks. That's no problem, of course. And, we're going to move you from NotYet to "Inactive" on this consensus poll in one week if you're still away. Feel free to make yourself active again at any time. If you'd like us to contact you directly in future, please leave an email address in your preferences or on your PersonalPage. Thank you. TedErnst 16:32, 13 July 2007 (PDT)

Staff

1. TakKendrick (AboutUsStaff)

   YES I'm glad we're finally here. I'm removing my previous concerns which really amounted to my wanting to make sure the the community members' concerns were being heard (which I believe they now have). If you're interested in see the entirety of my post, it's available in the history and in the discussion below. edit

   Discussion

   Tak, is the latest version of the new logo "good enough" to use it now to replace the listening man? Would it make a difference to you if the agreement was for us to immediately start another logo process when this one was done? I'm just asking. :-) TedErnst

   Tak, I think you are raising a huge issue that we haven't addressed at all. How the logo may be used, and whether there can be other versions or if there is only "one true version". It feels to me like it would be most effective to agree on the "spirit of the logo" and then adapt it to particular usage cases. It also feels important to me to not completely lock down the logo and say "these are the only versions you can use", but rather recognize that each opportunity to use the logo may require some adaptation of it. For example, a horizontal version may be more appropiate for business cards ... so when we need to make business cards we use a horizontal version that maintains the spirit of the design we are agreeing to. I added the below line to the document in an attempt to begin to address this important concern. What do you think?

   We anticipate new and unforseen uses of this logo to represent our collective identity, and expect our members will adapt the logo to suit the needs of the moment.

   Tak, just a note to thank you for expressing so clearly your concerns. TedErnst

   Tak, the GoTimer is now running as we've met all of our thresholds. Just wanted to let you know so you could have a chance to have your needs met by the process. TedErnst

   Here's my previous concerns, purely for archival purposes. I'm quite content now with where the logo poll is at. -- Let me try to express my concerns better. The reason why I like the catch phrase was that it presented an opportunity to better explain why we chose a leaf to represent us. Looking at the community concerns over the logo, they all lead to confusion over message and the catch phrase allows for a statement of purpose that a leaf just doesn't express (really, there's a point here, if you don't know anything about AboutUs or wiki-think, the leaf does make us look like a gardening/nursery website).

   I just believe that someone on staff needs to stand on principle for this concern, because I don't feel that the community's beliefs/conceptions of what we are is being heard or answered, and the catchphase is another place where we can really nail the message. (Which, honestly, I feel we are weak on.)

   This isn't a "new or unforeseen" concern or use, this is something we've been dealing with for months and I feel that taking it out of the logo process is obscuring the need for a refactoring of message as a top priority for this community and (as by-product, this company).

   Let me also reiterate what I've said to Vihn, Scott and several other staff members that when the levels on this consensus poll are at the point when enough Community Members are in agreement, I won't stand in the way of this and will switch to a yes, even if my concerns haven't been fully addressed.

2. Tanwir Shah (AboutUsStaff)

   YES I still don't believe this logo best represents AboutUs but on the understanding that this is a short term, interim logo and out of respect for all the hard work that has been done on it, I say yes in order to help facilitate a second round of discussions. edit

   Discussion

   Tanwir, is the current design better than the listening man, to you? Would you be okay approving this one if we then immediately started a new logo process, to take into consideration all the concerns raised in this one about what AboutUs is all about and is trying to convey with the logo? TedErnst

   I think it is a little unfair to ask if the present logo is better than the one being suggested to replace it. Of course it is but I still do not feel that a leaf logo represents who we are? So what do I do? Do I say yes even though I don't really believe that this is the best logo for about us? I wish I had the skills to create my own. That way I could replace it with something I think works. One of the problems with

   this consensus poll is that modifications cannot be made directly. We can only make suggestions. Not very AboutUs-ish Tanwir Shah

   Tanwir, I completely agree with you. We really need better ways to work with images, AND, we need to know WhoWeAre. And speaking of that, did you see Brandon's note below? Does that change anything for you? TedErnst

   Hi Tanwir, I started WhoWeAre. Perhaps you'd like to help facilitate that process? -- Brandon

   Tanwir ... the tone of your yes doesn't feel good at all to me. I'd rather that you were still at "not yet" rather than a passive aggressive yes. If starting the WhoWeAre process and honoring the work that has happened so far isn't enough for you to feel good about saying yes to this version, what sort of thing would you feel good about saying yes to? Do you feel that we shouldn't adopt this new version of the logo until the WhoWeAre process has finished? Brandon

   Brandon, I didn't realise my comments would be interpreted as aggressive. I wasn't being aggressive, honest. I thought my words best summarised our discussion. I mentioned the two main points you raised, namely the interim nature of the logo and the lengthy process that people have gone through to reach this point. My yes is not because I think the logo is the the right logo for AboutUs but because you helped me to understand that this was the first stage of a longer process of debate. I was reluctant to change but perhaps I should not have said this once I was ready to change. I will remove the word reluctant from my comments and I apologise for any upset I may have caused. I can assure you that it was not intentional. Tanwir Shah

   No worries Tanwir. I think my comment above came across stronger than I meant it to be as well :-) Thanks for changing your status comment. I feel a lot better about you being at yes now. Now it feels like you've chosen to make a tradeoff rather than having your arm twisted. Please also let me know when you notice one of my comments that doesn't seem to have the tone you would expect. Writing on the Internet is tricky! Ohh yeah, I strengthened up the text on AboutUsLogo to include the WhoWeAre process that is now starting. Perhaps you could take a look at it and tweak it up better? Warmly Brandon