[OpenID] previously proposed logo redesign

Chris Messina chris.messina at gmail.com
Tue Apr 24 08:38:38 UTC 2007


This has been an ongoing discussion since last fall where a small
group had agreed to move forward with efforts for a new logo once
OpenID 2.0 was finalized.

I will not make any statements about how cemented the current identity
is in the minds of internet users, but I would argue that it's no
where near Passport or Paypal.

As such, I do think that there is an opportunity to consider the
development of a new OpenID identity, and in particular, one that is
used to signify OpenID 2.0 compliant-logins versus the more
traditional OpenID 1.1 consumers.

This is really about managing expectations and experience; those who
support the 2.0 protocol should use the 2.0 identity; those who
support the prior version should use the current mark.

This does not suggest that we should update the identity after every
new version of the protocol, but in this particular case, it is
necessary in order to communicate to folks using features of 2.0
whether or not to expect those features to work. Furthermore, this
should also help alleviate a number of support concerns when those
users of 2.0 features attempt to login at 1.1 consumers and find that
their identity is not accepted. Having a distinguishing mark between
1.1 and 2.0 would communicate that there is in fact a difference
between the login forms and that one should not treat all login forms
the same.

Similarly, this allows those folks who are reluctant to upgrade to the
2.0 protocol right away again another way of signifying to their
audience that they're haven't made the jump yet.

So, those are the practical reasons why this identity (no pun
intended) topic is important and worth discussing. My taste in the
logo isn't as important as whether it's effective in consistently
communicating where to expect a particular OpenID experience. The
current identity communicates one experience, and when 2.0 comes out,
we need a simple way of communicating that experience.

Chris

On 4/23/07, ydnar <ydnar at shaderlab.com> wrote:
> Wasn't going to comment on this thread (I am biased), but Steve made
> some good points.
>
> Drummond: I disagree with your assertion that there is potential for
> confusion over the difference between OpenID 1.0 and OpenID 2.0. The
> differences are largely irrelevant to the mass consumer, who
> ultimately will determine the legitimacy of OpenID. I believe a new
> logo will cause more confusion and dilute the OpenID brand/identity.
>
> If you don't like the existing logo, say so. Don't just say "some
> people" or "several members." :)
>
> Randy
>
>
> On Apr 23, 2007, at 6:50 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:
>
> > Steve & Chris:
> >
> > There has been a longstanding thread and action item of the OpenID
> > Foundation board (http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/
> > OpenID_Foundation). See
> > in particular the minutes of the Feb 22 meeting:
> >
> > http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/OpenID_Foundation/Board/Minutes/
> > 2007-02-22#
> > Logo_for_.22OpenID_2.0.22
> >
> > In fact there used to be a wiki page devoted to the design
> > requirements for
> > an OpenID 2.0 logo, but I can't find it right now (David Recordon
> > might know
> > where it is).
> >
> > The key rationale is that OpenID Authentication 2.0 (at least as of
> > WD11)
> > supports several critical new features that are not in 1.0/1.1,
> > such as
> > anonymous login and XRI support. It is important that OpenID users
> > who want
> > to use those features understand that they only work at OpenID 2.0
> > sites.
> >
> > In addition, as familiar as the OpenID 1.0 logo is, some people
> > feel is not
> > very strong visually at small point sizes (there is disagreement on
> > this).
> >
> > So as painful as establishing a new logo for OpenID 2.0 is now, it
> > will be
> > much less painful than in the future.
> >
> > Chris, you are correct that the plan is to do a community-based bounty
> > program and encourage the very best design work from everyone in the
> > community. The only gating factor now is finishing the OIDF so we
> > can offer
> > a bounty. But the OIDF is close enough now that maybe we can just
> > get going.
> > It would be great to review design ideas like Justen's at Internet
> > Identity
> > Workshop in May.
> >
> > =Drummond
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: general-bounces at openid.net [mailto:general-
> > bounces at openid.net] On
> > Behalf Of Steve Bjorg
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:58 AM
> > To: Chris Messina
> > Cc: general at openid.net; Justen Stepka
> > Subject: Re: [OpenID] previously proposed logo redesign
> >
> > I'm confused.  What's wrong with the current logo?  Are there
> > objectives that the current design is not conveying?  If so, what are
> > the new objectives of the logo and what are the other brands that it
> > needs to distinguish itself from, and so on.  I would assume these
> > goals would need to be defined before a new set of logos are proposed.
> >
> > Also, and more importantly, how to deal with suddenly two logo
> > standards floating around? Not everyone is going to switch to the new
> > design and everyday more and more people are being exposed to the
> > existing one.
> >
> > Unless there is a dire need to re-brand OpenID, I would not encourage
> > such an endeavor.  Changing brands mid-adoption causes more issues
> > than it seems to solve, from my experience.  Just my 2 cents.
> >
> > - Steve
> >
> > --------------
> > Steve G. Bjorg
> > http://www.mindtouch.com
> > http://www.opengarden.org
> >
> >
> > On Apr 23, 2007, at 9:32 AM, Chris Messina wrote:
> >
> >> As well, is there going to be any kind of open call for
> >> submissions? I
> >> know that we'd talked about putting on some kind of contest or
> >> something last fall -- and I'm still eager to get entries from the
> >> best talent across the web to participate...
> >>
> >> I definitely dig Justin's concepts, but I would like the spirit of
> >> this to reflect the principles of open [source] dialogue.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> On 4/23/07, Stephen Paul Weber <singpolyma at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I would just say that I think any potential redesign should at least
> >>> look similar to the original logo, which everyone knows and
> >>> recognises.
> >>>
> >>> On 4/23/07, Justen Stepka <jstepka at jstepka.name> wrote:
> >>>> Here is the previous thread:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://openid.net/pipermail/general/2006-November/000670.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Attached are some new concepts. I was hoping rather than
> >>>> incorporate
> >>>> colors now, we could center on a design we like. From there we
> >>>> can get
> >>>> colors added in simple.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Justen
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Justen Stepka
> >>>> http://www.jstepka.name/blog/
> > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > general mailing list
> > general at openid.net
> > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>


-- 
Chris Messina
Citizen Provocateur &
  Open Source Ambassador-at-Large
Work: http://citizenagency.com
Blog: http://factoryjoe.com/blog
Cell: 412 225-1051
Skype: factoryjoe
This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private



More information about the general mailing list