[OpenID] OpenID Logo Usage Guidelines

[Sam Alexander]

I would advocate guidelines very similar to the feed icon guidelines  
( the first draft of which can be seen here: http://hecker.org/ 
mozilla/feed-icon-guidelines ).

So for visual guidelines, here's a hacked version of Frank Hecker's  
spec:

---- begin ----

The OpenID logo should be displayed in its entirety on either a solid  
light or dark background (avoid mid-tone or strongly colored/gradient  
backgrounds). The OpenID logo should not be displayed in parts or  
with other elements superimposed on top of the icon.

The OpenID logo should be displayed at a size that is both large  
enough to render it legible to its intended users and compatible with  
the size of any related text elements.

The OpenID logo may be displayed using the colors black and white  
where color reproduction is not possible.

When used as an element in a user interface (e.g., as a toolbar  
button) the OpenID logo should be displayed in a manner consistent  
with related UI elements and any applicable user interface standards  
(e.g., for the underlying operating system and/or window system).

The OpenID logo should not be displayed in modified forms  
inconsistent with the above guidelines or in ways that visually  
compromise the icon. In particular, the icon should not be displayed

	* in a different orientation (i.e., rotated or flipped relative to  
the standard orientation)
	* with a stroke or drop shadow seperating the "I-beam" from the  
other elements of the logo
	* with the symbolic elements of the logo (the "I-beam" and "O-arrow/ 
shadow") in an altered shape or a distorted proportion

---- end ----

Basically, color changes are okay but don't screw with the shape.

I also think these two notes are important:

---- begin ----

Note that the above guidelines regarding size and color are not  
intended to restrict the ways in which the OpenID logo might be  
represented by assistive technologies designed for use by people with  
impaired vision. (Such technologies include software to magnify the  
contents of the screen and/or change screen colors, contrast, and  
brightness; alternative stylesheets for web sites; and the like.)

Note also that these guidelines are not intended to discourage other  
uses of the OpenID logo that conform to the overall spirit of these  
guidelines. Such cases include using different colors for the logo  
where appropriate (e.g., in matching a site theme) or using the logo  
in combination with other logos of a compatible style and nature  
(e.g., to identify the type of identification protocol being  
offered). However in the interests of providing a consistent  
experience for users we suggest that OpenID Providers, Reliers and  
makers of related goods and services make minimum use of such  
alternative representations of the logo.

---- end ----

note: These are not usage guidelines, but those would contain the  
same spirit as the above visual guidelines

- Sam


On Nov 16, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Johannes Ernst wrote:

> The OpenID Foundation has a trademark committee, which is currently  
> waiting for the IPR policy work to be completed. Once that policy  
> is in place, we are planning to connect an updated trademark policy  
> to it. (Disclaimer: I'm heading that committee)
>
> Having said that, the question you are asking can certainly be  
> explored in parallel. Can you make some suggestions for what you  
> think would be acceptable "changes" and what wouldn't?
>
>
>
> On Nov 16, 2007, at 12:36, Sam Alexander wrote:
>
>> What is the consensus on making changes to the OpenID Logo for a
>> specific use?
>>
>> The grey/orange logo doesn't work well with all palettes when making
>> diagrams, designs, etc.  It seems that right now people are taking
>> liberties with certain aspects of the logo and leaving others alone.
>> For instance, JanRain used the logo to bring sexyback @ https://
>> pibb.com/signin.  I've seen other changes of color in the wild (not
>> really any changes of structure, though).  As a designer, that kind
>> of flexibility is extremely helpful.
>>
>> This has been brought up before, the latest seeming to be Chris
>> Messina's post in January ( http://openid.net/pipermail/general/2007-
>> January/001421.html ).  Chris has also done some write-ups on concept
>> of Community marks vs traditional Trademarks ( http://factoryjoe.com/
>> blog/2006/01/14/the-case-for-community-marks/ ).
>>
>> My question is this: Do we want more lenient usage and visual guide
>> lines to aid developers or would we rather have stricter use rules
>> for total consistency?
>>
>> The best two examples I could (quickly) find for this debate are both
>> from Mozilla.
>>
>> For the Feed Icon:
>> ( http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/feed-icon-guidelines/ )
>>
>>  - Relaxed rules (alot of "SHOULD" and "MAY")
>>  - Enforcement left up to the community
>>  - Allows designers to use discretion (even poor discretion, ie we
>> may end up with alot of
>>    'ugly' blinking marque logo's out there)
>>
>> For the Firefox Icon:
>> ( http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/identity-guidelines/ 
>> firefox.html )
>>
>>  - Rules are much stricter (mostly MUST's)
>>  - Correct font, dimension and color treatments are required
>>  - Trademark must be included
>>  - Insures consistent look and feel for "Firefox" wherever it is
>> seen (fewer 'ugly' cases)
>>
>> Which would the community prefer?
>>
>> - Sam
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>