[advocacy] is this list active?

[Daniel James]

> I don't think I can view them properly with xpdf, the fonts appear
> blocky (not vector) and don't scale.

Sorry, the fonts should be embedded in the PDF but I guess they are 
not. If you install Blue Highway and Independence then you should see 
the design as intended. (I'll send you a bitmap offlist).

> However, they appear to be the same as the ones which appear at
> http://www.marevalo.net/OggLogos/ (at the bottom).

Those use the wrong fonts - I'm not suprised you don't like them. The 
first one under 'More contributed logos' is right.

> one of the goals
> we have, and it's looking like a really close reality, is that
> "Ogg" may contain any number of different codecs and played
> seamlessly by any Ogg player.

Sure - the original discussion was about branding for hardware devices 
such as portable audio players, where it doesn't make any sense to 
say that they support a video format, for example. 

> Ogg
> Speex/FLAC are less used
> in an Ogg container because they're less useful that way 
> (this will change as Icecast gains support for streaming them,
> whereas it'll need the Ogg container).

The container is the unifying feature of all the codecs - if you don't 
use the term Ogg Flac, then people won't even know that Flac can come 
in an Ogg wrapper.

> (btw, FLAC is an acronimn, so it's all 
> caps)

That's a matter of branding - there's no law on acronyms!

> So while codec-branding for specific products which support just
> the one codec is justified, I think we need to really concentrate
> on branding "Ogg" as it's own thing, and begin to phase
> codec-specification out of the marketing.

I agree, up to a point. For a single-purpose device, support for a 
particular codec might be all-important.

> At the same time, I don't think the "Ogg" (only) logo is sufficient
> because it contains no context.

Quite.

> Yea, MP3/WMV/etc have got their 
> branding down

Actually neither of these has a decent logo.

> but three letters and some blank space does not make 
> a logo.

I think the BBC would disagree with you here...

> In referece to the OggCast suggestion, I think Icecast is a brand
> on it's own right

I don't think anyone outside the existing community knows what Icecast 
is. I can appreciate that there's probably an emotional attachment to 
the name, but it makes no sense in terms of branding.

> We had this discussion while putting together IceShare, while
> talking about calling it OggShare instead since it's designed to
> work with only Ogg streams. 

That would have been a better name, in my view. Is the brand 'ice' - a 
generic term - or is it 'ogg'?

> The outcome of this was the concept 
> that calling it OggShare makes Ogg sound like it's own world, "Ogg"
> this, "Ogg" that, in reference to various tools and servers that
> work with it.

I don't see what's wrong with that. 

> In the both the audio and video industry the format 
> is commonly seen as a side-issue, deadlines and budgets often
> dictate what gets used.

But more often, codec support among end users...

Cheers

Daniel

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'advocacy-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.