17:00:22 <mrphs> #startmeeting UX meeting
17:00:22 <MeetBot> Meeting started Wed Jul 27 17:00:22 2016 UTC.  The chair is mrphs. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:22 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:38 <mrphs> shall we begin?
17:00:44 <ElioQoshi> Yes, thanks!
17:01:10 <mrphs> maybe we should do a round of updates
17:01:17 <mrphs> (quickly)
17:01:27 <mrphs> and then get to talking about style guideline
17:01:34 <mrphs> I can start
17:01:39 <ame_e> Please do!
17:02:21 <mrphs> we did HOPE last week, i gave a shotout about ux at our talk and a number of people already reached out who are interested in helping
17:02:35 <scouttle> Very cool!
17:02:38 <ElioQoshi> Did my slide templates help? :)
17:02:41 <mrphs> so we should figure how we can use their help and in what form
17:03:01 <mrphs> ElioQoshi: it did! we ended up changing them a little bit to fit the situatuon but it was super helpful
17:03:28 <mrphs> you can find the final slides here: https://people.torproject.org/~nima/hope-2016/
17:03:29 * isabela wonders if anyone had time to document the style guidelines work in the wiki / beyond what I added there long time ago
17:03:40 <ame_e> Hangs head in shame
17:03:55 <ame_e> I owe you all a BIG process update. And mrphs and I will write up/blog.
17:05:30 <ame_e> But I want to hear about HOPE.
17:05:37 <mrphs> I dont know if i mentioned it in the last meeting, but we also did the PT how to graphic and gif
17:06:17 <mrphs> you can see it here https://www.torproject.org/docs/pluggable-transports
17:06:51 <mrphs> and gif: https://twitter.com/torproject/status/754035172350144512
17:07:16 <PhilipL> Nice!
17:07:25 <mrphs> that's as far as ux things go for me in the past two weeks
17:08:37 <mrphs> who wants to go next?
17:09:09 <scouttle> I apologize for being out of the loop. I have been sick, but enjoying getting updates on Elio's progress from ame_e
17:09:26 <scouttle> So, no update from me. But excited to be back in the saddle. :)
17:10:01 <PhilipL> There is nothing I could mention form my part neither. I was looking forward to Elios drafts, which we will have a look at today
17:10:07 <espress> hey mrphs, thanks for posting the slides on twitter too
17:10:11 <isabela> i have being super busy with deadlines
17:10:24 <PhilipL> For documenting the style guide, i thought it would be too early
17:10:31 <ElioQoshi> Cool
17:10:38 <espress> I'd missed part of the onion services presentation
17:10:38 <ElioQoshi> I can go on if there is nothing to add
17:10:49 <ElioQoshi> I sent an email 2h ago, did you have a chance to give it a glance?
17:11:22 <isabela> yes
17:11:23 <mrphs> espress: thanks! the videos will be online later. we're having a meeting right now, happy to talk about it after :)
17:11:24 <PhilipL> I had no chance. Just read a part of it
17:11:25 <isabela> i read it and is great
17:11:35 <ElioQoshi> It covers most of the explanations and it might be better to keep this chat for questions and ping ponging ideas
17:11:48 <ElioQoshi> So I don't do a boring tour here again :)
17:12:18 <mrphs> so personally i was more looking forward for a conversation on why things need to be changed
17:12:27 <mrphs> like I'm not conviced why we need to make colors darker
17:12:38 <mrphs> it looks less sharp and happy
17:12:48 <mrphs> (at least in my monitor)
17:14:03 <ElioQoshi> I personally have no strong preference for the purple
17:14:18 <ElioQoshi> And also no argument to back it up whether to use one or another
17:14:35 <ElioQoshi> Philip can you explain your suggestion again?
17:15:36 <PhilipL> The thing is, we have two happy colors which in contrast look horrible. For many applications they are difficult. The green could be happier though. I agree that it looks less sharp.
17:15:57 <espress> no problem mrphs
17:16:20 <scouttle> PhilipL can you elaborate a bit on what horrible means?
17:16:24 <PhilipL> I think for now we dont need a half redesign. I could agree with the former colors
17:16:41 <PhilipL> of coarse …
17:16:46 <scouttle> Or, nevermind.
17:17:05 <scouttle> We don't need to go down a rabbithole if you don't feel a color change is critical, and we would be fine to stick with previous colors.
17:17:06 <mrphs> yeah, if we want to change the colors or logo we need to have an actual proposal explaining what's wrong and how to fix it
17:17:17 <ElioQoshi> I personally prefer this new green however, it has more contrast on white and offers better readability
17:17:49 <ElioQoshi> I'd be happy to go to the original purple however
17:18:06 <PhilipL> the happy purple burns a bit in the eye when used as background color
17:18:23 <mrphs> yeah i dont think we should touch the logo without a concrete proposal
17:18:38 <PhilipL> let’s use the original purple
17:18:49 <mrphs> (and green? :)
17:18:50 <isabela> with the current green?
17:18:55 <PhilipL> and green :) right
17:19:07 <scouttle> For reference, here's the original colors http://elioqoshi.me/owncloud/index.php/s/DtZBYB78l8ZqQ4I#pdfviewer and the new ones https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62482708/Tor%20Styleguide%20Draft%20v3.pdf
17:19:14 <isabela> thank you scouttle
17:19:55 <isabela> ok so original purple and green?
17:20:06 <mrphs> i think so
17:20:09 <ElioQoshi> Any reason why old green and not the new one?
17:20:13 <scouttle> well, hold on
17:20:15 <scouttle> yes
17:20:24 <PhilipL> Eeew :D that’s not satisfying neither, but for now I think it is better to not change the half of it or whatsoever
17:20:45 <scouttle> wait, I'm confused
17:20:48 <ElioQoshi> What's not satisfying? Which half?
17:21:15 <scouttle> Options on the table: A) Stick with original purple and green B) Go with new purple and green C) go with new green and old purple
17:21:24 <scouttle> I think if we considered C), it would be good to see what they look like together
17:21:27 <PhilipL> the original color look "horrible". it doesnt make it better to just change the green. or just the purple.
17:21:54 <isabela> scouttle: +1
17:21:55 <PhilipL> I thought for now we want to go on with this thing and just find something to base the future design on
17:22:01 <ailanthus> PhilipL: Director of comms for Tor here—I hate the logo, including the colors. I believe it was designed by a colorblind designer (literally)
17:22:09 <ElioQoshi> Again, define "horrible"
17:22:12 <ailanthus> Another color green?
17:22:29 <ElioQoshi> Maybe you have more experience in color theory than me, but it definitely doesn;t look horrible to me
17:22:42 <PhilipL> if that sounds to rejecting, i still can try to explain what horrible means, and what we need instead. but i'm not that fast when I try to write someting meaningful
17:22:45 <mrphs> may i remind everyone that this is a conversation about creating style guideline and not re-designing logo or branding?
17:23:14 <scouttle> Yes and: Elio tweaked colors in response to PhilipL's feedback
17:23:28 <scouttle> no one else provided feedback on Elio's designs over email, I think
17:23:31 <ElioQoshi> btw, we don't have a standard green
17:23:38 <ElioQoshi> So I never used one as that
17:23:46 <ElioQoshi> However we had a standard purple
17:24:04 <PhilipL> last meeting we decided to not pay too much attention to my feedback.
17:24:28 <PhilipL> because we wanted less redsign
17:24:33 <ame_e> I'd say that the feedback was more: this is the version 1 style guide.
17:24:36 <mrphs> ElioQoshi: oh wow you're right. your green is diffferent from https://media.torproject.org/image/official-images/2011-tor-logo-flat.svg
17:24:39 <ElioQoshi> Did we? I thought we would go on with your feedback since there was no one else giving feedback
17:25:00 <ame_e> Let's standardize what we have. And we had some discussion about possible changes.
17:25:05 <ElioQoshi> mrphs exactly. That green has quite low contrast on white. Hence I suggest a new green
17:25:12 <PhilipL> If we now start again with the claim of what a redesign needs, we are at the same point where we started last meeting, just with new drafts
17:25:37 <scouttle> Ok. Taking a step back, for a minute.
17:25:54 <scouttle> Yes, this is supposed to be V0.1 of a style guide
17:26:03 <scouttle> We don't want to go crazy redesigning everything
17:26:21 <scouttle> We all know lots of things need redesigning, but that the scope of this project is smaller and more incremental
17:26:28 <scouttle> So, we're not e.g. going to redo the logo
17:26:37 <isabela> yep
17:26:39 <mrphs> +1
17:26:42 <PhilipL> +1
17:27:08 <scouttle> That said, if there is broad consensus that there has been no consistent canonical colors, or that the canonical colors are universally regarded as awful, then I think that spending a little time iterating on them is reasonable.
17:27:19 <ElioQoshi> scouttle
17:27:22 <ElioQoshi> here is C:
17:27:23 <ElioQoshi> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62482708/Tor%20Styleguide%20Draft%20v4.pdf
17:27:28 <ElioQoshi> Just did that
17:27:29 <isabela> aha!
17:27:38 <scouttle> getting a 404 on that
17:27:40 <isabela> 404
17:27:51 <ElioQoshi> Try now refresh
17:27:59 <isabela> works!
17:29:26 <ElioQoshi> I believe the green works better there
17:29:27 <scouttle> So: I hear your frustration that you want us to do more, PhilipL. But I think we should not let the "this is not a redesign" mantra prevent us from making a change on the color if everyone thinks that's a good idea.
17:29:32 <isabela> ok i am not a designer but my impression between A and C - especially for subbrands graphs it does make it more clear to read on A than C
17:29:57 <PhilipL> ok, to explain a bit the word horrible. the purple is very saturated, which looks a bit cheap. In CMYK you could never print this color. Tor must not be too elegant or serious, but that purple looks a bit like an nonreflective choice
17:30:36 <scouttle> "nonreflective" being the polite way of saying "picked by someone who is colorblind"?
17:30:53 <ElioQoshi> isabela, I think that has to do with size and spacing of letters, I can fix that in C
17:30:58 <PhilipL> If we take a darker/grayisher purple, the green could be lighter or more saturated.
17:31:02 <isabela> ElioQoshi: ah ok
17:31:11 <mrphs> where A is what ElioQoshi proposed in his draft? (it's already changed a bit from original logo)
17:31:34 <scouttle> A: http://elioqoshi.me/owncloud/index.php/s/DtZBYB78l8ZqQ4I#pdfviewer
17:31:39 <scouttle> B: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62482708/Tor%20Styleguide%20Draft%20v3.pdf
17:31:49 <scouttle> C: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62482708/Tor%20Styleguide%20Draft%20v4.pdf
17:31:54 <mrphs> ty :)
17:32:29 <scouttle> Ok, so I think that there's agreement that we don't like B for a few reasons.
17:32:34 <scouttle> Yes?
17:32:38 <ElioQoshi> So Philip, which one do you prefer?
17:32:47 <mrphs> yes I think B is ruled out
17:32:59 <PhilipL> actually that color thing is something I would need to test. which combinations of background colors, is there still a contrast when light green on white and so on
17:33:17 <mrphs> I'm more in favor of A because it looks a bit fresher and happier
17:33:23 <PhilipL> nonreflective=inconsiderate/incautious/improvident
17:33:49 <ElioQoshi> mrphs why A? Due to the old green?
17:33:52 <scouttle> Thank you for the clarification on "horrible", PhilipL, that was very helpful. Your point about being able to accurately print the purple is a very useful one.
17:34:35 <ame_e> Can I chime in with a question? (Just did, hahah)
17:34:40 <mrphs> ElioQoshi: no just because it's a bit lighter and happier. not an strong preference though
17:35:03 <ElioQoshi> lighter and happier gives me no reference to understand why :P
17:35:07 <scouttle> Some of that may be the header
17:35:12 <ame_e> I think we all agree that we would pick different colors today. Purple and green is just tough. That's hard too do anything with it.
17:35:22 <scouttle> they're different, and the one in A is green (brighter) with white background
17:35:40 <ame_e> Are we planning to pick in real time now? I think yes is fine. Just figuring out if I should weigh in right now.
17:35:51 <ElioQoshi> So you prefer green headers?
17:35:56 <PhilipL> For me A, B or C dont look brillant. C is a saturated purple with a grayish green, i'd prefer a less saturated purple with a light (but not too saturated?) purple
17:35:57 * isabela will have to step out soon
17:36:00 <isabela> (sorry)
17:36:56 <ElioQoshi> Well, B is too muted for many of us
17:37:04 <PhilipL> right
17:37:42 <ElioQoshi> I mean, with the argument that Tor is quite established on that purple, and muting it makes it lose character
17:38:09 <ElioQoshi> Also, we don't need to abide classical design principles, we are a FLOSS and Privacy project afterall
17:38:28 <ame_e> Those are good points ElioQoshi
17:38:30 <ricofreak> Hello All!
17:38:35 <ElioQoshi> I wouldn't like to create similar material to what an agency would do
17:38:40 <ElioQoshi> Because it looks "cheap"
17:38:50 <isabela> :)
17:38:55 <ElioQoshi> Well, it's not supposed to look highly finished as well
17:39:14 <ElioQoshi> We are talking about an onion afterall
17:39:34 <ElioQoshi> And purple onions taste better than all others
17:39:37 <ElioQoshi> right?
17:39:40 <ElioQoshi> *mic drop*
17:39:44 <scouttle> Heh.
17:40:01 <PhilipL> I had that in mind when I thought about changing the purple. Tor happens more on screen that on paper. We don’t need to stick to classic design rules. but there are rules and it is better to break them consciously. And I hold on to the opinion that it looks a bit cheap.
17:41:07 <PhilipL> ElioQoshi: what do you mean by "material to what an agency would do"
17:41:10 <ElioQoshi> I don't mind it looking a bit cheap honestly as I said. Don't get me wrong, but we are not aiming for something corporate in that sense
17:41:33 <ElioQoshi> Well, in my eyes many design agencies do "politically correct" designs which lack character
17:41:39 <ElioQoshi> And lack personal touch
17:41:48 <PhilipL> I think we have 2 options now. Use the random colors we had. Or do some visual exploration.
17:42:09 <ElioQoshi> Well, that's one way to call it
17:42:58 <ricofreak> New potential volunteer here. Ready to learn and help in any way I can...
17:43:06 <ElioQoshi> ricofreak hi!
17:43:13 <ElioQoshi> woah, happy to hear that :)
17:44:02 <PhilipL> I agree in that point. A lot of agency work looks too clean. With too less character. But as this is an open source thing, people will give it character. We are no design police. And applications will vary. But to start with something conscious we could finde a way for now that works
17:44:31 <PhilipL> ricofreak: Hi! Welcome welcome.
17:45:16 <isabela> ricofreak: hi!
17:45:29 <ElioQoshi> I mean, I don't disagree that the original purple isn't the best bit. But I'd be up to risk that lack of perfectionism seeing how much has been built up on that purple color
17:45:29 <ricofreak> :)
17:45:57 <PhilipL> Is there really so much built on it?
17:46:04 <isabela> sorry folks i will have to step out for an appointment
17:46:33 <ElioQoshi> I would love to change the Linux Tux mascot icon but it would simply have quite a big impact
17:46:40 <PhilipL> Is there really so much built on it that looks good, professional or conscious?
17:47:07 <ElioQoshi> I cannot cover this with numbers, it's just how I feel Tor as a brand
17:47:27 <ElioQoshi> But if you think that the purple color isn't well established, that changes things
17:48:10 <ElioQoshi> Do you prefer the more muted purple from B?
17:48:30 <PhilipL> sry at phone
17:49:25 <ricofreak> Talking about overall changes to the Tor brand?
17:49:45 <scouttle> ricofreak talking about a basic styleguide for the visual brand elements
17:49:50 <mrphs> ricofreak: we're having the UX meeting, talking about the style guideline
17:50:03 <scouttle> Intention is to not make changes. But talking in depth a little bit about color.
17:50:32 <ricofreak> Great
17:51:10 <isabela> sorry folks i really need to go otherwise i will be super late
17:51:13 <mrphs> which we need to find a way to wrap up. otherwise we'd be talking in circles :)
17:51:20 <isabela> i will read the logs later when i am back
17:51:31 <mrphs> thanks isabela!
17:51:50 <scouttle> Ok. I think that there is interest in C, but that there are also concerns that it doesn't go far enough.
17:52:15 <scouttle> I think it would be useful in documenting the process to identify the points and questions that the community should come back to
17:52:16 <ame_e> There are things that we know: A style guide will help professionalize the look and feel of tor and help suers understand what's official and not.
17:52:32 <mrphs> scouttle: cant agree enough on documentation part
17:52:52 <scouttle> But, for the meantime, to move forward with the original A colors for the style guide
17:52:55 <ame_e> And we all know that the purple and green aren't the color's we'd pick today, but we have the weight of heritage behind us.
17:53:09 <ame_e> And we expect the guide to change over time through some process.
17:53:22 <ElioQoshi> btw
17:53:29 <PhilipL> back from phone. sry again
17:53:36 <ElioQoshi> if you have forgotten, I changed the font from Lato to Source Sans Pro
17:53:45 <ElioQoshi> As advised by Philip
17:53:51 <ame_e> We haven't talked much about fonts in this meeting, so I'm wondering if fonts is something we feel good about. I do. It seems like some minor color variations are the open issue.
17:54:14 <mrphs> should we have more often meetings to move things forward?
17:54:17 <ame_e> Cross-post, I'm a slow typist. And now, fonts. looking good. Maybe that moves to the ok for now column?
17:54:17 <ElioQoshi> Reminder: Let's not use proprietary fonts here. Hence I didn't use Arial (apart the fact that it's Helvetica ugly brother)
17:54:34 <ElioQoshi> mrphs please yes
17:54:47 <mrphs> should we do tomorrow the same time?
17:54:53 <mrphs> or is it too soon?
17:55:10 <ame_e> I have a conflict tomorrow, but you have momentum!
17:55:19 <ElioQoshi> I can do tomorrow but not same time
17:55:20 <ame_e> So go without me please
17:55:35 <ElioQoshi> The meeting requires me to stay at home basically
17:55:37 <mrphs> it seems like folks need to talk more about this, but at the same time I think people need to have some time to think it more through.
17:55:53 <mrphs> the day after tomorrow?
17:56:02 <mrphs> what's the best day works for everyone?
17:56:12 <scouttle> I can do either tomorrow or Friday
17:56:25 <mrphs> ame_e: ?
17:56:28 <scouttle> I think it's important to have Elio and Philip there. What are your schedules like, gents?
17:56:36 <ame_e> I can't do tomorrow my Berlin evening,
17:56:37 <ricofreak> I will stop by and listen in any day. Anywhere I can help. I am willing.
17:56:40 <ame_e> Checking on Friday.
17:56:56 <PhilipL> I have time tomorrow.
17:57:23 <scouttle> Elio if this time tomorrow doesn't work for you, what are your windows of availability?
17:57:28 <ame_e> ElioQoshi, PhillipL, Mrphs, Scouttle sounds like a quorum to me.
17:58:00 <scfith> anyone still use torchat? project hasn't been updated since 2014 as far as i can tell...
17:58:29 <mrphs> ElioQoshi, PhilipL: can you do friday?
17:58:58 <PhilipL> yes. friday is fine.
17:59:44 <PhilipL> if it is just an hour like today
17:59:53 <scouttle> I can make Friday work. How is Friday for you, ElioQoshi?
18:00:04 <ElioQoshi> ame_ I can do 2h earlier
18:00:07 <ElioQoshi> ame_e
18:00:34 <ame_e> ok, that works. Scouttle, think you're booked?
18:00:50 <scouttle> I can make it work.
18:00:56 <ElioQoshi> I can do 2-1.5h earlier on Friday
18:01:05 <mrphs> okay how about i do a little doodle over email?
18:01:11 <mrphs> i think that's going to be easier
18:01:14 <ElioQoshi> Yes sure
18:01:14 <flexlibris> hi
18:01:16 <scouttle> I think we're converging on Friday
18:01:17 <mrphs> unless we have a consensus
18:01:22 <Phoul> flexlibris: \p
18:01:23 <Samdney> flexlibris: hi
18:01:24 <ame_e> OFriday 2 hours early
18:01:24 <scouttle> two hours earlier than this meeting was
18:01:28 <flexlibris> hi Phoul hi Samdney
18:01:37 <flexlibris> anyone else here for the community team meeting?
18:01:42 <mrphs> flexlibris: we'll be done in a few. just wrapping up.
18:01:44 <scouttle> still finishing UX meeting
18:01:46 <PhilipL> I cant guarantee that 2h earlier might work for me. I might be at a clients site, but I might find an hour
18:02:11 <scouttle> ok, in that case mrphs a doodle sounds in order
18:02:16 <mrphs> ok
18:02:19 <mrphs> will send an email
18:02:28 <mrphs> #endmeeting