[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 38

Catarina Mota catarina at openmaterials.org
Thu Mar 7 21:57:40 UTC 2013 

Yeah, we'd have to come up with symbols that are easier to understand at a
glance and define the components: electronics, enclosure, mechanics,
hydraulics, software, structure, etc. Then, as Malcolm sugests, you'd print
only the ones the project includes - and it doesn't have to go on a PCB,
just be somehow connected with the product (on the website or as a flyer on
the packaging)

. If the community wants something like this OSHWA would get a designer to
work on the symbols.

The trick would be come up with a menu that can accomodate, for example, a
car or a building.

And this reminds me I gotta do laundry :(

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Cameron Adamez
<cameron at suspectdevices.com>wrote:

> I think as long as we can add a guide and make sure there's a key on
> oshwa.org it doesn't seem like a bad idea. (I only understand what some
> of those symbols mean, and I have scratched my head at a few of them on
> laundry day.)
>
> We should also reach out to people we know who do iconography for
> suggestions or advice.
>
> Cameron
>
> On Mar 7, 2013, at 1:43 PM, malcolm stanley <a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> well, you do not print the whole menu, just the stuff you ordered,
> so that immense set of options does boil down to something like this:
>
> <laundry-tags.jpg>
> I think what I hear you essentially suggesting is that we go through this
> line by line and replace the items there with OSHWA equivalents for, say, a
> Littlebits or a Makerbot?
>
> _________________________________________
> malcolm stanley
>
> google.voice:  215.821.6252
> Cell: 267.251.9479   <------------- new
> email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
> twitter / linkedin: amstanley
> Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
> _________________________________________
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Catarina Mota <catarina at openmaterials.org>wrote:
>
>> Nice image! That's what I was imagining. Even the short version may be
>> hard to print on a PCB, but as long as they're somewhere on the packaging
>> and product website it would be good. Not sure if this is the way to go
>> though. What do other people think?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:33 PM, malcolm stanley <
>> a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> sorry, with image:
>>>
>>> <laundry.gif>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________
>>> malcolm stanley
>>>
>>> google.voice:  215.821.6252
>>> Cell: 267.251.9479   <------------- new
>>> email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
>>> twitter / linkedin: amstanley
>>> Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
>>> _________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:29 PM, malcolm stanley <
>>> a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  It could be similar to the laundry symbols on textiles.
>>>>
>>>>  Like these?
>>>>
>>>> [image: laundry.gif]
>>>>
>>>> So I see shapes for major categories of activity, combined with
>>>> clarifying text in many cases.
>>>> Multiple symbols can be used per item.
>>>> The symbols can be found on the web if further clarification is
>>>> required.
>>>> Interestingly, there are instructions (positive signalling) and
>>>> warnings (negative signalling) in the same symbol set.
>>>>
>>>> Applied to the use case here, what I hear you suggesting is that we
>>>> have a major "shape" for each category, like electronics, case, software
>>>> (already has a symbol set, really, in CC), and so on, and then within each
>>>> of those we can have further clarifying text or warnings.
>>>>
>>>> is that your thought?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________
>>>> malcolm stanley
>>>>
>>>> google.voice:  215.821.6252
>>>> Cell: 267.251.9479   <------------- new
>>>> email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
>>>> twitter / linkedin: amstanley
>>>> Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
>>>> _________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Catarina Mota <
>>>> catarina at openmaterials.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm referring to a better way to determine how a project/product
>>>>> should be presented to the world: Does it have the OSHW logo on it? Is it
>>>>> described as open source hardware on its website etc.? How do we label
>>>>> open/closed hybrids?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been suggested we use two different symbols, one for fully open
>>>>> and another for partially open. Or that only the components that are open
>>>>> source be labeled that way, which may present some manufacturing
>>>>> difficulties. But I still like the idea of Tom's at glance label that can
>>>>> be both on the documentation and on the product (as a sticker or
>>>>> something). As Matt suggests, products that are entirely open source can
>>>>> just bear the blue gear logo since there is no additional info to provide
>>>>> about their openness; and items that are hybrids would have a flyer or
>>>>> sticker somewhere in/on their packaging. It could be similar to the laundry
>>>>> symbols on textiles.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Tom Igoe <tom.igoe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you're talking about two different things here. I'm not sure
>>>>>> Catarina's talking about a sticker or logo, so much as an inventory tool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 7, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Matt Maier wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Catarina,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with all of your sentiments regarding the integrity of the
>>>>>> open source hardware definitions and mark(s).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't seem like a sticker or a logo will have enough space to
>>>>>> provide any useful resolution on which subcomponents are open. And as you
>>>>>> pointed out the source files, while they can contain infinite resolution,
>>>>>> might be hard to find.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What if the mark/stamp/logo/whatever was used only to identify things
>>>>>> that are totally open.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For things that are partially open, or that contain open components,
>>>>>> there could be a flyer (like a receipt, mattress tag, or warranty card)
>>>>>> that has enough surface area to summarize the open components and their
>>>>>> associated licenses. The added expense would be minimal and some projects
>>>>>> would even have enough material to just print the flyer on an inside
>>>>>> surface as part of the manufacturing process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not so much a "mark" as an "openness card."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it wouldn't be mandatory, but the OSHWA could define best
>>>>>> practices and a template for the openness card to make it easy for
>>>>>> producers to standardize so that consumers/developers know what they're
>>>>>> looking at.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Message: 4
>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:36:58 -0500
>>>>>>> From: Catarina Mota <catarina at openmaterials.org>
>>>>>>> To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
>>>>>>>         <discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 35
>>>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>>>         <CAH-asVYrCJ0vR_DnuTKH2vtAxT+YuGYU3FqwSWET7V=
>>>>>>> mYPxWbQ at mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed, this could work. I wasn't suggesting that the more detailed
>>>>>>> label
>>>>>>> needs to be on the product itself (though a sticker would make it
>>>>>>> easier to
>>>>>>> deal with), but there should be some sort of clarity about whether
>>>>>>> or not a
>>>>>>> project is open or partially open. And if we say it's partially open
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> somewhere (on the documentation? on the website? on the product's
>>>>>>> packaging?) we should state which parts are open source.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > -Matt
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> ------------------------------
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Message: 2
>>>>>>> >> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:26:33 -0500
>>>>>>> >> From: Catarina Mota <catarina at openmaterials.org>
>>>>>>> >> To: The Open Source Hardware Association Discussion List
>>>>>>> >>         <discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
>>>>>>> >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] OSHW Best Practices / Layers of Openness
>>>>>>> >> Message-ID:
>>>>>>> >>         <CAH-asVZtQaQsqswJjXXoPWBHtnFpxn422+WmgJvAj22fky-W=
>>>>>>> >> Q at mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>>> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> This is why I was so attracted to Tom's idea of a label that, no
>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>> >> where it's placed on the product, tells you right away what parts
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> >> open.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> > discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> > discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>>>> > http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>>>>> URL: <
>>>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130307/dfd746e5/attachment.html
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> End of discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 38
>>>>>>> ***************************************
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130307/faf23c2d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list