[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 10, Issue 38

Fri Mar 8 18:43:57 UTC 2013

Here's a relevant project we could draw inspiration from (or even get the
symbols from): http://thenounproject.com/about/

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Alicia Gibb <pip at nycresistor.com> wrote:

> Woah... nice analogy! Those symbols are totally the best practices of how
> to care for your clothes. You guys blow my mind.
>
> Alicia
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Catarina Mota <catarina at openmaterials.org>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130308/ae6ff1f7/attachment-0001.html>