From dinis at ddplus.net Wed Aug 20 19:27:09 2008 From: dinis at ddplus.net (Dinis Cruz) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:27:09 +0100 Subject: [Owasp-book-cover-design] Fwd: Revised Book Cover Series Design layouts In-Reply-To: <701fd6b60808201610j1e811730tedaff26319f4fd40@mail.gmail.com> References: <701fd6b60808201610j1e811730tedaff26319f4fd40@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701fd6b60808201627v21ad560at8f301cde87de64c6@mail.gmail.com> fyi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dinis Cruz Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10 AM Subject: Re: Revised Book Cover Series Design layouts To: Eoin Cc: Deb Brewer , Paulo Coimbra , Jeff Williams , Tom Brennan < tomb at owasp.org>, Dave Wichers , Alison McNamee < alison.mcnamee at owasp.org>, Kate Hartmann , James McGovern , Kris Seeburn < kris_seeburn at utm.intnet.mu>, Sebastien Deleersnyder , Yiannis Pavlosoglou Hi Eoin I completely *disagree* that *only* Release quality should be published. And it is very ironic that you (Eoin) made that comment, since if we had followed that policy we would not had the success we had with the Source-Core review printed book :) The Source-Code review book (which is still in what we probably should call a alpha), is a best selling (for OWASP standards:) ) book because it addresses a current need/gap in the market (and it also allows for a much better revision process (btw, I have lost count the number of times that I have seem piles of papers with printed OWASP pdfs (since that is what most people do with pdfs), so the argument that publishing printed OWASP books is not ecological doesn't fly since it is actually better than people printing the pdf). The reason so much time has been spent during this design process to create a VERY distinct looks between each of the different quality phases (alpha, beta and release) is to be able to address directly the fact that we (OWASP) will be publishing books with materials that are not 100% complete and are still works in progress. Note that, despite all the great work that has been done in out best 'release quality' books/pdfs, most (if not all) are NOT of 'professional' quality grade (when compared with books released by reputable IT book publishers). There are tons of details missing: Covers, ISBN, proper pagination (from font sizes to layouts), indexes, spelling, grammar, decent tables of contents, etc... Again I'm not saying that ALL books/pdfs have all these problems, but if we really are saying that we should ONLY publish books, when they are at a level equivalent or better than an O'Reilly book, then we are very far away from publishing any book. I am NOT saying that we shouldn't have books at O'Reilly level. Of course we should. But that is not the phase we are in at the moment, and my plan is that when we are ready, we will make that "O'Reilly book quality" the Release quality standard. Being able to publish books with NO cost to us and have the ability to print them at good prices is a VERY powerful capability and one that we (OWASP) still have not been able to fully exploit. Book translations (see http://www.lulu.com/content/3446109 for the OWASP top 10 in Portuguese) are another good example of book publishing process that will need to go through a alpha, beta and release quality release. My opinion is that books are a great medium to distribute information and to promote OWASP brand + values to a much bigger audience. The feedback we have received from the people who have received (or distributed) these books confirms this, and if anything, we need to put more pressure for our community to create books from the great materials they have created. We should also allocate more resources to promoting them. For example: we might actually have in our hands the only fully dedicated Ruby on Rails security book: http://www.google.pt/search?hl=pt-PT&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=QHH&q=Ruby+on+Rails+security+book, and at the moment it doesn't have the coverage it should have! Coming back to the issue of the latest round of proposed designs, my question is: * Do you feel that the current 3 design templates (alpha, beta and release) are DISTINCT enough so that its consumers will EASILY understand the different quality levels? Think about a table with 30 books spread across it (10 alpha, 10 beta and 10 release (each with different insect on the cover)), would you be able to note that they were different types of books, and would you be able to quickly grab a release quality one?"* Dinis Cruz OWASP Board Member http://www.owasp.org On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 5:32 AM, Eoin wrote: > Looks good. If everyone is happy with it its a big step in productising the > books, not that they are products :) > I still think we should only have alpha released as Pdf (I talked to Tom > about this in Las Vegas). Only quality bets and above or even just release > should be published reason is to keep the product deliverable from OWASP > high quality. (Very important and a sign of a mature organisation). > ek > > > > On 08/08/2008, Deb Brewer wrote: >> >> Hello OWASP! >> >> I hope you are all well. I have not heard how Vegas is going/went ? hope >> it was very successful! >> >> Please find the attached revised Alpha, Beta and Release cover designs. >> >> Jeff had asked that we incorporate the CC logos on the back cover. >> >> Although we all feel the last round of covers had reached a level of >> strong functionality and visual appeal, a good call with Dinis identified >> that we needed to further differentiate between the levels of content >> quality on the covers. >> >> He asked that we: >> >> >> 1. really minimize or eliminate the color and scale back the design on >> Alpha, to reinforce the 'raw' content inside >> 2. scale back the design on Beta, develop more than Alpha, but still a >> 'working draft' >> 3. keep the existing design approved by the group for Release >> 4. remove the big A, B, and R from the covers as they were distracting >> >> 5. instead of endorsements, use authors on back cover >> 6. as we are all fond of the insect concept, and the 'evolution >> thereof', I have crafted a solution for each cover. I hope it meets with >> your approvals. Again, each title would have it's own insect throughout all >> the stages of publication. The hypothesis is that all beta books in 2008 are >> maroon/red and all release books in 2008 are purple, per the attached PDF. >> That way years can be differentiated. >> >> >> Please let me know your thoughts. >> >> Perhaps we are ready to employ these covers onto actual books with LuLu. >> >> I will await your replies, and appreciate your prompt consideration so we >> can have books at AppSec! >> >> Thank you! >> >> Best regards, >> Deb >> >> *LX**studios inc. >> ** >> deb brewer >> *31 broadway >> hanover ma 02339 >> 781 826 9380 *t* >> 781 826 9381 *f* >> 617 429 0600 *m* >> >> *deb at lxstudios.com >> http://www.lxstudios.com >> * >> >> >> > > > -- > Eoin Keary OWASP - Ireland > http://www.owasp.org/local/ireland.html > http://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Code_Review_Project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-book-cover-design/attachments/20080821/fec67ea8/attachment-0001.html From dinis at ddplus.net Wed Aug 20 19:27:47 2008 From: dinis at ddplus.net (Dinis Cruz) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:27:47 +0100 Subject: [Owasp-book-cover-design] Fwd: Revised Book Cover Series Design layouts In-Reply-To: References: <701fd6b60808201610j1e811730tedaff26319f4fd40@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <701fd6b60808201627w3aa19e0ewe8fa45c5d92be237@mail.gmail.com> fyi (Jeff's response) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jeff Williams Date: Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:16 AM Subject: RE: Revised Book Cover Series Design layouts To: Dinis Cruz , Eoin Cc: Deb Brewer , Paulo Coimbra , Tom Brennan , Dave Wichers , Alison McNamee , Kate Hartmann , James McGovern , Kris Seeburn < kris_seeburn at utm.intnet.mu>, Sebastien Deleersnyder , Yiannis Pavlosoglou I agree with Dinis here. Lots of "mature" organizations are releasing early and often these days (Google). I think we're taking that model to books and I'm pretty excited about it. In fact, even the big publishing companies are publishing beta material these days (see Rough Cuts). I think people will appreciate it, especially as long as we're very clear about what stage something is in (which the covers do nicely). --Jeff *From:* Dinis Cruz [mailto:dinis at ddplus.net] *Sent:* Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:10 PM *To:* Eoin *Cc:* Deb Brewer; Paulo Coimbra; Jeff Williams; Tom Brennan; Dave Wichers; Alison McNamee; Kate Hartmann; James McGovern; Kris Seeburn; Sebastien Deleersnyder; Yiannis Pavlosoglou *Subject:* Re: Revised Book Cover Series Design layouts Hi Eoin I completely *disagree* that *only* Release quality should be published. And it is very ironic that you (Eoin) made that comment, since if we had followed that policy we would not had the success we had with the Source-Core review printed book :) The Source-Code review book (which is still in what we probably should call a alpha), is a best selling (for OWASP standards:) ) book because it addresses a current need/gap in the market (and it also allows for a much better revision process (btw, I have lost count the number of times that I have seem piles of papers with printed OWASP pdfs (since that is what most people do with pdfs), so the argument that publishing printed OWASP books is not ecological doesn't fly since it is actually better than people printing the pdf). The reason so much time has been spent during this design process to create a VERY distinct looks between each of the different quality phases (alpha, beta and release) is to be able to address directly the fact that we (OWASP) will be publishing books with materials that are not 100% complete and are still works in progress. Note that, despite all the great work that has been done in out best 'release quality' books/pdfs, most (if not all) are NOT of 'professional' quality grade (when compared with books released by reputable IT book publishers). There are tons of details missing: Covers, ISBN, proper pagination (from font sizes to layouts), indexes, spelling, grammar, decent tables of contents, etc... Again I'm not saying that ALL books/pdfs have all these problems, but if we really are saying that we should ONLY publish books, when they are at a level equivalent or better than an O'Reilly book, then we are very far away from publishing any book. I am NOT saying that we shouldn't have books at O'Reilly level. Of course we should. But that is not the phase we are in at the moment, and my plan is that when we are ready, we will make that "O'Reilly book quality" the Release quality standard. Being able to publish books with NO cost to us and have the ability to print them at good prices is a VERY powerful capability and one that we (OWASP) still have not been able to fully exploit. Book translations (see http://www.lulu.com/content/3446109 for the OWASP top 10 in Portuguese) are another good example of book publishing process that will need to go through a alpha, beta and release quality release. My opinion is that books are a great medium to distribute information and to promote OWASP brand + values to a much bigger audience. The feedback we have received from the people who have received (or distributed) these books confirms this, and if anything, we need to put more pressure for our community to create books from the great materials they have created. We should also allocate more resources to promoting them. For example: we might actually have in our hands the only fully dedicated Ruby on Rails security book: http://www.google.pt/search?hl=pt-PT&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=QHH&q=Ruby+on+Rails+security+book, and at the moment it doesn't have the coverage it should have! Coming back to the issue of the latest round of proposed designs, my question is: * Do you feel that the current 3 design templates (alpha, beta and release) are DISTINCT enough so that its consumers will EASILY understand the different quality levels? Think about a table with 30 books spread across it (10 alpha, 10 beta and 10 release (each with different insect on the cover)), would you be able to note that they were different types of books, and would you be able to quickly grab a release quality one?"* Dinis Cruz OWASP Board Member http://www.owasp.org On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 5:32 AM, Eoin wrote: Looks good. If everyone is happy with it its a big step in productising the books, not that they are products :) I still think we should only have alpha released as Pdf (I talked to Tom about this in Las Vegas). Only quality bets and above or even just release should be published reason is to keep the product deliverable from OWASP high quality. (Very important and a sign of a mature organisation). ek On 08/08/2008, *Deb Brewer* wrote: Hello OWASP! I hope you are all well. I have not heard how Vegas is going/went ? hope it was very successful! Please find the attached revised Alpha, Beta and Release cover designs. Jeff had asked that we incorporate the CC logos on the back cover. Although we all feel the last round of covers had reached a level of strong functionality and visual appeal, a good call with Dinis identified that we needed to further differentiate between the levels of content quality on the covers. He asked that we: 1. really minimize or eliminate the color and scale back the design on Alpha, to reinforce the 'raw' content inside 2. scale back the design on Beta, develop more than Alpha, but still a 'working draft' 3. keep the existing design approved by the group for Release 4. remove the big A, B, and R from the covers as they were distracting 5. instead of endorsements, use authors on back cover 6. as we are all fond of the insect concept, and the 'evolution thereof', I have crafted a solution for each cover. I hope it meets with your approvals. Again, each title would have it's own insect throughout all the stages of publication. The hypothesis is that all beta books in 2008 are maroon/red and all release books in 2008 are purple, per the attached PDF. That way years can be differentiated. Please let me know your thoughts. Perhaps we are ready to employ these covers onto actual books with LuLu. I will await your replies, and appreciate your prompt consideration so we can have books at AppSec! Thank you! Best regards, Deb *LX**studios **inc. ** deb brewer *31 broadway hanover ma 02339 781 826 9380 *t* 781 826 9381 *f* 617 429 0600 *m* *deb at lxstudios.com http://www.lxstudios.com * -- Eoin Keary OWASP - Ireland http://www.owasp.org/local/ireland.html http://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Code_Review_Project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-book-cover-design/attachments/20080821/211c4d79/attachment-0001.html