-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Daniel Carrera wrote: > Erwin Tenhumberg wrote:
<snip> >> 3.) Since the Sun logo was included in the XML spec and the >> default splash screen I'm a bit hesitant about making >> the following comment, but I think we should be very >> careful about where we include company logos >> and URL's in order to avoid a proliferation of >> logos and attributions. > > > Well... the obvious response is, if Sun can do it, why not DDGTS? :-) My opinion on this is that DDGTS has put the time, effort and money into improving the case study and should expect to be allowed to put their logo on it. I can see where Erwin is coming from though. >> 4.) Question 6 might create some resistance among smaller >> companies. "to establish your credibility with our >> audience" does not sound to encouraging to SMB's who >> might be one of our largest user groups. > > > That was probably the hardest question to phrase. It went through > several reviews. What we have is better than anything else we found. But > at the end, Justin, Adam, Jean and I were happy with the phrasing. Quoting myself, off-list: > I didn't find it rude, but I can see how others might. I hit the word > "credible" and thought to myself "I see where he's coming from, he wants to > make sure I'm not some newbie trend-following idiot and see that I have > some background and know-how to back up what I say." > > You're trying to ask "Why would anyone want to believe what you say?" > nicely...not easy! One possible way around this is a positive angle at the > start of the question: (end quote) >> 5.) I find the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, ...) approach >> a bit weird in this context, but maybe that's just >> my personal taste. Especially the "threats" questions >> feels kind of strange. I would phrase it more in the >> way of "What do you like/dislike?" or "What makes >> your life easier or more difficult?" > > > But that's not the same as a "threat". I'll think about a way of > revising that section. Although I didn't find use of the word "threat" that unusual per se, I think it's quite an important word to use. A lot of the people that would be reading these case studies have to report the risks and threats to the Pointy Haired Boss at the end of the day. >> 6.) In the questions 4 and 5 you suggest that companies >> have improved their profitability and that they >> reduced their risks. > > > You're getting *really* nit-picky now. It's not like we're forcing > people to fill in every box, or like they can't say "OOo didn't help out > at all". Seriously, if you are doing a case study, you would base it on > a company that has good things to say about OOo. I'm a sole trader with no employees. My profitability has been greatly increased thanks to OpenOffice.org. No, really. And reduced risks? Have you ever counted how many security issues there are with Microsoft Office? How many of you in a tech support role have had to deal with stupid Office registry problems, error boxes that won't go away until the magical "Repair" is run ad infinitum. You know what - I'd call an office suite *without* that overhead a risk-reducer. OpenOffice.org increases my profits and reduces my risks :-) Cheers, Adam. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCZo7t7uRVdtPsXDkRAuszAJ9qV1u4GgnD8R4fFTOZP6LHA5EjvQCglACV KHKeg5+8Rh6Z7UkIbPB+1ac= =aeDL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
