On Oct 29, 2012, at 6:37 PM, Ian Lynch <ianrly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 October 2012 10:19, Kevin Grignon <kevingrignon...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> KG01 - see comments inline. >> >> On Oct 27, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> On 26/10/2012 Ian Lynch wrote: >>>> I arranged one for the OOo schools mascot ... The winner was >>>> clear-cut. A 16 year old Italian boy who aspired to be a graphic >> designer. >>> >>> Here he is (by chance, he's called Andrea too): >>> http://www.openoffice.org/editorial/interview_andrea_maggioni.html (EN) >>> http://www.openoffice.org/it/stampa/comunicati/avv12.html (IT) >>> A quick web search shows that in the end he managed to become a graphic >> designer indeed! >>> >>> The mascot is at the end of >>> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/education/schools/ >>> but it didn't have that much recognition in the end. >>> >>> Indeed, as Ian pointed out, the main value of that competition was in >> getting media exposure; >> >> KG - Wouldn't the value in the contest be the new branding elements? I'm >> not sure that this is the best way to hold a marketing event. >> > > Maybe not the best, but will it help? Question is not perfection but is it > better to do it than not to do it. Why not add value with a > multi-dimensional approach rather than fix to only one thing? Especially if > the additional effort is minimal. > > From a UX design perspective, this approach presents risk. The branding is >> bound to the UI, and other supporting visual elements. >> > > All approaches present risk. There is no obligation on the PMC to adopt any > branding that it does not see as appropriate for whatever reason so the > risk of getting a brand that causes UI problems is no higher than if it is > done entirely in house. > >> >> We are just starting to explore the AOO branding and UX enhancements for >> AOO 4.0. I'd prefer we explore this in house first. We don't have our full >> inventory of requirements yet. >> > > Why not do both? Crowd sourcing ideas is no real disadvantage if there is > no requirement to adopt any of the specific proposals. It might be that > only a logo is used, or a packaging presentation from the competition, or > all of it or none of it. > Even just framing the competition scope and rules helps provide some focus > for development. Putting it out to art and design colleges and universities > will raise our profile and tap into resources and expertise we currently > don't have. KG02 - ok, I like this. I've been looking for ways to engage design schools from both a UX and visual design perspective > And in the end we don't have to adopt any of the entries if we > don't want to, they could just help stimulate ideas. > KG02 - Ok, this is less risky. I was concerned that we would be bound to the winning entry. >> >> I prefer that we defer this proposal. KG02 - ok, changing my position from -1 to neutral. I'm warming up :) >> >> Regards, >> Kevin >> >> >>> while in this (OpenOffice 4.0 visual identity) competition we will >> probably want both media exposure and a professional outcome, so a clear >> RFP (Request for proposal) as Graham proposes will help and it is an >> excellent first step. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Andrea. >> > > > > -- > Ian > > Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) > > www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 > > The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, > Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and > Wales.
