KG02 & 03 - see comments inline On Oct 30, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Kevin Grignon <kevingrignon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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 a 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. KG03 - Agreed. >>>> >>>> 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.
