Hi! = Alpha title page =
We currently have an updated version of Vish's title page proposal for the alpha release, because his work was used on blogs before and we needed something quickly. = Design process: How it shouldn't be = Given recent discussions, I worry that I might have done a bad job of explaining how I think things should work and why. Given a group project with design/artwork needs like this one, the usual way design happens, if nobody applies certain methods / establishes a process: A few people create proposals, trying to solve the whole problem at once. Everyone one of them works with his own assumptions about various aspects of the project to decide what is and isn't appropriate. This might not even happen consciously, but be more about gut feeling. The same applies to other members who provide feedback. Everybody has an opinion on matters of design. People talk a lot of what they like or don't like, seldom giving reasons. Hence there is no shared idea of what should be achieved and how to judge proposals. No common ground for collaboration. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law_of_Triviality = Design process: How it should be = We already went through mission statement, audience, tone and message. You need to define where you wan to end up, before you can take care of getting there. Instead of talking about what you personally like or dislike, you talk about what does and doesn't seem appropriate in light of the mission statement, audience, tone and message. A central reason for a design specification like the one at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-manual/Artwork is to rule out varying and hidden assumptions. It should enable everyone to work with the same set of assumptions and to follow the same strategy. There's also the aspect of breaking a big problem down into a set of smaller ones. This helps with covering every aspect and detail. As far as there is subjectivity, it's much better to deal with it in small parts instead of at once, for the entire design. If there is disagreement, it should be tackled on the lowest possible level. For example, the specification says that we should aim at having at least 3 title page design in a row without dramatic changes, to build a serious. Giving the reason: "Such consistency will reduce the work load and indicate confidence, competence and reliability.". If you think otherwise, you should speak up sooner, not later. Right on a specification level, not with a proposal that is in conflict. If the disagreement remains, I would like to see an alternative specification or at least a statement about what is and isn't being followed for each new proposal. It is important to be clear about the intentions of a piece of design/artwork, so it can be judged according to its actual goals, not just individual interpretation. This is about the possible difference of what it's supposed to be vs what it appears to be. -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual Post to : ubuntu-manual@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
