On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:19 PM, 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. > Any marketing that raises the profile of the brand is good, so there is a double value, add to that the possible additional community members that will accrue and we have a triple benefit > > From a UX design perspective, this approach presents risk. The branding is > bound to the UI, and other supporting visual elements. > Agreed, which is why there needs to be extensive UX input into the RFP > > 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. Our problem is that we don't have an "in-house", while there has been some progress, it has been glacial in it's pace and we need to get things moving. We have no goals other than vague references to 4.0 and I don't want to get to the point where branding is holding up a major release. >From my point of view I feel that the first release of the AOO TLP should be 4.0, but that's just me talking from a purely marketing POV. > We don't have our full inventory of requirements yet. > And that is what the discussion leading to the RFP will be about > > I prefer that we defer this proposal. > > Regards, > Kevin > It is of course your right to put a -1 on this proposal but I think that would a mistake. The UX input into the RFP is essential and I feel the RFP is just the impetus we need to closely study and discuss the branding needs. Cheers GL
