ubuntu-manual team mailing list archive

[Thorsten Wilms <t_w_@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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/