Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

chpac-staff - Re: [Chpac-staff] FW: letterhead

chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Chpac-staff mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jonathan Walker <jonathan AT jonathangfwalker.com>
  • To: Andrew Ross <andrewwross AT earthlink.net>
  • Cc: chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Chpac-staff] FW: letterhead
  • Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:47:10 -0500

All,

I'd like to mention the option of not continuing with this designer. If we are not impressed with the work, we should look for another artist or consider taking suggestions directly from the commission. There's no value to the title "Graphic Artist" or "Designer" alone if the product is not what we want.

I would like to understand better the selection process used to pick this designer. We are using public funds and it is important that we have considered other designers who may have wanted to contribute and that we have articulated our reason for choosing this one over others.

Also, I have serious concerns about this person doing our web site. I understand that the current designer has limited experience with web/information design. Designing a successful, sustainable web site requires significant experience and skill. The look is a minor element compared with the flow, content and infrastructure. Jeff's work to date has been excellent and I think he would agree now that organization and maintenance of the chief concerns in expanding our web presence.

There are a number of competent web designers in the area, some of whom I am sure would love to do our web site for the pleasure of contributing to our cause.

I would like to hear everyone's opinion on the logo. Also, given time on Tuesday, we can get started identifying purpose and content for the web site - these are the first two steps in web/information design process.

Jonathan


On Sunday, October 26, 2003, at 10:55 AM, Andrew Ross wrote:

Hey all, again. Jonathan brings up a very important point. Although I disagree with him about these three options for logo design (I would be happy for us to be represented by any one of them), I think it is important to realize that we will probably never reach full consensus on something this aesthetically varied. Design, color, font, etc. are things that I'm sure we will all continue to have different opinions on.

So, no, this does not mean we should accept a design that we as a group are not satisfied with. What it does mean is that we need everyone from the commission to be thinking about these designs since we are going to need to vote as a commission on what we want -- a vote which could very likely not be unanimous.

Please send Jonathan and Kate your thoughts and ideas on these three designs for our discussion on Tuesday. And please feel welcome to come join us at the Identity Committee meeting at Town Hall on Tuesday at 6pm. Our goal at that meeting is to discuss these three logo options, decide which one (or none) comes closest to meeting our needs, and then figure out what changes we might want to make to lead the designer in our final look (maybe font variations, color changes, layout of the applications, etc.). From this meeting, it is my hope that the committee, working with the graphic designer, can produce a finished logo and application design by our next Commission meeting in November for a full Commission vote.

Obviously, as Jonathan pointed out, if there are any more dissenting opinions to all three of these designs (even in there unfinished forms), we need to hear them NOW -- by Tuesday. We have gone quite far in this process, so there is no need to go any further if we are going to scrap the entire process and start again. Yes, we can get to work on the web page in the meantime, but that would mean commission members stepping up to do the work, since finding and approving another web designer is only going to take more time.

Thank you, Jonathan, for your comments. I hope everyone else on the Commission takes the time to add their thoughts, either directly to Jonathan and Kate, or to the everyone on the Commission using our chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org address.

And I look forward to our discussion on Tuesday.

Andrew
____________________________
Andrew Ross Photography & Video
home: 919.929.9684
mobile: 919.260.7537
www.andrewross.com

On Saturday, October 25, 2003, at 08:17 pm, Jonathan Walker wrote:

All,

I'd like to share a few thoughts that I have mentioned to Kate and Jeff and that Andrew has probably heard as well. These are the thoughts of a new commission member and have the advantage of a fresh eye and the disadvantage of a lack of history.

I, personally, do not think the current logo options are professional or creative enough to adequately represent the impressive charter of this commission. If we represented anything but an Arts Commission, we might be excused for lack of creativity or elegance of visual presentation. But we are an Arts Commission, and as such we will be judged, rightfully or wrongfully, by how we present ourselves. If we fail to engage, impress or intrigue our constituents in the one area in which we are supposed to excel, they are likely not to give us the benefit of the doubt that we deserve.

We can continue with developing our web site without a logo - there is much to do with content and navigation before detailed visuals come into consideration. The letterhead, business cards and brochures would have to wait.

I believe we should get off on the best foot possible - first impressions don't come twice. And, I think we should take the time to come up with a logo that we are all proud of. If we act quickly, there is much we could do before the end of the calendar year.

That said, I am willing to follow the consensus of the commission and go forward with a decision either to continue with one of the current designs or to develop another.

Thanks,
Jonathan

_______________________________________________
Chpac-staff mailing list
Chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/chpac-staff






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page