r4 - 05 Mar 2007 - 18:07:48 - SheilaMooneyYou are here: OSAF >  Projects Web  >  OsaFoundation > WorkingGroups > DesignGroup > MondayPPDMeeting > MondayMeeting20070305

PPD Meeting - Mon Mar 5th, 2007

Agenda

  • Design session Tues - review edit/update with QA
  • Update on import/export write-up
  • Differing design ideas - how do we decide what call to make
  • Logo - how to converge on top 3 designs
  • Styleguide stuff (defer to Wed)
  • Workflows for tracking - identify next actions (defer)
  • Wiki taxonomy milestones (defer)

Notes

Tues design session

  • Review edit/update with QA
  • Sheila will check to see if Aparna and Dan are available

Import/export write-up

  • Sheila is very behind on this - have already discussed with the QA team
  • Sheila will have a write-up ready

Handling design conflicts

  • Consensus based design is hard
  • Priscilla and Mimi coming from 2 different perspectives
  • Should we use the PPD meeting to be closing on these - to show one united design? How should we proceed.
  • Mimi - question for Katie
    • What is the process when there is differing perspective on how you go about making architecture decisions or coding practices.
    • Focus on requirements - is there an agreement on that?
    • Use landing page as an example....
  • What does it mean to have clear information design hierarchy. How to lead user through information space.
  • How do we suck the user through the page design.
  • Mimi not intentionally separating the header from the rest of the page
  • Priscilla intentionally creating the separation to show difference in information
  • In the UI world you test this specifically - present the designs
  • Requirement - important to have a clear information hierarchy on the page
    • Mimi - importance of flow
    • Priscilla - consistency is more important than flow
    • Interpretation of flow and consistency is different
  • Priscilla: It's difficult when you don't have clear ownership - who makes the final call
  • For the stuff we are discussing it makes sense to have an owner
  • Shared understanding about the higher level requirements ie: the information that has to be there
  • Once we have agreement on high-level requirements, it might make sense to have a specific owner
  • Styleguide - what are the next actions to get to one
    • Mimi: Unless we have a clear owner to the style-guide - path not clear
    • Priscilla: As we work on various pieces we add that content into the style-guide and update it accordingly
    • If we have different philosophies on what it means to be consistent - how do we resolve this?
  • Priscilla
    • Would like to see some ownership around the projects
    • Ownership with Cosmo and Chandler Hub - what does this mean?
    • Wants to know when we have done enough and we can move on
    • Lead who makes the decision
  • Mimi
    • Clear owner of style-guide, process and philosophy
    • Wants to think about the problem a bit longer
  • Issues are not yet resolved - we will have a follow-up discussion on Wed.

Logo

  • Next actions not clear
  • We can narrow down the 3 concepts to focus on - starfish, pinwheel, grass
  • Disagreement about process and purpose of presenting to Ops team
    • Mimi: wants to get feedback about which visual treatments add to the strength of the concept.
    • Priscilla: want to narrow in on a concept then explore more visual treatments.
  • Resolution
    • We can satisfy both goals.
    • We will use the first round of feedback to help narrow in on a concept and answer some questions about visual treatments that will help logo team make a decision.
    • Second round - explore more options for visual treatments that we don't have yet ie: abstract starfish.

Status

Sheila

  • Progress
  • Plans

Priscilla

  • Progress
  • Plans

Mimi

  • Progress
  • Plans

-- SheilaMooney - 05 Mar 2007

Edit | WYSIWYG | Attach | Printable | Raw View | Backlinks: Web, All Webs | History: r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | More topic actions
 
Open Source Applications Foundation
Except where otherwise noted, this site and its content are licensed by OSAF under an Creative Commons License, Attribution Only 3.0.
See list of page contributors for attributions.