Yesterday, one of the Argonuts Afield sent me, for reasons I wasn't quite sure of, a copy of a quote for a customer. He asked what I thought of it.
Clearly it was the product of an attempt to create a template to use when sending quotes, so I understood his desire for a second option. Such a thing could be very useful, but this attempt was a mess.
But I was generous--and gentle. I merely told him that it was "ok" but that if he planned to use the template in the future, I'd have suggestions.
He wrote back to say, "The future is now."
I sent back a smilie-face and, "Okay, you asked." I pointed out that using three different font styles, four different font sizes, three different font colors, and dark gray background shading in table cells that had 8 pt black text in them weren't ideal design choices. I asked if his 13-line signature block was all entirely necessary and if there was a way to include a "text version" of the email for people not using html email.
Turns out? It was an "official" home office template--designed by Vela and, no doubt, the rest of TeamChaos and no doubt with the input of everyone in my department but me (since I seem to be the only person who has never seen it before).
He tricked me into dissing, in writing, the work of half a dozen people here at the home office.
I'm shaking in my boots and not sure that last week's chocolate bounty is going to get me through this one.
designed by Vela and, no doubt, the rest of TeamChaos and no doubt with the input of everyone in my department but me
There's the problem: "A camel is a horse designed by a committee." Or, as Alan Sherman put it, "these people on committees, they sit there all day, and they each put in a color and it comes out gray. Now gray is a nice color, but not if you've ever seen orange or yellow or red or green or blue....."
What you've pointed out, frankly, is that something designed with multiple inputs on style is bound to look like crap. Multiple inputs on function and content, fine, but style? Nope. 'Twas bound to happen.
Unless you beat up on particular design elements to which one person might be attached, anyone who reads your commentary can simply say to themselves "it's not my part which is the problem, but all these other things which make me look bad." And they probably won't take it too personally.
posted by: Jonathan Dresner on 09.11.08 at 01:13 PM [permalink]If you had known it was the Official Form, would you have answered any differently? Knowing you, I suspect you'd have said the same thing. Maybe couched in careful language, but if it sucked, you'd have said so *g*
posted by: Dail on 09.11.08 at 09:41 PM [permalink]My criticism was pretty much spread out over every, single element, Jonathan, so maybe I won't offend any one person too much.
To be honest, I think it's going too far to even say there was a DESIGN theme. It was...just a mess.
posted by: Anne on 09.11.08 at 10:53 PM [permalink]Okay, Dail, you're right. I would have said the same things.
But I might have been a tad more diplomatic. :) I might not have spent so much time lecturing on the elements of good design, for instance, had I known the template was "designed" by the Marketing department.
posted by: Anne on 09.11.08 at 10:55 PM [permalink]