We must unite under one banner, relinquish differing personal affection at the price of a respected deciding voice or a popular vote.
Nobody is better of at nothing, the door needs to be closed.
We are not better than our ability to produce, if we cannot pick, then we are not even
that.
Say whatever final words you want to say now, commit.
To go forwards, absolutely nothing can be said in retrospect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My thoughts on the matter are these, A design panel could be chosen to get a unified approach.
Starting with producing some guidelines.
This starts with seeing the casedesign, and knowing the fabrication process and limits. Material, shape, colour, light, tools and so on.
That is how real (aestetic-)designers work. If we expect mediocrity we will get mediocrity. At best we will get lucky,
that is not design.
I know enough about structural integrity to know the problems relating to the pandora case are the fault of the case manufacturer.
In light of said problems, they were integral to the plastic. Mitigating them somewhat by over-engineering would have
lessened the problem, but then again it would be with respect to the former, case manufacturer problem.
Bad businessmen blame others, regardless of trade. Certainly i hope the new case manufacturer will not be of the type that produces anything there is a need to put blame on others for.
I also know craftsmen are terrified by designers that don't know their place, that have no overview. For good reason.
The choice is made to have a case design company.
Problems are then their problem, that is good. Simply to help them by being given the tools to work with is what I'm asking, that is
my position. This means understanding what they do, and then coming to the table with something they can do, strictly within limits of making their jobs easy and letting them have responsibility and authority.
No additional complexity. An additional design element at the least amount of risk with respect to time.
The pandora is an exercise in utilitarian design. It looks like it should, because of what it is. So should the logo. Aesthetics does not mean randomness.
I think community members who have contributed design are capable of keeping to case design ideas or other such preliminary info
without derailing process or disclosing it.
Edit: specifying unification: At least the logo with what the logo is. Some mockups. Then the same design language for the dragonbox website, if that is wanted. Then the website, then the community logo. Then the pyra wiki.
On a semi-sidenote it would be interesting to know what speakers are in the unit. I have some speaker design experience, and could possibly determine what the speaker grille limits are. A honeycomb design is acoustically less obtrusive, but it requires higher material strength, and more complex fabrication. I like the pandora approach, but it always bugged me somewhat, i dont know that its perfect. And if it isnt, then is it really the perfect visual shape? Not proposing extra electrical filters, but knowing is better than guessing.
In any event, i want to learn, and the known info i can turn into fun for myself and provide (new) info for others to learn from too.
