OpenOffice.org announces contest winners

“What have I got myself into?” That was my first thought (only with stronger language) as I opened the compressed file of Writer templates that I had agreed to judge for the OpenOffice.org Documentation Project’s template and clipart competition. How could I possibly winnow 24 entries containing more than 60 templates down to three finalists in less than a week? And how could I compare entries as different as an origami letter and a Sudoku blank in any meaningful way?

I quickly evolved working methods and criteria. When I passed these ideas on to the other judges, they agreed that they were a sensible way to hack order out of chaos.

Before assessing any entries, I categorized as many as possible — not to judge similar entries solely against each other, but to help keep the same considerations in mind as I judged all items in the same category. In looking at a stationery set, for example, I wanted to make sure I consider whether it included items beyond the usual collection of letterhead, business card, and fax and memo sheets. Since more than 60% of entries fell into a recognizable category, keeping in mind the special considerations of each category was especially important.

Besides any special considerations, I looked for:

• Originality: Does the entry have a purpose similar to that of an existing template, especially one used by the wizards for letters or faxes? After all, the purpose of the contest was to expand the range of templates available for OpenOffice.org. Does it plagiarize other office suites? (Happily, none did.)
• Applicability: How many users are likely to use it? Although some specialization is unavoidable, a template that’s useful only to a single government office should generally rank less than one that university students around the world can use.
• Universality: Does the template take into account that OpenOffice.org is used on different operating systems, with different resources? One template in another category was downgraded in the judging partly because it used MS Comic Sans, a font that most users on other operating systems are unlikely to have. In the case of fonts, Arial or Times New Roman would be better choices, and Bitstream Vera, which is bundled with OpenOffice.org, best of all. Failure to consider this problem caused spacing problems that cost several entries.
• Automation: Does the template make full of use of automating features, such as fields, macros, or styles? Does it show off the features of OpenOffice.org? The point of a template is to save time, so the more work it eliminates for users, the better.
• Design: Are aesthetics balanced with functionality? For example, a business card should not only look pleasing to the eye, but give readable information. This balance is hard enough to achieve in a custom card, but in a template, in which the information can vary so widely, it is even more difficult.
• Explanation: Does the template include necessary instructions? Some users explained the template in its pages, and others in notes or the Properties window, but those templates that offered guidance consistently stood out from those that failed to. They also made judges less likely to miss any features.

I rated each entry on a scale of 1 – 5 on each criteria, and, in case of ties or near totals, tried to decide which criteria outweighed others. Other judges may have been less formal.

With these ratings, I divided entries into finalists, possible finalists, and rejected entries. Many rejected entries will still make useful additions to OpenOffice.org, but were simply less inspired than others. Possible finalists might be lacking in one or two areas, but were effective in others. Finalists rated highly, showing an extra degree of effort that often made them stand out immediately.

I went through the finalists and possible finalists one last time, comparing them to each other and reconsidering ratings, until I had eliminated all except three. Then I ranked the top three Writer entries and sent them to the other judges, along with an explanation of why I had chosen them. Other judges did likewise. The final decisions for prizes were made by Russell Ossendryver, in frequent email and telephone consultation with the judges.

In general, judging was amazingly smooth. Sorting through so many creative entries may have been exhausting, but it was also a pleasure. The quality of the Writer entries was especially high, a fact that their over-representation in the prizes and honorable mentions clearly shows. I am already considering volunteering as a judge next year.