OpenIDEO is an open innovation platform. Join our global community to solve big challenges for social good. Sign Up / Login or Learn more


Recent contributions


Contribution list


(2) View all

Recent comments

(2) View all

Hi Ken,
Really appreciate your kinds words and encouragement. Gives us a lot of confidence in the process and the idea itself.
We’ve got some interesting feedback, to which we’ve commented after some good delibration. 
It would be really nice to hear your thoughts on those and while going forward.
Do keep sharing your support and experience!

Hi Josh,
Thank you so very much for your thoughts and feedback. Let me try and speak for the first point after some proper consideration. The variations of the primary symbols for 1. An individual nearing the end of life. 2. The deceased. 3. The place for nearing end of life.
This would indeed serve a functional utility by categorizing/differentiating the people nearing the end of life, from their support structure and the institutions.
But in doing so, don’t we dilute the primary symbol as a whole? From a design POV, a family of symbols (even with slight variations) warrant more attention, in a fragmented manner no less. Also, designing different symbols for the different ‘segments’ (excuse me for the impersonal terminology), might end up bracketing/clustering people, whereas as our primary objective is to make the concept of death universal in nature. Since we want to create a movement, won’t it be more clear (even from a minimum viable product angle) to have one symbol as an anchor? After all, we are trying to alleviate the image of death first and foremost, and not of the people suffering. Is there a merit in this direction? We’re still thinking! So, even though there’s evident benefit in breaking up the symbol into a family, don’t you think we need to weigh the purpose we’re trying to solve?
Would love to hear your thoughts,