I’ve been doing some thinking and experimenting with the way I structure contractor feedback and I have some slight tweaks I’d like to share. Here’s my new template:

[Absolute asset name] ([Iterative asset filename)]) – [Positive Feedback]
[Referencepaintover image filename]
– [Locational callout] – [Feedback]

Instead of using absolute asset names, I’ve been using the filename of the submitted asset. It’s been fine for tracking individual submitted asset names, but it doesn’t work well if they vary slightly from the asset’s true name. From now on I’m going to give each asset a rigid asset name, and then reference in parenthesis the name of the submitted file, AKA the iterative asset filename.

Example:

Mutant_Cave_Dweller (Mutant_Cave_Dweller_wip_05.jpg)

Furthermore, anytime I include a reference image, I’m going to call it out immediately below the absolute asset name and the iterative asset filename. Below that goes the feedback.

Example:

Mutant_Cave_Dweller (Mutant_Cave_Dweller_wip_05.jpg) – This looks great! I dig the gnarled knuckles and callouses on his hands.
– REFERENCE: Mutant_Cave_Dweller_leg_paintover.jpg
– LEG: Refer to Mutant_Cave_DWeller_leg_paintover.jpg to see the changes I made to the leg. Specifically…

This’ll make it easier to search through my feedback text files for the history of a single asset. Granted, I’d much rather have a centralized asset database that I can track all these through, because what I am doing could be streamlined further with a system like that. I’m still figuring out the best way to handle that on my own. For the scale of production I’m dealing with, though, I tend to avoid solutions that are more complex than the problem at hand. It’s easy to forget all the additional overhead required for the compliance with and maintenance of that system. 🙂

Thoughts, anyone?