Those are really good points... What do you think about my point, that the average person isn't going to see all that symbolism, but is just going to have a much more visceral "is this fun or not?" reaction? I tell ya...people these days...to much content, not enough attention span...
What if the graphic doesn't "work" at the symbolic levels you point out, but does give people a feeling that "this place is safe and fun and I want to stay here and listen to what these folks have to say?" -Jon On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:12 AM, mray <m...@mray.de> wrote: > > > On 01.10.2015 17:29, Aaron Wolf wrote: > > I agree that "works" as an entry is higher priority than vividness or > > aesthetics, but these issues don't necessarily conflict. > > My point is that they do conflict in my eyes. > You want more wood which isn't a topical thing but "completes" a picture > in your head. To me the whole "snow" theme has a point, while "forest > and trees" does not. It is about stylistic consistency and focus on the > message. The "emptiness" you notice is the same you will experience on > the other mainly white pages, I want to anticipate that and be able to > reference the landing page in style and in feeling later on when pages > are more boring. > > > > > I think the barren wasteland feeling is actually negative. I might > > dabble with updating things myself ever. I really insist that my two > > other concerns be addressed: more buildings / destination in the > > distance; more trees and landscape that makes this feel like familiar > > and desireable place, not the tundra. > > When covered in snow everything is a "barren wasteland", and > things that stick out *despite* the snow-cover steal focus instantly. > Having more of everything makes it easier to have nice illustration but > harder to get along a point (and harder to fit on different screen > sizes, too). > Let's not forget this isn't even about the snow - it is about *clearing > the path*, destination and trees don't play a role. > Having a more tangible destination makes things even harder, you don't > know what others regard desirable. We also can't promise that the way we > clear leads to a golden future for everybody. > > My conclusion is that what you ask for tries to do too much and achieve > too little. I prefer boiling it down to what matters and have *that* work. > > >> > >> I addressed your desire to add more snow to the road though: > >> http://ur1.ca/nw6cf > >> > > > > I'm not sure that particular touch-up is good, it doesn't get the "pile > > of snow" feeling as well as either the earlier mockups or the > > https://snowdrift.coop/static/img/intro/snowdrift.png illustration. It's > > hard to pin down why, but that illustration I made (which was based on a > > photograph incidentally) achieves a stronger sense of substantial > > obstacle, although I also like the sense that the Mimi & Eunice > > illustrations have that there's snow to clear for a good long ways down > > the road, not just this singular snowdrift to clear. > > > > Anyway, the new update doesn't quite have the clarity about the > > snowdrift that would be ideal. > > but is it better than the version before? > > > > > I also think Jon and Stephen have some good points, although I don't > > agree with Stephen that we need a "professional" font, I think the new > > font choice is fine. I also think we should go ahead with mocking things > > up with the new "Free the Commons" slogan candidate. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Design mailing list > Design@lists.snowdrift.coop > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design > >
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
