On 10/01/2015 10:12 AM, mray 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.
Marginalia stuff does not fundamentally necessarily distract. Depth is good. It is not important that 100% of everything be on the most obvious surface level. I'm not asking for trees and buildings to be surface focus, I'm asking for the context to feel better. I'm not wanting everything filled up either. I agree that we don't want the other pages to feel extremely sparse compared to the landing page, but I really don't like the isolated tundra feeling. > >> >> 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). I'm not asking for "more of everything". I want very specific things, so don't characterize my request as being insensitive to the value of simplicity. I'm not suggesting just "more". > 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. The idea of a path absolutely is connected to a sense of leading somewhere. And trees that *frame* the path actually *increase* the feeling of it being a path. These sorts of images push the center of attention *super strongly* toward "path" https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tree-lined+path&t=canonical&iax=1&ia=images I'm not asking specifically for that sort of image, but the flatness of the path against the flat ground background actually is failing to draw out the feeling of a path as effectively as it should. The current image has the path and the non-path ground way too similar. Adding trees around the path and off in the distance *increases* the framing on the path if we do it right. As is, the path looks pretty arbitrary. We're on a flat wasteland and we could make a path anywhere or just walk in any direction across the snow. > 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. I didn't ask for a tangible destination. I want a *shadowy*, blurry, vague destination. I said in my message about "leave it up to the imagination". The whole point is to so a vague sense of distant destination that lets people imagine whatever they value. The current image doesn't effectively give the feeling that there is some unspecified distant destination at all. > > 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. > It seems to me that you may be imagining me having totally different values and ideas than I actually have. As though you think I'm asking for everything all at once and ignoring your points. What I'm asking for is specific, appropriate, and effective: frame the path with trees better (not in a style that draws excessive attention to the trees), show more blurry vague destination stuff in the far distance for more sense of destination and depth. I'm sure this is doable without losing any of the other qualities we care about. Incidentally, for the overall tundra landscape, just vague topography, like some hills or other things on the sides or some minor forest stuff just makes things better. The feeling we want is that you can't see everything all at once. In the actual tundra, you can just see everything for miles, you understand what is out there. We don't want that. We want to keep a sense that the world is bigger and we haven't seen it all. I'm not asking to *show* everything, I'm asking for the subtle sense that we're in a *place* at all and there are other places beyond where we are. We need *some* sense of place. >>> >>> 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'm not sure the new snow is better. I think if you compare to https://snowdrift.coop/static/img/intro/snowdrift.png or to certain of the earlier drafts of yours… well, it's just not as understandable what's going on with the snow as would be ideal. We need more distinction between background and path. Basically, we need to separate "there is snow" from the feeling of "there's this snowdrift *on* the path", so the sense that the snow on the path stands out from just surrounding landscape snow. >> >> 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. > -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
