On 10/01/2015 01:58 PM, mray wrote: > > > On 01.10.2015 20:00, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> >> >> 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. > > In a snow-covered landscape they tend to do very quickly. > >> 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 just see how additional things water down our message. > >> 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. > > I'm with you here, that is why there is a house. > >> And trees that *frame* the path actually *increase* the >> feeling of it being a path. > > And here you lost me. My point is: trees are not part of the metaphor. > You want to throw in lots of them right in the middle just so that we > have a more path-ish path. If the path needs to be more distinct I'd try > other things first. > I think the signpost and the lane markings on the road are enough. > >> 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. > > I don't think we have to rely on things that scream THIS IS AN IMPORTANT > PATH! If the illustration is that bad in showing a road that needs > clearing we better start from scratch. > >> >>> 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. > > .. vague sense of distant destination > .. imagine whatever they value > .. shadowy > .. blurry > .. vague > > That's indeed not what a house at the end of a snowed in path is. > I don't have the slightest idea what you want to see on the > illustration, but then you sound as if you don't either. > >> >>> >>> 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. > > I think our values and ideas are well aligned. > I question what you ask for is specific or effective, though. > I already removed trees for efficiency and "blurry vague destination > stuff in the far distance" isn't specific. > >> >> 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. > > You forget that we have a huge horizon, making any group of trees (even > in the background) "isles of trees" and hills being "the hills" as > separate entities. Adding more does *not* just make things better > automatically. > >> 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. >> > > This does not make sense to me. It sounds like a philosophical version > of "show it but hide it". > >>>>> >>>>> 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. > > Why not? > >> 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. >>> >> > > I think we have reached a level where you want me to do things that I > don't see. And I don't want my bias to interfere with your ideas, which > is why I suggest you show me what you mean in *any* visual form. Maybe > this is yet another misunderstanding that needs not to take more time > since we mostly agree on things and discuss details here. > >
I agree, I and/or someone else needs to figure out how to sketch better representation of what I'm getting at. I agree our ideals are aligned here. My biggest problem with what you wrote above is the idea of "a house". I think a distant mountain or distant forest or distant city or distant neighborhood with a bunch of houses… all of that seems like a real place but vague and open to interpretation. The *single* house doesn't get the social feeling across as well. I liked in earlier illustrations where there were some houses way further and more shadowed. I also felt that some of the earlier illustrations had a better sense of snow due to more depth and shadow and such, so I just miss that, and the new extra snow doesn't have enough sense of shadow and depth. I *think* that's the issue. Regarding trees and landscape, I think anything that breaks up the flatness, even just hills in the distance and such like that would be good. I just don't like the super flat feel. I'll work on sketches maybe sometime soon. Thanks for your patience with the feedback -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
