On 03.11.2015 12:19, Jason Harrer wrote: > On Nov 3, 2015 3:08 AM, "mray" <m...@mray.de> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 02.11.2015 03:32, Aaron Wolf wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11/01/2015 05:54 PM, mray wrote: >>>> Hello Everybody, >>>> >>>> based on the discussions in IRC about responsive/mobile-first >>>> implementation of snowdrift.coop there are some new mockups! >>>> I also updated the landing page and the project pledge button area a >>>> bit. Please open a new thread for comments on that. >>>> Only reply for the responsive parts in this thread please. >>>> >>>> > https://github.com/mray/Snowdrift-Design/tree/master/mray%20website%20mockups%20/current >>>> >>>> (v37) >>>> >>>> (I renamed "Discover" to "Browse" since Discover and Search are too > close.) >>>> >>>> What did I miss? >>>> What is not going to work? >>>> What can be done better - and how? >>>> >>>> Looking forward to feedback, >>>> >>>> >>>> Robert >>>> >>> >>> This is a new thread for the design details notes. >>> >>> Some items: progress is neat looking overall. I like the better image of >>> crowd of characters instead of the grid that looked too much like a >>> statistical graph of some sort. >>> >>> Regarding the more forest look and the city in the distance, it's got >>> some good elements. I think the trees are a bit too stylized to figure >>> out what's going on, what they are. They don't have enough tree-like >>> features. I wish I could express this more clearly, but I like the >>> direction and yet it just needs something different to make it easier to >>> immediately recognize what we're seeing. >> >> I think I know what you miss. You want trees and I'm giving you white >> silhouettes. The point is: we seem to be after different things. >> Trees are just the means to an end, our snowdrift could as well be in >> the middle of a town without trees. >> I want to make the first impression NOT after secondary stuff. The stark >> contrast between foreground and background is by design. We have two >> heroes that are shovelling away lots and lots of snow, that is what you >> need to recognize immediately when looking at the landing page. Less so >> the trees. >> >>> >>> I still would like to have more of a bank of snow on the side of the >>> road, maybe both sides, just a better sense of dimension where one can >>> get the idea of the snowdrift more clearly, like how my drawing on the >>> current live intro has a sense that there's some high snow right up >>> close. What you have is already better though vs before. >>> >> >> The main quality of a massive bank of snow like in your early image is >> that they block the view. So this necessarily comes at the cost of the >> scenery that could be seen otherwise, we can't have lots of both. >> >> >>> I think "Join us in setting the world free!" mostly detracts from the >>> slogan since it is the same sort of message but just more wordy and >>> different. I also think the "Let's clear the path" text is redundant to >>> the button text (and I like 'Let's clear…' better). >> >> I think you are absolutely right, the text does not fit in this form. >> >>> >>> I think we should reconsider the existence and details about the big >>> landing page button. I've never really liked a wordy button that says >>> "how we clear the path". And the "how it works" thing is prominent >>> enough now in the navbar. >> >> I'd be happy if we can find any less wordy button text. >> >>> >>> The thing I think I'd like to see is some sort of indication about the >>> metaphor that gets at "what is the snowdrift dilemma?" or something like >>> that, where the "how it works" part describes our solution, and the key >>> item we otherwise are pointing people to is about getting them to >>> recognize the problem in the first place. >>> >> >> Explaining our theme clearly is a secondary goal. >> As long as it does not interfere much with the mechanisms to get to our >> primary goal I'm happy to heat about suggestions. >> I think the whole "Why that name" issue can be dealt with in a FAQ or >> some place else - not the landing page. >> >>> On the pledging view and elsewhere: you have a real problem with the >>> word "patron"? We went around discussing this a long while back and felt >>> that term was the clearest, despite no term being perfect. You seem to >>> be avoiding it. I see "co-donor" (which I don't really like) and >>> "supporter" and "supporters" which is fine but isn't the term we've been >>> using. Is there something wrong in your view with "patrons"? >>> >> >> No, I don' hold a specific grudge about that word. I do have my issues >> with finding a name for what we need to describe. >> I also think we lack catchy terminology in general. Like "flattr a >> thing" can easily be used in any context. Would be gread if we had a >> "snowdrift a project" equivalent that made sense and was catchy. > > "Grab a shovel"? "Start shoveling"? Something to do with a shovel, > implying that they are the ones about to perform the action of assisting > with the removal of the snowdrift. >
I don't like the shovel analogy. A shovel is such a broadly used tool and it could as well stand for digging a grave or otherwise mess around in the dirt. The advantage of made-up names is you can just invent that stuff as well. Maybe snow plowing is something to borrow from? https://youtu.be/Yja2VmZOfdA?t=47 >> >> Similarly Donor, Patron and Supporter all fall short of what we need. >> First: we need something that can be used consistently in any context. >> Second: all those terms suggest roles that totally miss our network >> effect angle, and in general any tie to our system specifically. >> Patreon kind of claimed a term already, Donor can be anybody with a >> paypal account and Supporters can be people that contribute >> translations, too. We would need an equivalent for "Snowdrifter", >> ideally highlighting the interconnectedness of people that share the >> value of FLO and one project specifically. >> Why not invent a word that gives us "I'm a Snowdrifter" and "I >> snowdrifted that thing." ? >> > > How about simply "drifter"? I know it can have other connotations, but > given the name of the site, I don't think people would automatically > assumable wrong connotation. > It is not part of my active vocabulary - so do native speakers not associate this with bad qualities? >> >>> Anyway, the "Inkscape recieves" numbers don't make any sense to me, but >>> we'll have accurate numbers when we have the live site working. >>> >> >> What exactly does not make sense? >> >>> Mostly, looking great! >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
