Re: [Design] Homepage illustration

[Aaron Wolf]

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

Re: [Design] Homepage illustration

[mray]

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 point

Re: [Design] Homepage illustration

[mray]

On 01.10.2015 18:56, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> Thanks Mray for explaning all that, and for letting me know how to get
> current on those discussions that I haven't been following! That all makes
> a lot of sense. I didn't mean to downplay all the hard work you've been
> doing, and I'm sorry if you felt that: I think everything looks amazing and
> I'm so excited for this to be up!
> 

thank you

> When I see something that already looks amazing, I get excited and want to
> help polish it, but I know that I'm not the most informed, involved, or
> experienced voice in this discussion.


I'm glad to see activity in this ML!
You're welcome to voice your opinion as you did. You mentioned your
context and don't make it sound like it has to be your way - so
everything is cool.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Re: [Design] Homepage illustration

[Jonathan Roberts]

Mray,

I spent some time going through all your mock ups on GitHub. I see what you
mean about "referencing the landing page." There are a few very simple
motifs that run through the whole set of mockups: the stylized trees and
sun both show up on other pages, and the focus is very much on Mimi and
Eunice and on the function of each page.

I also see what you mean about this fitting on different screen sizes. The
older graphic would be too much on a smart phone.

I really like what you're doing with those motifs. Is there a middle
ground, where you can add some of the elements of the older design without
going over the top, and then incorporate those elements in the other pages
just like you've done?

To me, five of these elements are:

1)The obvious snowdrift and the entirely cleared road. When you draw a
fight in a comic, you show the aftermath of the punch, rather than the
moment the fist is striking their face. It's just more dramatic that way.

2)The expressions on Mimi and Eunice's faces. "We Did It!" as opposed
to..."I'm not so sure about this" and "I might be crazy."

3)The trees/house being just a bit closer to Mimi and Eunice, but remaining
stylized; not as extravagant as the old mock up. I love the suggestion of
the trees suggesting the "two pines" co-op, but it seems like to push that
reference too hard would clutter it up too much.

4) The "rays" around the sun. It's a friendly sun! Not a desert sun.

5)The jet plane. This scene is happening in my time.

-Jon


On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jonathan Roberts  wrote:

> Just to be clear, I do think the more barren one is still really
> fun...again, I'm being nit-picky: weighing the pros and cons between
> options that are all really wonderful.
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Jonathan Roberts <
> robertsthebr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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  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.
>

Re: [Design] Homepage illustration

[Aaron Wolf]

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 g

Re: [Design] Homepage illustration

[Jonathan Roberts]

Just to be clear, I do think the more barren one is still really
fun...again, I'm being nit-picky: weighing the pros and cons between
options that are all really wonderful.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Jonathan Roberts  wrote:

> 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  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

Re: [Design] Homepage illustration

[Jonathan Roberts]

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  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

Re: [Design] Homepage illustration

[mray]

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.






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Re: [Design] Homepage illustration

[Jonathan Roberts]

Thanks Mray for explaning all that, and for letting me know how to get
current on those discussions that I haven't been following! That all makes
a lot of sense. I didn't mean to downplay all the hard work you've been
doing, and I'm sorry if you felt that: I think everything looks amazing and
I'm so excited for this to be up!

When I see something that already looks amazing, I get excited and want to
help polish it, but I know that I'm not the most informed, involved, or
experienced voice in this discussion.



On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Jonathan Roberts 
wrote:

> Two things that make the new (old?) graphic really work are 1)The
> proximity of the items in the background; the fact that Mimi & Eunice are
> standing relatively close to trees and houses is why it doesn't feel like
> the tundra, and 2)The plane in the sky. That small thing both dates and
> populates the graphic; it tells you this is happening now, in our time, and
> that there are other people around doing other things, which makes the
> graphic feel bigger and more alive.
>
> Jumping off of that idea; what if Mimi And Eunice were standing in Central
> Park? I lived in NYC for a year, and one of my favorite experiences in that
> city was to stand in the middle of central park, or any of the other large
> city parks, and have woods immediately around me, but see the city rising
> above the tree tops. Now, in Portland, I get a similar feeling when I hang
> out on the beaches in Sellwood and can see Portland up the river, far off
> in the distance. To me, inner city parks are some of the coolest and most
> relevant physical commons in the world right now. Why not use that imagery
> here?
>
> "Free the Commons" is perfect. It's like a battle cry.
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 10/01/2015 06:30 AM, mray wrote:
>> > On 30.09.2015 22:33, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> >> I don't want to get too distracted from the core focus on implementing
>> a
>> >> functional site, but I just wanted to share my thoughts briefly.
>> >
>> > It appears to be a good idea to move this to our versioning system, too.
>> > Having topical discussions and opening issues would be much easier that
>> way.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, getting the illustrations into the site design more formally makes
>> sense, and people can work on it from there.
>>
>> > My quick response is:
>> > I'm not after a vivid front page. Nor do I care that much about
>> > aesthetics. I care most about how good the page "works".
>> > To me that means to be a nice entry door to the page:
>> > Be inviting but not be a value of itself.
>> > Guide the user to the next step without distraction.
>> > Flesh out what the general theme of the page will be (white under blue
>> > sky + Mimi & Eunice).
>>
>> I agree that "works" as an entry is higher priority than vividness or
>> aesthetics, but these issues don't necessarily conflict.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> 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
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Design] Homepage illustration

[Jonathan Roberts]

Two things that make the new (old?) graphic really work are 1)The proximity
of the items in the background; the fact that Mimi & Eunice are standing
relatively close to trees and houses is why it doesn't feel like the
tundra, and 2)The plane in the sky. That small thing both dates and
populates the graphic; it tells you this is happening now, in our time, and
that there are other people around doing other things, which makes the
graphic feel bigger and more alive.

Jumping off of that idea; what if Mimi And Eunice were standing in Central
Park? I lived in NYC for a year, and one of my favorite experiences in that
city was to stand in the middle of central park, or any of the other large
city parks, and have woods immediately around me, but see the city rising
above the tree tops. Now, in Portland, I get a similar feeling when I hang
out on the beaches in Sellwood and can see Portland up the river, far off
in the distance. To me, inner city parks are some of the coolest and most
relevant physical commons in the world right now. Why not use that imagery
here?

"Free the Commons" is perfect. It's like a battle cry.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/01/2015 06:30 AM, mray wrote:
> > On 30.09.2015 22:33, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> >> I don't want to get too distracted from the core focus on implementing a
> >> functional site, but I just wanted to share my thoughts briefly.
> >
> > It appears to be a good idea to move this to our versioning system, too.
> > Having topical discussions and opening issues would be much easier that
> way.
> >
>
> Yes, getting the illustrations into the site design more formally makes
> sense, and people can work on it from there.
>
> > My quick response is:
> > I'm not after a vivid front page. Nor do I care that much about
> > aesthetics. I care most about how good the page "works".
> > To me that means to be a nice entry door to the page:
> > Be inviting but not be a value of itself.
> > Guide the user to the next step without distraction.
> > Flesh out what the general theme of the page will be (white under blue
> > sky + Mimi & Eunice).
>
> I agree that "works" as an entry is higher priority than vividness or
> aesthetics, but these issues don't necessarily conflict.
>
> 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.
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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
> >
>
> --
> Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Design] Homepage illustration

[mray]

On 30.09.2015 23:45, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> Four thoughts from a previously silent watcher...
> 
> First, have there been more thoughts about the catchphrase at the top? How
> about "Funding a cooperative culture" - I like the alliteration, and I like
> the sort of subtle subversive suggestion that the current culture is
> somehow not cooperative...
> 

We have pretty much settled with "free the commons" by now. If you are
interested catch up the "Agree on a Slogan" thread.

> Second, I agree about the graphics; the first one is so exciting! And I
> don't think it's too confusing. I think it just needs some playing with
> colors; the snowdrift can appear to be a mountain in the background, rather
> than a drift in the foreground, which makes the shadow on the ground seem
> like a sloppy editing mistake or something. I think some slight tweaking of
> colors or perspective would clear it up though.

The first one is also the older one. Development since then wasn't just
a search for alternatives, but is the result of many iterations of
feedback. If you miss a particular quality in the new that the old does
have please try to describe it more clearly. I don't follow exactly what
your suggestion is.


> 
> Third, I prefer the summary under "a matching patronage system funding a
> free culture"  to the new one. The reason is similar to the graphic; this
> explanation is dynamic and dramatic, where as the new one is relatively
> static. I like that the new one is concise, but it just isn't very fun to
> read...which is, like it or not, going to be important to getting people to
> engage with this. I would change the "with snowdrift.coop" to simply "Now,"
> which I think makes it really exciting; Beforebut NOW! The rest of the
> language could be cleaned up, but I really like that language, rather than
> the relatively pedantic "here's who we are and here's what we do" of the
> new one.

Textual changes might better be discussed separately. I changed the text
on my own behalf and want to stress they are not official or final.

> 
> Fourth, (and this is the least strong reaction of these four), I like that
> the pic of the "network effect" is just right there on the home page; the
> reason is that the first thought I had upon hearing this idea was "how is
> this different than kickstarter?" The most immediate, obvious and relevant
> reason is the network effect. The deeper and more important reasons are
> hard to explain with a simple info graphic, but this one sort of gives the
> viewer an immediate "here's why you should stay on this site and check out
> more rather than just heading over to kickstarter.
> 

I agree that putting it on the first page makes it more prominent.
Unfortunately it also degrades the importance to have it below the
actual landing part and having to let people scroll by the "big action"
button to see it.
Currently it will appear right after the first click on the most
prominent button on the page, which is good enough I think.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Re: [Design] Homepage illustration

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/01/2015 06:30 AM, mray wrote:
> On 30.09.2015 22:33, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> I don't want to get too distracted from the core focus on implementing a
>> functional site, but I just wanted to share my thoughts briefly.
> 
> It appears to be a good idea to move this to our versioning system, too.
> Having topical discussions and opening issues would be much easier that way.
> 

Yes, getting the illustrations into the site design more formally makes
sense, and people can work on it from there.

> My quick response is:
> I'm not after a vivid front page. Nor do I care that much about
> aesthetics. I care most about how good the page "works".
> To me that means to be a nice entry door to the page:
> Be inviting but not be a value of itself.
> Guide the user to the next step without distraction.
> Flesh out what the general theme of the page will be (white under blue
> sky + Mimi & Eunice).

I agree that "works" as an entry is higher priority than vividness or
aesthetics, but these issues don't necessarily conflict.

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.

> 
> 
> 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.

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
> 

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Re: [Design] Homepage illustration

[mray]

On 30.09.2015 22:33, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> I don't want to get too distracted from the core focus on implementing a
> functional site, but I just wanted to share my thoughts briefly.

It appears to be a good idea to move this to our versioning system, too.
Having topical discussions and opening issues would be much easier that way.

My quick response is:
I'm not after a vivid front page. Nor do I care that much about
aesthetics. I care most about how good the page "works".
To me that means to be a nice entry door to the page:
Be inviting but not be a value of itself.
Guide the user to the next step without distraction.
Flesh out what the general theme of the page will be (white under blue
sky + Mimi & Eunice).


I addressed your desire to add more snow to the road though:
http://ur1.ca/nw6cf



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design