Re: [Design] shirt colors

[Jonathan Roberts]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/10/2015 05:23 PM, mray wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11.12.2015 00:20, Diana Connolly wrote:
> >> Ok, I just talked to April at mill and I'm sending her more information
> via
> >> email so she can put together an idea of cost.
> >> As far as colors go, the shirt color doesn't matter at all. We could
> have
> >> one of every color and it wouldn't change the cost.
> >> There is a set up fee of $25 for one color, and you get one color change
> >> free.
> >> So we could do two shirt colors with different inks with no additional
> cost.
> >>
> >> Things that affect the costs are screens, ink changes, ink underlays if
> >> needed and shirts. Currently we have three designs to screen - logo and
> two
> >> cartoons. I'll let you know when I get more information.
> >>
> >> The next question is mostly for Robert - Do you envision any multi-color
> >> design at all?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Thanks Diana for your input and research!
> >
> > I think that printing just one color is the safest and cheapest way to
> > go. Given that a second color would only be used to add shading I don't
> > see the need for it. I'd only consider it for no extra cost.
> >
> > As a quick reference I threw together some shirt-ink combinations that
> > made sense to look.
> >
> > I think your palette opens a space for more exciting shirts but I also
> > think we should remain as close to a Snowdrift-ish look as possible.
> >
> > Having different cartoons on light/dark shirts is a result of the shovel
> > being impractical on extra background, but then again I like the idea of
> > having "light" and "dark" in more than one sense. I actually like that
> > subtle restriction.
> >
> > Spacing and size isn't final, just this together before going to bed.
> > All in all I think the combinations with most contrast are winners, gray
> > interestingly turns out to be even more problematic than I anticipated.
> >
> > Does anybody miss a combination?
> > What are your favorites?
>

Bottom middle in Robert's mock up is my favorite dark, and upper right in
Aaron's mock up is my favorite light.

> >
> >
>
> Nice work mocking this up. I think the low-contrast bolder-blue shirt
> doesn't work and the medium-gray with white printing doesn't work, just
> not enough contrast.
>
> I like the first in each row best initially, but then I also kinda like
> the top right if it just had a little more contrast, either or both
> slightly darker blue or larger size for the items on the back. It's a
> little harder to read, but the color combination is nice aesthetically.
>
> I think the two shirts with the dark being the angrier one and the light
> being the shovel one, that's nice enough, even though it doesn't give
> people the option of preferring a dark shirt and the more mild design.
>
> Otherwise, I'm not loving the light blue as the light shirt. So, I made
> some mockups quickly with the other shirts, the Cream, Sand, and Light
> Gray. I'm not sure what the back-image was from the site, looks like a
> light version of the Heather Gray. Anyway, I'd like to hear from others,
> but I think I prefer the Light Gray overall as the light shirt, and I
> like the Cream and Sand options too. See my attached file.
>
> Aaron
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] project page

[Jonathan Roberts]

All my dreams! Thanks!

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Michel <stephen.mic...@tufts.edu>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Jonathan Roberts <
> robertsthebr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Stephen. This is extremely helpful. How do I access a site map so I
> don't have to keep asking these kinds of questions? The only way I know to
> find these pages right now is to stumble through a chain of clickable terms
> starting at the home page till I get to the relevant page.
>
>
> It's not everything, but the wiki directory covers a lot:
> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Stephen Michel <stephen.mic...@tufts.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Jonathan Roberts <
>> robertsthebr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mray, I hear your concern; you don't want people to be "tricked" into
>> buying into this system or to do it because it's a fun gimmick. However, I
>> don't think this representation crosses that line. I think it is a blunt
>> presentation of why this system is so effective. Yes, some people will feel
>> things about it that aren't as idealistic as we want people to feel. So it
>> goes.
>>
>> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/limits is super helpful and
>> contains really well thought out possibilities
>>
>> Again...I know this is a new question and maybe it deserves a new thread,
>> but is there any discussion about paying for a high volume of transfers of
>> very small amounts of money?
>>
>>
>> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/transactions
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:43 PM, mray <m...@mray.de> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18.10.2015 21:18, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 10/18/2015 12:09 PM, mray wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On 18.10.2015 09:47, Jacob Chapman wrote:
>>> >>> https://img.bi/#/RCmUlLW!XJcF_0gW1TKIEhMR59pFJQwpVPv_6YwlrJSRHI8n
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We really need to emphasize the matching aspect of pledges to
>>> encourage
>>> >>> patrons to pledge.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> The problem with the match factor is that it is always the same, so
>>> >> there is no real benefit in constantly reminding a user what it is.
>>> >> It also is just an invitation to start calculating in the head - which
>>> >> I'd like to avoid at all costs.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > To be clear: despite your wishes for simplicity, we have not come to a
>>> > consensus about the idea of removing the ability to pledge lower or
>>> > higher levels. I recognize that the complexity of people pledging at
>>> > levels above the minimum is an issue, but I still feel that there are a
>>> > wide range of levels of wealth and it just does *not* make sense to
>>> > ignore that and force everyone to only have a single pledge level. All
>>> > other patronage models that people will compare to have different
>>> levels
>>> > of donation for wealthier or less wealthy patrons.
>>> >
>>> > If we accept, as I still feel we should, that the pledge is X per
>>> patron
>>> > rather than everyone at the identical minimum pledge, then the amount
>>> of
>>> > matching *isn't* absolutely fixed. Wealthier pledges mean more matching
>>> > for new patrons.
>>>
>>> My point is that even with a changing match factor your interaction
>>> remains binary: either you pledge (your amount X) or you don't.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>   We should not make people calculate.
>>> >>
>>> >> They should see what is happening and what the results of their
>>> possible
>>> >> action would be, and formulas don't really lend themselves neither to
>>> >> emphasize nor to encourage (at least the vast majority).
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > I agree that we should have no formulas and calculation factors. We
>>> > should just show that you pledging means $Y more for the project and
>>> > costs you $X. In other words, it's a *big* deal to actually learn that
>>> > at this lower cost, you are effectively getting this *specific* higher
>>> > amount of funds to the project.
>>>
>>> I don't see a particular benefit from this. there is just not enough
>>> variation. The informat

Re: [Design] project page

[Jonathan Roberts]

The math is unclear to me as well. I think it needs to be clear to the
average viewer.

I think Aaron's suggestion would be more clear as well. You could have a
link on the page that goes to a page that explains the equation thoroughly
for those who want it.

Related question. How are we handling transfer fees for such small amounts
of money?

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/18/2015 12:47 AM, Jacob Chapman wrote:
> > https://img.bi/#/RCmUlLW!XJcF_0gW1TKIEhMR59pFJQwpVPv_6YwlrJSRHI8n
> >
> > We really need to emphasize the matching aspect of pledges to encourage
> > patrons to pledge.
> >
>
> I agree, but I think the best presentation says basically, "at this
> time, you will add X, and the project will get Y more from everyone else
> in matching" or something to that effect, emphasizing the cost to you
> and the amount of matching more than just the total, although the total
> is worth showing too.
>
> I think the squared symbol is a bit confusing, we don't want to present
> it that way, and it's not how it works either. The matching is quadratic
> not exponential.
>
>
> > Also I suggest we use /mo rather than /mth.
> >
>
> Agreed, the site itself uses "mo" currently, although the design mockup
> is different.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Jacob
> > ___
> > 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] Let's Talk about Feedback & Landing Page Goal Discussion

[Jonathan Roberts]

But they might show just a really killer nice nature scene on their landing
page, to make the viewer feel excited, hopeful and ready to go deeper...a
halfway cleaned up scene is just not as inspiring, though I could see later
pages showing those in order to communicate more pragmatically what the
actual status of a clean up is.

I think the landing page should be mostly about getting the viewer to feel
excited to engage more, rather than about getting across a perfectly clean
or nuanced metaphor or a deep or complete vision of every facet of a
project.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> wrote:

>
>
> On 10/07/2015 03:08 PM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> > I think the primary element that makes the old image effective is the
> > timeline: it's showing you the finished project. The huge snowdrift
> > beside the cleared road shows it, Mimi and Eunices faces show it, and
> > the general vibe is that "The way has been cleared!" rather than
> > "everything's still bleak and covered with snow." The surrounding
> > atmosphere also confirms all of this; the friendly sun, the plane flying
> > by, the vibrant trees. This world is alive and well on it's way to
> > positive change, not still stuck in a pre-snowdrift.coop
> > <http://pre-snowdrift.coop> malaise. A graphic where everything is still
> > covered with snow is just not as exciting, hopeful, or effective in
> > getting the metaphor across.
> >
> > If our metaphor was something having to do with defeating villians,
> > would we be showing a graphic with a bunch of villains towaring over the
> > hero, or showing the hero just winding up his punch? No! We would be
> > showing the villains flying in all directions from the hero's punches,
> > or lying defeated in a pile with the hero standing over them!
> >
> > So ya...to me all this discussion about whether there should or
> > shouldn't be trees is like arguing about whether the hero should be
> > wearing a cape or not. I think it's irrelevant, and I think the point in
> > the timeline we're showing is the actual missing element.
> >
>
> I think the feeling we want is one that says there's good promise, good
> progress, but lots to do, and we need to work together to get it done,
> *will we do it?*… i.e. a middle-ground in the time-line, partly cleared,
> reason for both optimism and concern, much to do still.
>
> Think of any other political movement like an environmentalist
> organization. They wouldn't show *just* images of pollution and horror,
> but neither would they just nice nature scenes.
>
>
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop
> > <mailto:aa...@snowdrift.coop>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/07/2015 01:41 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> > > Aside from my particular responses below, I'd really like to focus
> > this
> > > conversation on one question: What are our goals for the landing
> > page? I
> > > think once we're all 100% on the same page for that, it'll be much
> > > easier to iterate on specifics.
> > >
> > > - In 1 second, get an arbitrary internet user emotionally invested
> in
> > > Snowdrift.coop.
> > >   - "Together, we can uncover this awesome thing that's currently
> > being
> > > suppressed."
> > > - Encourage users to proceed deeper into the site
> > >   - At the moment, this is by clicking the one big button on the
> > front.
> > > - Maintain visual consistency with the rest of the site.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop
> > <mailto:aa...@snowdrift.coop>> wrote:
> > >> On 10/07/2015 12:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In the context of our recent discussion
> > >>
> >  <
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/pipermail/design/2015-September/96.html>
> > >> about the home page... Here's a pretty common thing that
> happens
> > >> in communication between a user (Bob) and a designer (Alice).
> > >> *Bob's Perspective:* Bob wants to give Alice some feedback
> about
> > >> an email application he uses. Bob keeps hitting the delete
> button
> > >> when he means to hit the save button. He wants to give good
> > >> feedback, so he brainstorms a bit, and finally tells Alice
> > that he
> > >>

Re: [Design] Let's Talk about Feedback & Landing Page Goal Discussion

[Jonathan Roberts]

Sounds like we're on the same page...

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Stephen Michel <stephen.mic...@tufts.edu>
wrote:

>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Jonathan Roberts <
> robertsthebr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But they might show just a really killer nice nature scene on their
> landing page, to make the viewer feel excited, hopeful and ready to go
> deeper...a halfway cleaned up scene is just not as inspiring, though I
> could see later pages showing those in order to communicate more
> pragmatically what the actual status of a clean up is.
>
> I think the landing page should be mostly about getting the viewer to feel
> excited to engage more, rather than about getting across a perfectly clean
> or nuanced metaphor or a deep or complete vision of every facet of a
> project.
>
>
> They might. They might also show a picture of people cleaning up a beach.
> The people are halfway done, and one half of the beach looks pristine while
> the other half, not so much.
>
> I do agree, however, that some element of excitement is necessary to
> convey the sense of "this is why we're doing this," that the current
> version does not convey. Of course, this will be counterbalanced by the
> desire to keep the entire site visually consistent. Which then begs the
> question, if we want the home page to be more vibrant, does that also
> require adjustment of the other pages?
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 10/07/2015 03:08 PM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
>> > I think the primary element that makes the old image effective is the
>> > timeline: it's showing you the finished project. The huge snowdrift
>> > beside the cleared road shows it, Mimi and Eunices faces show it, and
>> > the general vibe is that "The way has been cleared!" rather than
>> > "everything's still bleak and covered with snow." The surrounding
>> > atmosphere also confirms all of this; the friendly sun, the plane flying
>> > by, the vibrant trees. This world is alive and well on it's way to
>> > positive change, not still stuck in a pre-snowdrift.coop
>> > <http://pre-snowdrift.coop> malaise. A graphic where everything is
>> still
>> > covered with snow is just not as exciting, hopeful, or effective in
>> > getting the metaphor across.
>> >
>> > If our metaphor was something having to do with defeating villians,
>> > would we be showing a graphic with a bunch of villains towaring over the
>> > hero, or showing the hero just winding up his punch? No! We would be
>> > showing the villains flying in all directions from the hero's punches,
>> > or lying defeated in a pile with the hero standing over them!
>> >
>> > So ya...to me all this discussion about whether there should or
>> > shouldn't be trees is like arguing about whether the hero should be
>> > wearing a cape or not. I think it's irrelevant, and I think the point in
>> > the timeline we're showing is the actual missing element.
>> >
>>
>> I think the feeling we want is one that says there's good promise, good
>> progress, but lots to do, and we need to work together to get it done,
>> *will we do it?*… i.e. a middle-ground in the time-line, partly cleared,
>> reason for both optimism and concern, much to do still.
>>
>> Think of any other political movement like an environmentalist
>> organization. They wouldn't show *just* images of pollution and horror,
>> but neither would they just nice nature scenes.
>>
>>
>> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop
>> > <mailto:aa...@snowdrift.coop>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10/07/2015 01:41 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> > > Aside from my particular responses below, I'd really like to focus
>> > this
>> > > conversation on one question: What are our goals for the landing
>> > page? I
>> > > think once we're all 100% on the same page for that, it'll be much
>> > > easier to iterate on specifics.
>> > >
>> > > - In 1 second, get an arbitrary internet user emotionally
>> invested in
>> > > Snowdrift.coop.
>> > >   - "Together, we can uncover this awesome thing that's currently
>> > being
>> > > suppressed."
>> > > - Encourage users to proceed deeper into the site
>> > >   - At the moment, this is by clicking the one big button on the
>> > 

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

[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 <robertsthebr...@gmail.com>
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 <aa...@snowdrift.coop> 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 <https://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]

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]

One more thought. I do like what's being communicated in the new
summary...just wish it was in that more dynamic format. I also like that
the dynamic format explains why this is different in the "before" sentence.

"Before, publicly funded creative projects have been primarily proprietary:
owned and controlled by an individual, despite being made possible by the
public. Now, the community is taking over, funding sustainable, freely
licensed projects that continue to serve and be shared by us all."

Ya...I really like alliteration. The more I have of it, the more I want.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Jonathan Roberts <robertsthebr...@gmail.com
> 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...
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -Jon
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> 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.
>>
>> In
>>
>> https://github.com/mray/Snowdrift-Design/blob/master/mray%20website%20mockups%20/older%20exports/export.png
>>
>> There's just so much LIFE, sense of engagement that the current final
>> draft is missing. That first draft is too hard to tell what is going on
>> with the paths that go side to side and back into the picture. But there
>> are three elements I really like:
>>
>> * the more high piled snow that makes it seem a little more substantial
>> * the twin pines that are both aesthetically nice, engaging, and nice
>> metaphor of the classic co-op twin pines
>> * the vague shadowed sense of stuff off in the distance left to the
>> imagination
>>
>> In comparison,
>>
>> https://github.com/mray/Snowdrift-Design/blob/master/mray%20website%20mockups%20/export30/landing.png
>>
>> Is clear, focused, tons of improvements. However, everything is a bit
>> flat now. It doesn't show a snowDRIFT, it just shows fallen snow. A
>> drift is when the snow piles up because the wind has made it all pile up
>> more. I miss the slight sense of piled up snow and more substantial
>> obstacle.
>>
>> The landscape overall feels like barren wasteland. We're in the tundra,
>> in some desolate town in Siberia. This could be solved if we had more
>> shadowed distant buildings and such off in the far distance, a whole
>> potential destination that people can imagine getting to eventually. And
>> I want more trees, lots of trees, I want the sense that I'm in a
>> temperate area with trees, like where people actually live, not in the
>> tundra. It just needs distant forests, and bring back the twin pines.
>> It's ve