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.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list [email protected] https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
