[Marketing] first mockup of a rollup banner for booths

[Christian Marc Schmidt]

Let me chime in here--I really don't think we should start using the
logo with the ".org" suffix, it begins to undermine the logo and it
wasn't intended to be used that way. Isn't there another possibility?

Christian

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Eben Eliason <eben.eliason at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Gary -
>>
>> I've had the time to digest this, this is really coming along, I love
>> your Activity icon choices, I think the title does look good centered
>> too. May I make the following suggestions?
>>
>>
>> * Walter had mentioned it might be better for the "sugar" in the title
>> to be the same font size as "learning platform", I'm inclined to agree
>> but would need to look at that to be sure... I'm afraid I haven't had
>> the time to try that directly (I don't have the VAG Rounded Light font
>> yet, I used an online font tester
>> http://www.fonts.com/findfonts/detail.htm?pid=201617 and copy/pasted
>> each word). This would allow us to raise the ring a bit, ideally to
>> the center of the banner; the title won't look top-heavy if the ring
>> is centered vertically
>
> I think that it might work better to size "Sugar" relative to
> "learning platform" so that the lines are justified. Right now, the
> slight difference in line width makes it feel slightly off, and not
> quite intentional. Incidentally, I much prefer the ring to be below
> center, vertically, and would argue that this actually helps with the
> visual balance since the Sugar logo and the ring are the areas of bold
> color and weight.
>
>> * Sugar Labs + URL logo: taking into account Eben and Christian's
>> comments, I do think the "sugar" in that line should be the same color
>> as on top... in our branding, the "sugar" is always the "special"
>
> Actually, I was arguing that it should simply be gray, but the same
> color as the "Sugar" logo at the top if it is colored at all. I don't
> have strong opinion on whether or not we should use the "Sugarlabs"
> logo with the .org suffix. I think it works fine.
>
>> part. I myself feel very confident in adding ".org" to the logo for
>> marketing materials, because 1) the logo part is unchanged, lessening
>> the impact of the ".org", 2) we don't have the ".com" (appears to be
>> squatted by Warm Systems a Norwegian company), so we need to
>> communicate our URL, 3) I leave off the "www.", making an exception to
>> the "www.sugarlabs.org" rule we use in marketing/press materials; so
>> as not to fight the logo - a URL needs to be as short as possible on
>> "ephemeral" media such as TVC, or a banner someone will walk past -
>> comparable to out-of-home adverts. Examples of this practice are
>> common in TVC, I have attached one, one of the final frames of a Nivea
>> TVC from France, note that the typography in the URL matches the logo
>> and their use of lowercase "www." and ".fr" to avoid fighting the
>> logo. Note the logo font used in "NOUVEAU" too. Although the double
>> appearance of their logo (reinforced by the NOUVEAU overlay) is
>> "redundant", this redundancy is very effective in branding.
>>
>>
>> * I agree with Fred, we have a bit too much blue in our avatars, Speak
>> icon, Browse icon in the center... is it difficult to change those
>> colors?
>
> I'd recommend keeping the colors of the Browse icon in the center. It
> was a conscious decision to make this match the Sugar logo on my part,
> because I think it helps guide one's eye down through the focal points
> of the banner.
>
> Removing this color from the Speak icon is probably the way to go.
>
>>
>> * The TurtleArt icon could have a peppier fill color maybe?
>>
>>
>> * Speak: could he be off to the left, looking longingly at the banner
>> title? Will direct passersby's gazes to the title ;-)
>
> I think the space is starting too look a bit cluttered with all the
> activity icons. Could we drop one or two of them? I think the biggest
> issue for me is that, due to the limited space, these icons
> approximate a ring, creating a concentric effect, which is the
> opposite of what we want. It should convey a portion of a plane strewn
> with activities, and ironically I found fewer activities to convey
> that more effectively. Perhaps some rearrangement could also mitigate
> the double-ring effect.
>
> Also, there seems to have been some corruption of the memorize icon.
> It looks like a solid block instead of individual tiles.
>
>>
>> Let me know how I can help you... standing by to download and transmit
>> the font(s)
>
> I think Christian or I could probably produce the final output for
> this, if needed. We can certainly get the right fonts into the hands
> of the right people in the long run, of course.
>
> Eben
>
>> Sean
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Gary C Martin <gary at garycmartin.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Federick,
>>>
>>> On 3 Jun 2009, at 03:12, Frederick Grose wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Gary,
>>>>
>>>> The banner looks good, but seems to be heavy on dark blue strokes.
>>>
>>> Thanks, I was following the previous png mock-up colour for colour, apart
>>> from one XO icon change request (to pink outline and green fill), and some
>>> extra Activity icons.
>>>
>>> Your PNGs were definitely more vibrant (and used sRGB IEC61966-2.1) than the
>>> previous mockup PNGs. Did my PDF colour generally look OK/'expected' and not
>>> washed out (other than being a bit heavy on the dark blue strokes)? Just
>>> wanted to check as Walter reported he was seeing washed out colours relative
>>> to what he expected to see on screen – sounds like different profile/gamma
>>> issue but not sure if this was an issue with the original PNG that I was
>>> working from.
>>>
>>>> I've attached some of my favorite color pairs (snapped off the screen of
>>>> SoaS in VirtualBox).
>>>
>>> Thanks, yes these are a more strong/saturated set of colours than the other
>>> PDF mock-ups, will need to see feedback from others on the colour issue...
>>>
>>> Eben/Sean: can you confirm the colour profile on your two previous mock-ups
>>> was right/expected (rollup_mockup1 & rollup_mockup2, PNGs both had the same
>>> "ibook" profile and were a little soft on the saturation vs. Fredericks
>>> images)?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> --Gary
>>>
>>>> I used Walter's xoEditor,
>>>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activities/XoEditor, for some, but had to use
>>>> gconf-editor for the YellowPink combination (while the PinkYellow
>>>> combination was possible in xoEditor).  I wish there was a direct stoke/fill
>>>> inversion method, such as a inverted XO in a fixed position in the
>>>> alternative row.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for all the contributions,    --Fred
>>>>
>>>> <BlueOrange2XO.PNG><PurpleGreenXO.PNG><BlueYellowXO2.PNG><PinkYellow.PNG><YellowPink.PNG><PinkBlueXO.PNG><YellowGreen.PNG><GreenYellowXO.PNG><PurpleOrangeXO.PNG><OrangePurple.PNG><YellowRedXO.PNG><RedYellowXO.PNG><BlueOrangeXO.PNG>_______________________________________________
>>>> Marketing mailing list
>>>> Marketing at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
>>>
>>>
>>
>



-- 
anything at christianmarcschmidt.com

http://www.christianmarcschmidt.com

917/ 575 0013