[Marketing] first mockup of a rollup banner for booths

[Sean DALY]

OK Christian I hear you, but we do need to communicate our URL... and
doing it that way offers a second instance of "sugar", and a single
instance of the full "sugarlabs" logo.

How else could we do it? stacking:

logo->          sugarlabs
URL->          www.sugarlabs.org

would be too cluttered, no?

The problem really only occurs in banners/OOH and TVC; in print the
logo stands and the URL can be in the text, on the website there's no
need of course.

Sean



On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Christian Marc Schmidt
<christianmarc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>