[Marketing] first mockup of a rollup banner for booths

[Sean DALY]

OK thanks Eben

Re final output, we are a bit under a time constraint since we need
the banners done for LinuxTag / NECC / FOSSED before the end of the
month... Gary, how do you feel, do you want to take this to the end,
or hand it off?

I agree that sizing the title "sugar" to the width of the other two
words is worth looking at

I'm not sure I agree about the ring position, but I don't feel
strongly about it, i'd just like to see it.

Agree with you Browse/Speak observation

I take your point about the number & position of the Activity icons...
maybe we can lose Memorize which is squarish?

thanks

Sean



On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:51 PM, 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>