[Marketing] first mockup of a rollup banner for booths

[Christian Marc Schmidt]

Eben, that seems fine to me. Maybe I wasn't looking at the latest
mockup (there were a few in the meantime). No, as long as the
"sugarlabs.org" type is all gray, I think we're fine...


Christian


On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Eben Eliason <eben.eliason at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see a problem with setting "sugarlabs.org" in VAG, actually. I
> think it only infringes upon the logo if the "Sugar" part is rendered
> as a colored stroke/fill. What do you think, Christian? Can we add the
> all gray "sugarlabs.org" to the identity framework?
>
> Eben
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Christian Marc Schmidt
> <christianmarc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I guess separating them might be best. If you can wait another day, I
>> can take a look at it this evening? Sorry to be coming late to this,
>> but I'd like to help if possible.
>>
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Sean DALY <sdaly.be at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> anything at christianmarcschmidt.com
>>
>> http://www.christianmarcschmidt.com
>>
>> 917/ 575 0013
>>
>



-- 
anything at christianmarcschmidt.com

http://www.christianmarcschmidt.com

917/ 575 0013