First version posted:
Elizabeth’s tutorial edit:
Take two for me, 10/16, trying out a different font and using a gradient:
I really like both this and the beaker image! Both are funny and I think will help a lot to explain what quoiromantic actually means. I hope you don’t mind me ranting about design a bit.
On spatial distribution: you want to consider the design principles of alignment and proximity. A strong alignment throughout the entire image looks a lot better than trying to just wing it, so I would recommend using a ruler to align all parts of the text together. If you break the alignment, you want to break it REALLY OBVIOUSLY and keep everything else in the same alignment, so it doesn’t look like a mistake. And you want to strongly group the parts that go together
The other two basic principles of design are contrast and repetition. (CRAP is a mnemonic you can use to remember these.) You’re good with repetition, but I think it’d look way better to go bolder with the contrast. The cyan and the green colors are too similar to one another, so right next to one another like that they clash, and sorta look like a mistake. I also think the weight of the fonts are too similar, so they sort of clash as well. I’d pair it with a much lighter sans serif font. The most important words are the ones you want to put contrast on, and you can play with the size of the text to emphasize words, too.
I made a quick version of this so that you can see what I’m talking about. I made the cyan a little darker (maybe a bit too dark?) because I didn’t want those to be the brightest parts of the image, since quoiromantic is the most important word, so it should stand out the most. And I put a gradient overlay of the cyan > green to include both colors in a way that doesn’t clash.
For some reason I didn’t get a notification of this comment so I’m just now seeing this?
Anyway, thanks a bunch!
What font did you use for that version, btw?
Uhhh… apparently Century Gothic and Chaparral Pro. The latter was just to get one that was really similar to the top black font you used, and it probably would’ve been better as the exact same font.
Maybe also keeping the same font for all the stuff on the black background- if you want the quoiromantic bit to stand out, maybe bold it?
Kay. I’ll have time to mess with it later today.
hm hm hmmmm — for quoisexual, would you say it’s sexual orientation, or sexual attraction, that doesn’t make sense? (or both?) and does that parallel quoiro exactly, or mostly, or a little?
(i guess i use it to mean both? but have focused more on attraction as the weird, and its subsequently making orientation weird. thinky thoughts)
I suppose that’s a question for you. Should I change it?
nah! it’s great as is. i was just wondering what’s more salient to you, and if it varies between quoiro and quoisexual? they seem to get different receptions and it’s interesting :3
Hmm. Well, quoisexual isn’t one I apply to myself… I think that may have something to do with sex being easier to define than romance.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.