[evergreen-outreach] proofing copy three

Thu Apr 12 08:07:14 EDT 2018

1.  Font issue should be fixed now thanks to xml editing.
2.  Technically not but for reasons that matter to no one.  Regardless,
should look better now.
3.  Yeah, I wondered how that much color and brightness would look to
folks.  It's an experiment. I've had other feedback that it's the favorite
part of the report to some others.  So, I'm going to chalk that one up to a
contentious matter of taste and leave as is.  We can have a debate at the
conference where the loser has to sing karaoke if need be.  I'm also
starting to think that all matters of dispute that are qualitative rather
than quantitative should be settled via karaoke battles.
4.  I'm going to spare you my rant on how text box cloning _should_ work
and visually center them with the common 'y' character as a vertical
guide.  Let me know how it look in proof 4 when I send that out (shortly).
5.  Thank you.  There are some stray pixel issues but I don't think they'll
be noticeable to anyone at scale when printed.  I enjoy spending some time
when I can on those kinds of bits and pieces.
6. I thought it was cooler to be a verb than noun.  (joking aside, fixed)
7. Interesting note, since in the layout program you have all these border
markers that you need for objects it makes it really hard to visually
identify centers on small objects which is why some layout software give
you relative object alignments to show you how the centers/edges align are
when you select an active object.  Tragically that's not available here.
Also I can't actually center it because of how it does overlapping objects
of that size but I can do something else that will create the same effect
(first line offset). Good catch, thank you.

Nitpicking is exactly what is needed, so thank you for it.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Ruth Frasur <director at hagerstownlibrary.org
> wrote:

> My comments are as follows, and with deep recognition that you've been
> working a LOT and this makes me feel nit picky.
> 1.  There seem to be a lot of fonts.  I wouldn't say it's weirdness, but a
> lot.  Most notably, to my mind, are the two text areas on the last page.
> My eye expected them to be what seems to be the standard san serif font
> throughout, but it's not.
> 2.  The logo on the back page seems like it's a little close on the left
> hand side.
> 3.  On page 9, there are essentially 6 colors ranging from green-blue to
> fluorescent green.  That's a lot of green.  Grant, we're Evergreen.
> 4.  The headers on pages 7 & 8 are off.  The text seems too close to the
> horizontal edge.  On pg. 8, too close to the vertical edge.
> 5.  The Kentucky collage on pg. 6 is awesome.
> 6.  On the acknowledgements page, everyone else is a proofreader but I'm
> proofreading.
> 7.  On the center teal bar on the acknowledgements page, the white text is
> off vertical center.
>
> Enough nit picking for me.  I didn't notice any glaring grammatical or
> spelling errors.
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Rogan Hamby <rogan.hamby at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> OK, clearly I missed my self imposed deadline of 2 pm.  There was enough
>> feedback that I couldn't get it all in plus the things I noticed.  But
>> thanks to the wonders of modern technology and mobile hotspots on phones
>> I've continued to plug away at it.
>>
>> All of this is relevant because with my laptop screen but without
>> additional monitors so it's hard to jump between all the additional windows
>> to track font changes and such but I _think_ I've gotten the fonts
>> standardized.  Another pass will be needed.  If you still see font
>> weirdness please don't hesitate to say something.  How Scribus handles
>> fonts .... well, let's just say it's not intuitive.  I have unkind
>> adjectives in mind but it is at least consistent so I can work around it
>> even if it makes absolutely no sense why it's doing it in the first place.
>> And I'm thinking the manual editing of the XML I did at the beginning may
>> be needed again.  Anyway....
>>
>> I'm still finding some small layout tweaks.  You may notice them.  I
>> haven't logged them as everyone else has been so kind to do.
>>
>> Uh..... I have a lot of thoughts but time is short and I don't remember
>> most of them.  But I think all the changes are in.  I do however want to
>> highlight something that has been driving me nuts and that Andrea
>> mentioned: kerning.
>>
>> I think some of the text flows look ... not good.  Scribus does not have
>> smart kerning like InDesign or Quark or ... other modern commercial
>> software layout tools.  For the most part Scribus has been decent but when
>> it fails it really fails.  We could just justify everything to both sides
>> like a newspaper but that would look just as bad just different.  The thing
>> about kerning is that it's time consuming to do manually and small text
>> changes can make it all mute so I'm not going to tackle it until I feel
>> sure text changes aren't incoming and even then I'm not sure I'll have time
>> to really go through it all.
>>
>> That will be tomorrow.
>>
>>  Proofing copy 3 is attached.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> evergreen-outreach mailing list
>> evergreen-outreach at list.evergreen-ils.org
>> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-outreach
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ruth Frasur
> Director of the Historic(ally Awesome) Hagerstown - Jefferson Township
> Library
> 10 W. College Street
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=10+W.+College+Street&entry=gmail&source=g> in
> Hagerstown, Indiana (47346)
> p (765) 489-5632; f (765) 489-5808
>
> *Our Kickin' Website <http://hagerstownlibrary.org>,  Our Rockin' Facebook
> Page <http://facebook.com/hjtplibrary>,  and The Nettle Creek Players
> <http://nettlecreekplayers.com>*
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/evergreen-outreach/attachments/20180412/6fc25b30/attachment-0001.html>