*Sky & Telescope Illustration by Casey Reed
Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Affiliates | About Us | Participant Sites
International Year of Astronomy | American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO)
Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Affiliates | About Us | Participant Sites
International Year of Astronomy | American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO)
I like 2 and 3.5. Personally, I prefer 2 - it is very clean and cool, very futuristic, applicable to all kinds of variable stars, and black print is easier to read than white print. However, I think 3.5 would be more eye-catching and appealing to the novice.
Thanks for the images Nico. They're beautiful.From a purely visual-aesthetic viewpoint vs how plausible is it with respect to a model of an eclipsing binary of some kind, I like image 3. Having said that, how (im)plausible is it? I'm not thinking of Eps Aur in particular here. What about the other images?I guess these two criteria could help us guide the final selection. David
What other images? Someone suggested have the binary look of About Page 2 and 2.5 instead of the image in 3 or 3.5, which is basically the same as leaving 2 and 2.5 untouched but changing the color of the text area. Is that what you are talking about??? I also have the illustration of eps-aur as seen miles North (above) Earth —so the disk is more visible, I think the image is in the Media Room of this site...
NicoI was really just suggesting that we could apply the aesthetics and plausibility criteria to all of the about box images you've posted as a way of thinking about which one would be good to choose.David
Oh man, sorry, yeah... I need to stop doing a lot of things at once because clearly my reading understanding skills I used to have at school have been diminished substantially.So yes you are right, the muck-ups "features" are all interchangeable, with the exception of some that have a more vertical composition and are difficult to fit them with a bigger text area.
Hi NicoYour second point here reminds me of something you and I talked about awhile back: having a clear separation between images and text will simplify the implementation and will also mean that the text can be updated at will while leaving the image(s) alone. On that criteria 3 and 3.5 are easier to work with. But that's not a good reason to choose these over 2. At the end of the day, one or more images you create will make it into the VStar Subversion repository and I or someone else on the team will compose the images and text into dialog window to be as close to your vision as possible. Your first point may actually just indicate less-than-clear articulation on my part. :)David
While after some voting the strongest possibility is 3.5. Unless we hire an Afghani voting committee person to count the results, (sorry, stupid joke) 3.5 will get chosen. In any case the reason why I started without my illustrations of eps-Aur in the page was: 1) because there are many other binary stars to plot data of, and they may feel self-conscious we make so much emphasis on this very particular system. 2) because I think the illustrations should be part of a "media-room" type of space where hopefully many other illustrators post their work. So doing something for VStar as its look without any illustration, but instead have the look become its own image, I thought, was best... So I'm with you brother, I like 1.5 and 2 the best, and I would make the final even better. Also an image like that would impose restrictions on text length, which since this isn't a writers site it would keep it to a minimum, not to say your words aren't poetry!3.5 is a very easy solution and it's pretty much done as it is, so this "funny guy" would be off the hook on this one. Saying that, we should all put on our graphic designer hats and compromise.
My favorites are AboutPane 2 and 3.5. May I suggest a possible third option such replacing the star in Pane 2 with the top left star on Pane 3.5. Jorge
That could be possible. In Photoshop anything is possible, but I think that a cloud of material, like the one surrounding the "F star" in the image #3.5, should go on a horizontal plane align with both bodies' centers of mass. Even that illustration is far fetch since the cloud of material leaves the star's Roche Lobe and the transfer of material between the two bodies isn't according to a Lagrange point, typical of binary systems with mass transferring. I do agree, the image needs more. These are muck ups, so I will add detail to the image that gets picked (except for 3.5 and 3 since they are already finished illustrations).Thanks.
tossup to me between 2 and 3.5. 3.5 is more appropriate for eps Aur, but 2 is more generic for future use. I'd probably go with 2.Arne
I like 3.5 too. It is more dynamic and exciting looking than the others.
I like 3.5
Call it placebo/albedo LOL effect, but I also think it is a close tie between 2 and 3.5..........personally heavy on the 3.5 side ! The overall esthetics connect users with the application best
3.5 and 2 are my favorites. Although they are all very nice.