lulu.com test book

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

lulu.com test book

Jordan Mantha
Hi everybody!

  Well, Matthew sent me a suprise in the mail. I recieved a test copy of
the Ubuntu Packaging Guide from lulu.com so we could check the cover and
quality, etc. So here are some notes:

* This really rocks!
* The cover:

   * the second Ubuntu icon (the one that is multicolored) doesn't pop
         out to me as much as it did online. Maybe we need a bit more
         contrast or something.

   * The guide title (in this case "Packaging Guide") needs to be pushed
     up towards the version (Ubuntu 6.06) as it is closer to "Ubuntu
         Documenation Project" an makes it harder for the eyes to see the
         important part ( Ubuntu 6.06 & Packaging Guide )

   * The back cover looks pretty bare (just plain white). I might
         suggest something like a docteam logo/icon with "Ubuntu
         Documentation Project (or team?)" and underneath have a URL
         (http://www.help.ubuntu.com perhaps).

* The admonition icons need some serious help. I know this is in the
  works so I won't say to much other than they are really pixelated.

* The margins seem good. There are a couple places were some of the wide
  <screen> sections go pretty wide but that is probably more a problem
  with the packaging guide than the others.

* The internal cross references have a bracket with the page number (
  e.g. [18]). I was initially confused (Matthew had to tell me, stupid
  scientist that I am) by what they meant as I don't think that is
  mentioned in the conventions. Is this standard or can we make it a
  little clearer?

* We need to be careful with external URL's because they are shown
  inline. If there are shorter versions available (Malone for example)
  we might want to use those. I even noticed one of my URL's didn't have
  the http:// :(

* I found several little mistakes and perhaps places where I lost an
  <emphasis> or <filename> perhaps (if it isn't from the xml -> pdf
  conversion). I found the print version nice for proofreading, which is
  sort of bad because it is the last step in our process.

Overall, I really think this is a great idea and lulu did a great job.
The size is nice and the font is good, thanks for all your work Matthew.
If anybody has more questions or wants a picture or something, just let
me know.

-Jordan

--
"That's all very well in practice, but will it ever work in theory?" -- G. Hill
"A tidy laboratory means a lazy chemist." -- Jöns Jacob Berzelius

--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lulu.com test book

Matt Galvin
On 4/29/06, Jordan Mantha <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Overall, I really think this is a great idea and lulu did a great job.
> The size is nice and the font is good, thanks for all your work Matthew.
> If anybody has more questions or wants a picture or something, just let
> me know.

Hey Jordan,

hehe, the whole email i kept thinking, i wanna see a picture :) Could
you post a picture of it?

Thanks,

Matt

--
Matt T. Galvin
mgalvin on irc.freenode.net
http://people.simplifiedcomplexity.com/~mgalvin/
Ubuntu Documentation Team Member

--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lulu.com test book

Brian Burger
In reply to this post by Jordan Mantha
On 4/29/06, Jordan Mantha <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi everybody!

  Well, Matthew sent me a suprise in the mail. I recieved a test copy of
the Ubuntu Packaging Guide from lulu.com so we could check the cover and
quality, etc. So here are some notes:

* This really rocks!
* The cover:

   * the second Ubuntu icon (the one that is multicolored) doesn't pop
         out to me as much as it did online. Maybe we need a bit more
         contrast or something.

Making the single-colour Ubuntu logos paler or more translucent is easy to do.

We could also borrow some more graphical ideas from other Ubuntu products 
and put the Ubuntu logo in a horizontal white box with a circular end.

Like so:
http://www.warbard.ca/temp/Ubuntu_Lulu_cover_draft2_CQsize.png

   * The guide title (in this case "Packaging Guide") needs to be pushed
     up towards the version (Ubuntu 6.06) as it is closer to "Ubuntu
         Documenation Project" an makes it harder for the eyes to see the
         important part ( Ubuntu 6.06 & Packaging Guide )

Done - good point. 

   * The back cover looks pretty bare (just plain white). I might
         suggest something like a docteam logo/icon with "Ubuntu
         Documentation Project (or team?)" and underneath have a URL
         ( http://www.help.ubuntu.com perhaps).

I've created back-cover images since Matt sent Lulu the info. 

http://www.warbard.ca/temp/Ubuntu_Lulu_back_cover_draft_CQsize.png
http://www.warbard.ca/temp/Kubuntu_Lulu_back_cover_draft_CQsize.png

Thanks for the feedback - like Matt Galvin said, any chance of a couple of pics of the book?

Brian

--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lulu.com test book

Matthew East
In reply to this post by Jordan Mantha
On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 18:27 -0700, Jordan Mantha wrote:
> * The cover:

Ok, Brian has sorted these :)

> * The admonition icons need some serious help. I know this is in the
>   works so I won't say to much other than they are really pixelated.

Well, I don't really know what to do about these. The problem might be
that fop is resizing the images when printing the pdf, so I'll have a
look at this and see if I can figure out what is going wrong. If anyone
else can see the problem, tell me!

> * The margins seem good. There are a couple places were some of the wide
>   <screen> sections go pretty wide but that is probably more a problem
>   with the packaging guide than the others.

I'll take a look at this.

> * The internal cross references have a bracket with the page number (
>   e.g. [18]). I was initially confused (Matthew had to tell me, stupid
>   scientist that I am) by what they meant as I don't think that is
>   mentioned in the conventions. Is this standard or can we make it a
>   little clearer?

I'm fairly certain that it should be possible to insert a "page" before
that. I tried it before and it didn't work, but it _should_ be possible.

> * We need to be careful with external URL's because they are shown
>   inline. If there are shorter versions available (Malone for example)
>   we might want to use those. I even noticed one of my URL's didn't have
>   the http:// :(

How many of these are there? Do you want to fix it quickly?

> * I found several little mistakes and perhaps places where I lost an
>   <emphasis> or <filename> perhaps (if it isn't from the xml -> pdf
>   conversion). I found the print version nice for proofreading, which is
>   sort of bad because it is the last step in our process.

Again, if there aren't too many, it would probably be reasonable to fix
these and upload new translations. I don't thing it's from the pdf
conversion.

> Overall, I really think this is a great idea and lulu did a great job.
> The size is nice and the font is good, thanks for all your work Matthew.
> If anybody has more questions or wants a picture or something, just let
> me know.

Yeah, picture! :)

Matt
--
[hidden email]
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF

--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc

signature.asc (198 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: lulu.com test book

Jeff Schering
On 4/30/06, Matthew East <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 18:27 -0700, Jordan Mantha wrote:

> > * The admonition icons need some serious help. I know this is in the
> >   works so I won't say to much other than they are really pixelated.
>
> Well, I don't really know what to do about these. The problem might be
> that fop is resizing the images when printing the pdf, so I'll have a
> look at this and see if I can figure out what is going wrong. If anyone
> else can see the problem, tell me!
>
It could be that the images were created at 72dpi, which is good
enough for on-screen display. For print though, you need 300dpi, iirc.
You should be able to increase the dpi in the GIMP (Image->Scale
Image, then increase the X and Y resolution). If you start out with
the original images in colour and want b&w, convert them in the GIMP
with Image->Mode->Grayscale.

Cheers,
Jeff

--
Jeff Schering
GPG: F23C67E8

--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc