Here is a new iteration of the text. As short as possible! Maybe too short now. We should check if the sentences still make sense to new people. And add back in stuff where necessary.
Are you a skilled graphic designer and want to transform the text into a great looking poster available under an open license so that anyone in the world can print it out and hang it up to a wall? Get in touch with @Lars2i (mail)
Ok. Here is a new iteration including the fantastic feedback and suggestions by @Jan_D & @transitionmica
I have built the version I like most. Only thing still in question is the order.
Is the language correct in the two ones marked with *?
I am going to search for a design now. I think I am going to try to find a design made in Libre Office/Microsoft Word. So really everyone can edit it. And create translations for example. I am happy about suggestions for cool ways to use those programs for a poster.
#Make: Circularity
–
Source locally whenever you can. *
–
Allow the by-products of today’s project to be the source for tomorrow’s.
–
Think about your project’s future: Made for the bin or made to build upon?
–
Search for materials that are easy to recycle.
–
Bio-based is cool, bio-degradable is cooler!
–
Screws better than glues. Nuts and bolts even better.
–
Make everything separable and fit for reassembly: reversibility is key.
–
Modularity is good. Parts that work as other parts are fun.
–
Repairing is a great kind of making!
–
You can do more with less? Hack or improve old stuff.
–
Simple is beautiful, social and more sustainable.
–
Avoid expensive special instruments and approaches, use common tools and standard processes instead.
–
Be open about your work. Support others to copy your findings. *
–
Walk into the woods, nature is good at circularity.
Hi, I started looking for a design. Happy about feedback since this is really not my thing. I have two different main ideas. What do you think? (It is all made in MS Word/Libre Office)
CALL: If you are a designer and you want to take over the process. Pls. get in touch.
###DOWNLOAD
editable documents .DOC & .PDF of all drafts below
The half circles are used as an recurrent element. in the license they “want” to be seen as letters, in the main text they “want” to be seen as separators (and thus not as letters). They are not great imho as neither of those.
I find it is no sin if it should mainly look nice, but I assume it should be read, so I would suggest to try one or several of these:
swap the circles for lines or so
use a bulleted list with breaks before every point. Variations of the circle motive could serve as bullet.
I like the ones in Idea2 more and the clarity of the heading in I2V3 is good. I think that we need something like a symbol that graphically represents the concept: ‘Make:Circularity’ more: the OSCE logo does this well enough. This should be included anyway? But could also be used as the basis for the design?
I think the half circle separations are a nice idea, but agree the readability needs to be improved.
I’m in a bit of a hurry so here’s my quick 10-min feedback attempt.
I did a quick rejig of idea 2 version 3 (my favorite): MC PST Idea 2 draft 3_sam.odt (133.2 KB)
Search for materials that are easy to recycle. -> Search for easily recyclable materials
You can do more with less? -> Can you do more with less? or: You can do more with less!
Avoid expensive special instruments -> Avoid expensive special equipment
copying -> building upon
Walk into the woods, nature is good at circularity. -> Go for a walk in the woods, see how good nature is at circularity. (above it still says ‘into’ - this should definitely be ‘in’)
I don’t really understand “Circulate the circulated” - it doesn’t really mean anything to me.
I just saw your last comment - yes, I agree, though I would lose the plurals: Allow the by-products of today’s project to be the source for tomorrow’s. -> Use the by-products of today’s project as material for tomorrow’s.
Typography:
I notice this design is using Lato - so far OSCEdays has used Open Sans for body text and Montserrat for headings - any reason for the change? (I don’t disagree with it but I’m just curious if the general OSCEdays design is being updated)
When setting a block of text for a poster like this, justified generally looks better than ragged.
Expanded letter spacing can work well with U P P E R C A S E, but never really looks right with L o w e r C a s e. In any case*, it is easier and more flexible to adjust this in the character spacing settings rather than doing it by adding extra spaces (in LibreOffice: Format> Character…> Position> Spacing)
I’m not really a big fan of Maker Media, I find that the Maker Movement that they have played such a big part in shaping is basically a wasteful, consumerist, depoliticized version of the Open Source Hardware movement. As it currently stands, this poster looks like Maker Media greenwashing, i.e. like they have produced the poster and are pretending that they want to sell less stuff to makers.
I see the two options here as:
don’t use ‘Make: Circular’. - to me, Circular Making works better anyway.
Get in touch with Maker Media and suggest an actual partnership, where the poster can be distributed with the magazine etc. Then you could genuinely use their logo. This way you get better visibility, and they voice a commitment to sustainability which they can then be called upon to uphold.
Just a short remark on the “Make:” logo ressemblance. This is on purpose. The idea for the poster was born when the idea of an OSCEdays-Berlin booth at Maker Faire Berlin came up. And as you have said:
“… they have played such a big part in shaping is basically a wasteful, consumerist, depoliticized version …”
to tackle this - the ressemblance is on purpose and to create this partnership that you also suggested
ok. Before we go further with the design let’s look at our new text version.
##Circular Making
or
##Make: Circularity
Use only easily recyclable materials.
–
Make the by-products of today’s project the material for tomorrow’s.
–
Source locally wherever you can.
–
Think about your project’s future: Is it made for the bin or made to build upon?
–
Bio-based is cool, bio-degradable is cooler!
–
Screws are better than glues; nuts and bolts are even better!
–
Make everything separable and fit for reassembly: reversibility is key!
–
Modularity is good! Parts that work as other parts are fun.
_
Repairing sometimes is the greatest kind of making.
_
Can you do more with less? Hack and improve old stuff.
_
Avoid expensive special equipment and approaches, use common tools and standard processes instead.
_
Simple is beautiful, social and more sustainable.
_
Be open about your work. Enable others to build upon your findings.
_
Go for a walk in the woods, see how good nature is at circularity.
_
Inhabit circularity. Reuse the reused, recycle the recycled, repair the repaired.
–
/////////////////////////////////////
License remark
This poster is open, it is shared under the Creative-Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. This means you can do with it whatever you like even sell prints of it – please do – as long as you leave this remark here a part of it. | The poster was created by community members of the Open Source Circular Economy Days (OSCEdays): Lars2i, RicardoRug, sharmarval, Jan_D, transitionmaike & cameralibre. The design of the version above was made by Lars2i. | DOWNLOAD the poster to remix, translate or print it from here: oscedays.org/print
H hi, super cool project!
When i read the sentences it think there are really good… For me one scenario is missing…
For me it is not just about recyclebal materials is about the combination of recyclability and material Health depending on the use scenario…
Maybe a sentence like:
“Think about if the material fits the use scenario”
“Healthy materials for humans and the environment is key”
“Define your materials for each use scenario”
“Keep the circle clean - circulate healthy materials (is key)”
“Keep the circle clean - circulate the right materials”
“Keep the circle clean”
“Create healthy circles - Everything is nutrient for something else”
"Is your material healthy? You want it in a circle forever?
This are some very quick suggestions. Happy to hear your comments
The aim of the poster is to be instructive for practical people – that like to build stuff with their hands in a workshop. For that reason there are is nothing on “circular finance” for example or “virtualization” included. The sentences try to make sense by themselve and try not to expect to much from the reader. “Material health” is an abstract concept. You need to google it and read a lot till it makes sense. But even after that it is still complicated to decide for each material. The sentences on material health we got so far aren’t very good at inspiring practical actions in my view.
But maybe we can find one about material health that does. Is there a definition of “material health”? Maybe a good sentence can be found in there/derived from there.
yeah that is rigt. I truly think it would be important to include the selection of material in any way.
Material Health is an abstract wording thats true. It would be nice if the sentence transport that the designer should think about if the uses material is not harmful for the health in the usage scenario.
My next tries:
“Use material which is not causing a health issue”
“The Health of your costumers and the Environment is important”
“Use safe materials”
“Think about the health of your product”
“A Non-Toxic Product is most enjoyable”
“Enjoy designing a product which has no harmful toxic ingredients”
“design your product in a non-harmful way depending on the usage scenario”
“Enjoy non-toxic material”
“Use material which is safe to use for humans and to the environment”
“Make your product safe and non-toxic”
“Circulate non toxic material makes the most sense”
“Circulation of non-toxic material is creating a healthy world”
“circulation of non-toxic material creates a clean(beneficial, healthy) circle”
Cool Lars! I like both of your sentences! they are short and transport the message. I would be happy with both. I thought about both. At first i liked the second more aswell. Now i am thinking about the first one. What i like about the “avoid toxic ingredients” part, it gives the designer also the feeling to think about what is in there basic material they use. Which is a very cool thing.
The second one can have that too. I just thinking if someone takes a material and uses it for a new product (ReUse or "Re"Cycle) with the second sentence he may thinks “ok i will not add a toxic layer of paint”. I dont know if the second sentence implement to think about the basic material and what is in it, or if its good to use in the first place. The include part implements for me to add something to a certain material. But i dont know if i get overly suspicious ha ha
It is just always hard to break something like this down to one sentence
“try to avoid toxins” but i think i prefer the first of your sentences…
what do you think?
I think I like the second one better. For two reasons:
(1) “Avoid” - there is already a sentence that starts with “Avoid” - “Avoid expensive special …”
(2) “toxic ingredients” could also be seen as a metaphor. “Toxins” on the other side brings me in my thinking down to the molecular level. The poster is supposed to work in two ways: A. to inspire google searches (then toxins is the better search term) or B. work as a reminder for things you already know (then toxins uploads all the images about molecules in the ocean killing bacteria, harming algae …)
If you are happy with both I would go for the second one.
! I think it is going somewhere. How about: