Here’s the .pdf if anyone is interested...

www.dangayle.com/weddingguide.pdf

either change its colors to pink/magenta...or change the photograph to something in which female hands comes first.
Right now it looks like someonez showing his hands to a finger’s doctor;)

**and plz increase the space between I and D in I Do...It reads IDo.

Don’t even show a man. Men are subservient (they think). Just show the bride with a goofy grin surrounded by her girlfriens.

Bingo!

’I do’ looks a bit menacing. I hope your audience isn’t looking for Snell Roundhand, but it may just be a case of the type size choices you made. Weddings tend to be sensitive and intimate affairs.

I was told “classy.” An elegant font, a sepia-toned photo... What more can you ask for?

It may just look a little bit too corporate for the wedding planning crowd. Hopefully some women will post and help with the feminine angle. It just may need to have a softer photo and use the italic version of Garamond. Maybe women want to see more clothes and catering kind of stuff? Sorry, I am not of muchhelp with this.

ChrisL

Dude. I swear. NO DUDE. Just the WOMAN...Watch the indent w/South District Journal. Cut it in half.

Maybe the Garamond isn’t the best choice. Do you have any single titling faces, like mmm...like perpetua titling...something reeealy elegant.

A wedding planner should look romantic more than feminine and this just isn’t either. I think the font is ok but the photo is all wrong - you can’t tell at a glance what’s going on and the design is, as Chris said, too corporate. I think you should check out some wedding magazines, Brides or Martha Stewart, to get a sense of what might appeal to women.

Think FLOWERS. You don’t have to go over the top with pink and script, sepia could be quite nice and elegant but you have to soften the design. Lose the hard edges.

(Even tho I’m a woman, I’m not exactly the target audience since I think romantic is a quick hookup at city hall on your way to the airport for your honeymoon)

I had a hard enough time just asking a close friend for her old Vogue magazines so that I could look at the designs. Now I have to look at Martha Stuart and all of the Bride-Zilla magazines?

First of all, I’d have a hard time explaining it to the cashier who is giving me wierd looks. Second of all, don’t those magazines cost something like $40 a pop?

Sigh...

As to the “soft” part,

I thought I WAS making it soft!!!!

ARRGGGGGHHHH!!!

Daniel, you’re not married, are you.

Sigh...

hhp

How often do I hear THAT question...

> Bride-Zilla

Now that’s funny.

hhp

I’ll just toss some big gay advice your way. If this needs to be feminine, the photo needs to be of a man putting a ring onto a woman’s hand, and a big rock needs to be visible. Or even better, get a picture of a bride. Picking a prettier typeface is a must–Garamond may be aesthetically pleasing, but it’s still a workhorse, and looks like one. Get Zapfino Extra or House Holliday Script out for this one.

And yeah, flowers.

it’s all very somber. i would say you need smiling faces and a typeface with a bit more flourish. if shooting for classy, i’d go for Splendid Script or ***shameless plug*** Allyson. or at least a serif with some well-placed swashes.

Hmm,

I wouldn’t even go play on the white/black space. I’ll just do a big, full bleed, full color, ’honest’ photo.

Have a look. Got what I mean by ’honest’? I’ll leave the further work to you, all I could think of at this hour is to put a ring in her finger to make the image work :)

Then I would use an ultra light curvy sans like Bryant . For extra sugary effect, use pink or baby blue (the thin weight, then, becomes optional).

Hmm, maybe more funeral than wedding...

As others have already said, it should be softer, swashes, italics... romantic, but not overtly sweet. And I think focusing on the bride is a good idea, they are the ones who decide on the wedding plans, after all!

Surely that should read
Seattle says…
I do

Tim

This has been hinted at in previous comments, but one issue may be that the image is headless ...
It is also a little ambiguous but I think a major problem is the lack of heads (the “smiling faces” that others have commented on).

Shouldn’t there be a space between the ellipsis and the ’I’?

Aah, yes. I think Tim’s comment is better:

Seattle says ...
I do.

Garamond’s italics would maybe do the trick...

Dan, go to the d**m store and buy the magazines, they’re not $40 a pop. Or at least look at them. Do you really care what the cashier thinks? It’s not like you’re buying hemorrhoid medication.

Be clever with the black/white space on another project.

As I said before I (personally) don’t think you need to go all pink and swashy but it has to look romantic and inviting. If you don’t want to show the bride’s face I’d either go for flowers or more of a closeup of the ring. This photo looks like she’s doing hand reflexology.

The photo looks al lwrong, it looks confusing to see that sea of fingers (looks a bit too sausage package).

ChrisL

he he . Sausagefingers

Reminds me of these

http://www.phaidon.com/travel/

good for the *wallpaper set but maybe not for the girl who’s been planning her wedding since she was 5.

What about this environment ?
http://www.bnind.com/products/iconic/images/icn_helvetica_image_hero.jpg

well... it all depends.

if yer target audience is gonna be predominantly corporate drones, I would think this appropos. You might as well have a picture of them signing the license.

but, for regular folks... too design school rigid. What “guys” think borders on the irrelevant... women plan weddings, for the most part.

and too... consider the sexist stereotype imagery, unfortunately, unavoidable. A man slipping a ring on a womans finger... surrender (’cause he love her so). Reverse it and the woman is claiming her prize. Get rid of the ring thing.

In fact, get rid of the people altogether. Marriage is an abstract and is a lot more palatable in the abstract. Consider decorative materials including, yes, flowers. A combination of floral Script caps and italic. Disperse the ’color’. The image as a whole is bottom heavy.

Magazines, sure. (What? You dont have a library within a few miles?) But consider that other staple of wedding ’promotional material’; find the classiest wedding invitation and study THAT.

and avoid listening to advice from dedicated bachelors.

geo.

and btw, patty... i like the way you think.

thanks Geo ;–) tell that to Lorenza!

Dan, there’s also this lovely — and free — thing called the internet. Try typing “brides” or “weddings” into Google and see what you get.

Now that’s funny.

hhp

I thought the same thing as an earlier suggestion, if you love the design as is but need femininity, the easiest and most effective change would be a rose duo-tone. Also, a Woman’s hand taking the forefront is a great suggestion.

______________________

CLB

Design should never say, “Look at me.” It should always say, “Look at this.”

Just use this:
http://abeshelton.com/portfolio/albums/userpics/tmp/normal_trix_081003_a...

hhp

^ Ha. Wedding kitsch.

Try Tobias Wong’s Killer Diamond Ring.

Wong makes engagement rings that can kill you. The razor-sharp diamond point is set into the ring so it can’t get knocked out when you smash someone’s face in, and the edges of the ring are really soft so it won’t cut into your skin during the pounding. It’s romantic because it means, “Will you marry me?” but it also means, “I can’t always be there to protect you so if some jerk won’t stop bothering you, puncture him with this.” The diamond sharp edge will also cut skin down to the bone (with a minimum 1 karat stone - but the larger the better). Or it may simply be used to tag hard surfaces, like cars and windows for S.O.S. messages or that last will and estimate when pen or paper (or lawyers) aren’t conveniently around.

> it also means, “I can’t always be there to protect you ...

I suspect it means “Break off the engagement and
you better go shopping for an eye-patch, bud”.

hhp

Now that was a cut above the rest :-)

ChrisL

Well, as a hetero woman who’s walked down (and back up) the aisle more than once, and to echo others, this is far too “businesslike,” but that doesn’t mean you need all the mushy-gushy Martha crap either.

Yes, some romance would be useful — even after my experience, I’d like to think most people marry for love and not necessarily for the tax break — but even making the picture four-colour instead of sepia would be a big improvement. And if there’s only the budget for one colour, go for a one that is well saturated (a rich, dark blue/green/wine/rust).

Oh, yeah, and a typeface that’s a little more casual. Doesn’t have to be terribly swishy, y’know: even Optima would be an improvement!

Linda

thanks Geo ;–) tell that to Lorenza!

ohhhhhhh...Pat, I don’t hate you, silly. I just wouldn’t like to work for you (I don’t respond well to torture)

and since I’m here: to me it’s the creepy hand that comes out of nowhere and the woman that has got a big “I do” instead of a head.

Yes, the “I Do” is supposed to replace the man’s head.

BTW, I could go into this thread full swing, but there’s something nobody’s mentioning and I can’t help it: women prefer to receive hand massages; and if they ever give one they certainly don’t like the middle finger to be overly eager for its turn like that.

hhp

“the woman that has got a big “I do” instead of a head.”

I know so many women like that, unfortunately...

On a side note:

That Pacific Publishing Company logo resembles the “parental advisory, explicit lyrics” badge placed like it is.

Maybe its not something you can do something about as easily as the rest but it’s worth thinking about.

That Pacific Publishing Company logo resembles the “parental advisory, explicit lyrics” badge placed like it is.
Brilliant side note: it’s like the warning on ****. Warning: marriage is bad for your health.

The thing about flowers is that...even if you add flowers it could still remind a funeral. I would be careful what kind of flowers you pick.

Don’t get me going on our logo. The “Pacific” part is the exact same font as the “Publishing Company” part. Only stretched to be-jesus.

So I take it that the photo is a large part of the mess. (By the way, the original photo that I had chosen was of a large diamond ring on white. But NOOO, we did that last year they said. Think of something new they said... BAH!)

I chose that photo precisely because it wasn’t a boring old wedding photo. I am certainly kicking myself now over the missing heads, but I thought the basic premise of a woman putting the ring onto the man’s hands symbolized the empowered Seattle woman. And I also thought that the older-style dress would appeal to an older re-marrying generation.

I still don’t understand the Garamond thing though. I know that it is a workhorse font, but I was under the impression that it was a little too “precious” for a lot of applications. Hence, “wedding”=”precious”.

Anyone care to elaborate on why Garamond doesn’t fit in this situation?

Empowered? That would be the woman getting
somebody else to put the ring on the man’s hand.

Older? Yeah, women love being reminded of that.

hhp

The tough part with wedding stuff is that weddings are mostly about the brides mother wanting the “perfect wedding” for her daughter. The father may write the checks but mom, daughter, and her best girlfriends really do the wedding. Maybe that makes it tough to crack the traditional wedding stuff. Maybe their thought is just “my pretty daughter in her bride suit.” The guy is just along for the ride. Talk to mothers-of-the bride types and you may get a real picture of what the audience wants. Maybe they just want it to look like a wedding?

ChrisL

Not “a” wedding, but “better than what’s-her-name’s” wedding.

hhp

my crit.

i think Garamond doesn’t look precious in this piece because the type is to loud (big). Its a planner not a poster. Tone it down a bit.

I think the imagery is not really working either. The angle is not really appealing and hard to tell whats going on. The ring on the finger says commitment. I dont think photoshop will change that.

Planning weddings is about the flowers, cakes, location (outdoor wedding scenery ect. Flowing dresses.

You can do it!

When I was in a wedding this summer and when I think about this project i picture rose pedals that were placed on the grass. The details of the brides wedding dress. The scenery since it was an outdoor wedding. Watching ducks drink from the near by stream. The botanical garden ect.

You get the point. Maybe having I do written in rose pedals.

Just from my european(?) but surely german point of view:

I like the design and the fonts you chose.
And I like exactly a photo in this style.

But I understand why people (women) might say
“It’s not feminine enough.”

Its the hands.
The gyus hand is not masculine, the girls hand not feminine enough.
Giving the wedding ring to her husbands finger is a symbol for her to trust somebody until the end of her life. Its this two-thing, you know: man/woman. Be protected/protect. Get and Take.

So if you make this symbol stronger by taking more masculine (e.g. a workers hand) and feminine hands (long fingers, dezent fingernail lacquer), this would be more feminine, I guess. This is what the women want (shortly before their wedding).

Georg
Long, long time married ;-)

I wonder what Laura Mulvey would say about these speculations...

Is it possible to ask her?

I do not want to speak negative about a photographer.
I want to say what I feel seeing the pic.
This is a workers couple’s wedding.
It has a spirit of Teamsters union.
And it should have a spirit of a man/woman realationship of love.

This is what I feel as an ex-member of a union and as a married man.

Georg

is it possible to ask her?
Well, she’s still alive as far as I know. I wasn’t being sarcastic: I really think that her theories might be relevant in this case since we are dealing with issues of representation.
Laura Mulvey (1989). Visual and Other Pleasures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

That’s basic semiotic, see the graphic composition as a sequence. Or a group of graphic elements organised hierarchally. As a woman, what would you like people to see first? What is the most important element in your composition from a woman’s point of view? Flowers: what do they say? Wedding or funeral? Then do the same for ring, for cake, for colours etc and place them according to their importance. but still considering unity. Well, that’s at least how I pick photos.

@ Well, what I thought:

I have no idea why, but my wife likes my hands.
And I do not think about it, its not important for me to know why, its only important that she does it. She sees a man’s hand to be protected by.. so I thought this is an important positive aspect for a woman if she gets a brochure about wedding. To get a good feeling of protection.

On the other hand: I as a man and a becoming husband want to protect. A lady, a woman, a wife - all in one. So her hands should be.. sinnlich.. mhh.. moment pls.. I cannot find the english word. “ladylike erotic”? So this gives me a signal “protect her..”

Georg

My two cents...

I would prefer to see the man sliding the ring onto the woman’s hand. And to see the ring, at least a bit of it.

I don’t think (and am probably commiting a sin by assuming) that most women planning a wedding would want to see/think of themselves as empowered by claiming/catching their man. Romantic has to do with the woman being swept off her feet and the man wanting her so much he will marry her.

A woman placing the ring on a man’s finger borders on the ball and chain... the stereotype that a woman tricks a man into marriage so she can keep him. And let’s be honest (I swear my usual outlook is more feminist than what I am about to say!) women prefer to be asked to dance, and they prefer to be proposed to, preferably on bended knee. (Think Pretty Woman with Richard Gere climbing the fire escape...) They want the fairytale.

Now, women certainly want to be in control of all the details of the wedding... that’s for sure. We wouldn’t want to see a man selecting the flowers or the bridesmaid’s dresses... But we want the initial proposal to be the man’s.

I would like to see details. Because isn’t that what a wedding planner is for? Making it perfect down to the minute details. I’d like a series of close up images: flowers, ribbons/dress/lace/material, the cake, etc...

I used to work in a dressmaking supply store. A huge part of our business was catering to women who were having a seamstress make their wedding dress and veil. You would not believe the hours that went into choosing just the right colour of tulle, buttons, trim, lace, appliqués, you name it, to match the dress material. Hours I tell you. And committees of female family members. That’s what wedding planning is about. Getting the mother of pearl button in the precise colour of off-white being used in the trim of the bonbonnières. Bah. That’s why I’m not married!

Kristina

Lorenza, does Mulvey’s book talk specifically about the female perspective on visual communication? That would be a very worthwhile read.

Georg, Dan isn’t designing your anniversary album. In contemporary US society the woman gets her protection from her lawyers.

hhp

@ Kristina Drake
Very interesting.
“A woman placing the ring on a man’s finger borders on the ball and chain… the stereotype that a woman tricks a man into marriage so she can keep him.”
Yes, you are right. Its the man’s job to place the ring to her hand.

@ hrant
“Georg, Dan isn’t designing your anniversary album.”
Why can’t you stop to treat me?
Its boring.

Something to do ’cause I am a German?
You wrote something about it in another thread.
Is this your problem with me?

Georg

Dan, if you had drawn a layout and art-directed the photo shoot, I don’t think you’d have the problems people are noticing. By cropping a stock photo radically, you have lost the original graphic configuration and sense of the shot. Of course, it’s possible to crop images and create solid new compositions, but it’s very tricky if you have a complex layout which is driving the issue, which seems to be the case here. So the picture has been compromised (missing heads, chopped fingers) when it should, as always, come first, before the type, before the layout. If you are going to crop and focus on the hands, you should have cropped tighter on the hands, and included them all. And you know, the focus of the picture, the ring, is not visible, which is not right.

?
I like Germans. I was rooting for you during the World Cup.

But I do think that you (singular):
1) Often project your personal world too far outward.
2) Are not handling criticism well enough.

hhp

I don’t think women need protecting. That’s a dangerous message for a wedding guide. I think the overall feeling should be warm, romantic, joyous. No black background and ominous cropped hands. I think this thread has been hijacked by semantics, symbolism and people’s personal feelings about the institution of marriage. Let’s try to help Dan redesign his guide rather than sniping at each other.

Flowers, flowers, flowers. I think these books bear me out.

Some links (the first one is particularly nice, not too pink or frilly but right on the money):

The Knot Wedding Planner

In Style Weddings

Emily Post

http://www.theknot.com/

Martha Stewart’s wedding book

Patricia, good points.

BTW, Dan, next time go for designing a honeymoon guide.
Now THAT could be super romantic!

hhp

Two rings on ivory silk, few petals, very short depth of field maybe some vaseline on the lens (sunlight glinting off her father’s shotgun:), swashed up script for the title all a bit cliché but not overboard (I hope) and no knotting or chaining implied.
Tim

“But I do think that you (singular):
1) Often project your personal world too far outward.
2) Are not handling criticism well enough.”

hrant,
which other world shall I transport in my comments if its not mine?
You wrote 212(?) comments within the last 10 days. 20 a day. One an hour. To each and every written article here and your are telling me, to project my personal world too far? You are joking.

Its not on you to give me any critic.
Remarks like
“Then you should point out that Israel’s position
that “the UN is there to stop Hzballa” is hogwash.”
are more than dump. Stop this. And stop it now, alright?

Georg

You’re doing the same projecting with Typophile. You can’t control it/me like you control yourself. But I’m not after you or anything - not at all - so far I actually like you, mostly. Stop making it some sort of personal outrage. Or else... nothing! And that’s the point.

hhp

So, you, hrant, set the rulez for my comments in typophile? :-)

Georg

I’m with Patty, again. Black can be a posh elegant color, but this is one of those instances where you don’t want to say “black tie,” but do want to say “romantic flowers.” If you follow.

Besides the fact that the black is making the ad bottom-heavy, the use of space has it looking like two different ads. You don’t need to use pastel pink, there are plenty of other gorgeous colors that evoke sentimental and warm feelings. I did a wedding invitation for a friend using a sage green paper and dark warm silver ink.

IMHO I think you need to use a script of some kind as well. You don’t have to use something like Bickham, even though I do think it is gorgeous, you could use something like Dalliance which has small caps, script upright roman and then supplement that with your Garamond.

Georg:
No, the nature of this -heterogenous, abstract- medium does. I’m just the
one that ends up trying to explain it most often because I push it hardest. :-)

hhp

hrant,
you are a very senseless freak.
And I am not in the mood to communicate any longer with you.
I leave this forum. And you can continue your word bubbles.

Bye.

Georg

“That’s why I’m not married!”

Funniest comment of the day! :-D
My wife and I eloped for the same reason—we couldn’t deal with the family committee debates over what seemed trivial to us. We just wanted to be married, so we just did it! 37 years ago yesterday and still at it:-)
ChrisL

Georg, please don’t confuse me by using a smiley when you don’t mean it.

> I leave this forum.

That’s a shame. I hope you change your mind. And please know that you
don’t have to communicate with me (in either direction) to be here:
http://typophile.com/node/6268

hhp

>Black can be a posh elegant color, but this is one of those instances where you don’t want to say “black tie,” but do want to say “romantic flowers.”

So this is probably not a good design:)

In fact it really couldn’t be much further from ideal.

Tim

hrant (and Dan): There are tonnes of stuff on Laura Mulvey on the internet. I’d say it’s about the distinction between the active male and the passive female. When she refers to hollywood films (but obviously you can apply these theories to photography too, especially in publicity)in her view, woman is the object and man is the bearer of the look (the gaze is male). I think it’s important stuff for graphic designers, it’s not always enough to trust your personal taste, you should be able to see the hidden messages behind the image, brainstorming is no replacement for research. By the way Dan, have you defined your target audience as being female or are you looking for an image that will appeal to both men and women. What about age, is that defined?
Tim, what a weird background is that! It’s not black is it? I can’t see properly for some reason, there’s some dark green stuff in it, or is it me?

Tim, you know I’m going to say that cover breaks the rules. ehehe. It may be black, but that photo is moody and romantic, and the typography is not intruding on their space.

The stuff about Laura Mulvey reminds me of a book and documentary by John Berger called “The Ways of Seeing.” Very good reading if you’re into the philosphical aspects of advertising and art, especially as it relates to women/man dichotomies. Only flaw is that it’s set in 14 pt Helvetica Bold or something similar.

Patty said: I don’t think women need protecting.

Well of course we haven’t since we could create fire and gather enough food to survive. ;-) And that’s what, um, 25,000 years ago?

My second ex-spouse, when asked if I was going to change my name, said, “hell, no — when a woman changes her name, it designates that she is property like a slave.” One of the nicer things I can think to say about him....

And yes, the hands are rather generic: that doesn’t mean that the guy has to have hands like King Kong, but delicate with a manicure? C’mon.....

From a cold and snowy Calgary
Linda

Only flaw is that it’s set in 14 pt Helvetica Bold or something similar.

Well, it was published in 1972, so Univers (actually) was somewhat less stale than now. Also, the idea that the text could start on the cover and just keep going, interspersed with pictures, was pretty cool. If you want to break the rules, go all the way.

I think we lost Dan days ago LOL.

I’m sorry we seem to have lost Georg too.

(Georg - if you’re still reading - we’ve all (I think) had our run-ins with Hrant. Don’t let him scare you off, please. I don’t think that was his intent, and your voice is valuable here)

Naw, I’ve been paying attention. That wedding guide went to print a long time before I posted it, but it always bothered me that I don’t know why women didn’t like it. Especially since I’d like to think of myself as a Ladies Man. Nyuck Nyuck Nyuck.

I dug out the file to play around with, and it keeps on coming back to the same things. No matter what I try, it either looks incredibly cheesy (Like using Nuptual Script. Blah.) or too “chunky” like it’s a Union Man’s wedding guide per Georg.

I think classy display use, I think Bodoni Classico or something, but the vertical stress is far too mechanical. I tend to prefer Aldines or early Transitionals for classy text use, but again, too chunky for this use. (Although I just purchased Requiem. THAT is a fine looking specimen. The italic might have worked perfectly, but maybe still too sharp and masculine?)

I tried a few scripts for the title, but it just ended up looking too cheesy. I have Dalliance, Ministry Script, and Affair on my own. At work we have the standards: Snell Roundhand, Shelley Volante, Signet Roundhand, a few more. None seem to capture that little something that I was going for, and they all annoy me more than Garamond.

So Garamond it stays for now.

But this I knew immediately after it published: I needed to somehow connect the upper half of the page with the bottom half like Miss Tiffany said, and I failed. If there is one thing about this page that bothers me, this is definitely it. I was focusing too much on the idea of the photo, and not on the photo itself and how it worked in that particular space.

Double post

>that photo is moody and romantic

My impression was that it might be moody and romantic for a picture of lovers on the banks of the Seine, but not really for a wedding. But thinking further and a (minor) amount of investigation reveals that there are very few images in image libraries of convincing actual wedding scenes, obviously nobody* wants a private and important affair available for Tom, Dick and Harry to use and that might contribute to the more abstract conceptual images of marriage. Some time ago I did some work for a wedding planner and ended up having to use pictures of her wedding, a “society” affair.

Tim

*except the nobodies more interested in promoting their vapid selves than making commitment.

> Flowers, flowers, flowers. I think these books bear me out.

flowers, flowers, flowers

> My second ex-spouse, when asked if I was going to change my name, said, “hell, no — when a woman changes her name, it designates that she is property like a slave.” One of the nicer things I can think to say about him….

My 22nd ex-spouse, when asked if I was going to change my game, said, “hell, no — when a man changes his game, it designates that he is properly like a beast.” One of the nicer things I can think to say about her….

> so Univers (actually) was somewhat less stale

But you can’t make readability with freshness.

hhp

why not use a super light san serif? some of the referred wedding books were set in that style and i think it works rather nicely and stays away from the cheeze.

why not use a super light san serif?
When I think of classy, I also think of Avenir Light. I can use that for just about anything and still feel like I accomplished something.

I honestly don’t know why I hadn’t explored that option more. I think I dummied up a page, but that was before I chose that photo :(

Ligheter weights of Optima and Eras would have worked too, although one does see them a lot here.

(Why isn’t anyone making much fun of Friz Quadrata anymore? It was ubiquitous for awhile, then disappeared, and now I’m seeing a resurgence?)

Linda

Yup, thin/extra light weight is the way to go, like I said.

By to by, I’m seeing a Gill-sort-of-revival here in PDX, Linda. Joanna is cool again (though its italic is still shabby as ever).

Oh yeah, Friz Quadrata. Set ’em high and kern ’em tight. They’ll be your best friend.

A ring with a flower like this Sunday New York Times Petal Puzzle will do wonders especially for Typophile couple.

its the woman who wants a BIG massive rock on her finger, not the guy!!! you’re suppose to have it the opposite and focus on the hands only not anything else so if she had nail varnish on, we all know its a womans hand right? and you see a guys hand, u usually have a waatch on right? its not appealing to me i must say coz it iS her day after all. you need to focus on the woman and she getting a ring on her finger and she is female therefore the type should reflect feminity (dont know if thats a word :D) but you get me right? so flowy, delicate type. what do you think?

> it iS her day after all

That’s what I’m talkin’bout. :-/

hhp

It is her day. And her mother’s. And HIS mother’s. And his cousin’s mother’s.

I’m so very afraid.

Yes Dan, weddings are a REAL mother! :-)

ChrisL

Hence the term “matrimony”.

- Lex

They forgot the “e” between the last two letters.

hhp

> It is her day. And her mother’s. And HIS mother’s. And his cousin’s mother’s.

How many Fingers and How many Rings for One Finger and One Exclusive Ring!

Have you ever heard of Puzzle Rings? What is a Puzzle Ring?
Puzzle Rings were the traditional wedding bands given to the wife during ancient times in the Middle East. Only the husband would know the solution to the puzzle guaranteeing the wife would not take off the ring. Samples here.
Interesting?!
Happy Shopping with Flowers

I have a silver puzzle ring somewhere, and I even know how to solve it! I seem to remember that it was a souvenir brought to me by a friend.

ok, hrant. take it easy. sorry for even saying what i said.

Don’t be sorry - I had fun!

hhp

maybe Dan, you’re not really a ladies man but you like to think you are ;)

Who is, and who doesn’t?

hhp

Confused? Who said what? and Who is who?

maybe Dan, you’re not really a ladies man but you like to think you are ;)
What!?!? I am offended! How about dinner for two? :)

Yes, designing lumberjack ads would suit me just fine, but I’m just angry that I don’t understand what it is that makes a thing feminine. Flowers and frilly crap and pink ribbons and rings and kittens don’t neccesarily feminine make. There has to be some fundamental thing that is intrinsic, and THAT is what I am missing. If I could find the missing underlying principle, I should be able to make an ad for a Husqvarna chainsaw feminine.

LOL!

If you could make that feminine Dan, you would be one hell of a man :-)

ChrisL

Why would a chainsaw ad have to be “feminine” to appeal to women? Heck, I make a beeline for the power tools department at Home Depot every time. ;-)

L.

Dan, once you pass this test, do you move on to the gay wedding planner?

And after that the **** wedding planner:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4748292.stm

(Of course Nick will interpret that as an anti-gay comment.)

hhp

OK Linda! :-)

ChrisL

ROFL! In fact, yesterday, I was pointing out to my sweetie how really comfortable a small cordless drill was to hold, in hopes he gets the hint for Christmas.... ;-)

(Although I must admit, I have mad lust for a reciprocating saw as well!)

Linda, you are such a cut-up :-)

ChrisL

I prefer acoustic tools.
And apparently so does that blonde.
Chicks with sledgehammers is cool.

hhp

She is sure to be a big hit with you too :-)

ChrisL

I was more into sledgehammers when I was younger: these days, with limited hand strength, I ’d probably lose my grip and the darned thing would fly through the nearest window. ;-)

I guess that depends on how you feel about the person behind the nearest window :-)

ChrisL

Linda, I don’t know if anybody has told you,
but sledgehammers are meant for demolition. ;-)

hhp

(Of course Nick will interpret that as an anti-gay comment.)

Seems to be more of an “aren’t I outspoken?!” comment, or perhaps a Nick-goading comment.

No, I just wanted to talk about ****.

hhp

This forum might be more appropriate than Typophile.
Glad to help you on your way.

Thanks!
I’ll start looking for a forum for whining about offenses by proxy.

hhp

Chris, don’t we all know a few people who we’d like to knock that kind of sense into?

And who, unfortunately, still wouldn’t get it?

L.

Linda, yes we do! (erupting into a chorus of “Bang, Bang, Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” :-)

ChrisL

It’s the old signal-to-whinynamecallingnoise ratio — when it gets too large, I can’t be bothered.

Besides, I’ve been spending my time lately working on my blog: today’s “big adventure” was setting up the RSS feed. Given I’m not the most bleeding techno-edge individual, I’m rather proud of having done it myself. ;-)

L.

P.S. Ski season’s opened here with a swack of snow up in the mountains!

At the risk of being taken for a proxy whiner:

Toronto says I do.

Perhaps femininity is not really what defines “weddingish-ness”, so the look of gay wedding sites such as this might provide a better answer.

Linda, I went to your site! I see you can drink no whine before its time:-)

ChrisL

We started out as an email list in 1994: we done come a long way baby!

(Now, if I can get the website updated, then life will be good....)

double post

the old signal-to-whinynamecallingnoise ratio

As opposed to the old signal-to-patoneselfonthebacknoise ratio? :-)

awwww, sorry Danny and i’d definately love dinner for 2 and 2 ONLY! ;) and about your ’missing underlying principle’ for the chain saw. i may just have the answer. PINK, the colour pink! yup, it’ll catch thier attention alright. :D yeah, so where am i meeting you then? ;)

Picture looks good but I think I would have gone with a guy putting the ring on the girl at the wedding, just my opinion other wise everything looks great colors, fonts, layout. I’m not sure if I could ever use a wedding planner with all the stress involved of making sure things are done how you want i don’t think I could let someone put the wedding together if anything went wrong I can just see my self in marriage counseling real soon trying to explain what went wrong why and how i’d fix it.

Bump.

It was a resource guide to help people plan their own weddings.

And this thread used to be 2 or 3 pages long. When did the Typophile boys change the amount of posts that forced a second page?

Dan, I think it happened with the last upgrade.

I’d like to see the avatars stay the same as when the post was made.

Dan, I’ve had this same scenario several times with a particular client. They’re very democratic (in the worst way possible), and everyone gets a say. Invariably, the women line up on one side of the aisle, the men on the other. If one side likes it, the other doesn’t.

Of course, the strong opinions could have something to do with the topic of weddings. As most designers know, anything wedding-related is a nightmare project, and should be avoided at all costs, even if it’s not directly connected to your family.

Photoshop a giant wedding ring around the Space Needle! Or even better, Photoshop a tuxedo onto an outline of the state of Washington!

The Bosch tools were turned pink and DIY women wanted to buy them but not all women are feminine enough to go buy pink frilly things. The script typeface works though. Flirty, flowing...just like women.