Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil on March 18, 2022, 03:21:45 AM
What does everyone think of this as an obverse side? It's not as colorful as S:reu Txechescu's, to be sure, but it's intended to be pretty legible and I totally didn't spend way too long tinkering on the gradient transparency for the flag to get it just right, I swear

I love the design!, and definitely the size of the picture is much better.

However, please pick up as much as possible from the previous iteration on your new design, since those elements were all taken from published standards:
* person must be facing the camera (ISO/IEC39794 part 5),
* dates must commence with day (ICAO 9303 part 3),
* sex must be indicated for the second language in italic font style (ICAO 9303 part 3),
* issuing state and type of document must go first at the top (ICAO 9303 part 5).

And two more things:
1) Looks like I made a mistake with the size of the captions, which ought to be 1.8 mm in height _at most_ (I did 1.8 for fields and 2.2 for captions), as per ICAO 9303 part 3. I see it happening here too.
2) My recommendation was to not use the citizen number as the document number, since more than one could be issued (as replacement, due to new requirements, etcetera). I encoded the citizen number in the document number as I wanted that bit to be there, and the latter is a mandatory element as per ICAO 9303 part 5.

I spent countless hours ensuring this was compliant with all those standards, and I believe the end result is 100% legal. If that's one thing worth pursuing, let's make sure we don't deviate too much from that.

I'll nominate myself because what the heck.

One seat for me, please.

If I may, I'd like to suggest S:reu Autófil have a go at the design and have it improved before the project is finalized.

Absolutely not.

Two painful twits, related:
https://twitter.com/DoRoyalHost/status/1486816482713559041
https://twitter.com/DoRoyalHost/status/1486829006003527683

Quote from: Danihel Txechescu on January 25, 2022, 03:10:24 PM[...] The spec says it can be as little as 32x26 mm, so anything between those two is game.

Should read as 35x45 mm vs 26x32 mm.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 25, 2022, 07:33:01 PM

Quote from: Danihel Txechescu on January 25, 2022, 03:10:24 PM
A couple more ideas.

I love the design, but keep in mind that the text on the back still says "qa" instead of "certifia qe", which I can't explain.

Ah, will fix. I didn't see that mistake in the sentence even though I went through it again when you last posted the text. Thanks!

A couple more ideas.

Front adds years in Talossan format. Back adds arms for the King and the subject; I like this in order to promote the arms of the citizenry. There's a bit more space for signature in both front and back.

I printed these options and feel that the picture is a tad too big at 35x45 mm. The spec says it can be as little as 32x26 mm, so anything between those two is game.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 23, 2022, 06:33:29 PM
Here's the correct translations:

Nómină familial
Num
Schladă
Naziunalità
Däts da nataschă
Expiraziun
N:reu da doc.

Această cartă certifia qe ça porteir isch ün citaxhien lexhital del Regipäts Talossan, es isch indreptescu à toct i drepts es privilexhuns d'acest statüs. Certifiadă sub l'auþorità soveran da Sieu Maxhestà Rexhital, Regeu Ian Lupul. (...Sieu Maxhestà Ian I, Regeu da Talossa if we're using Miestră's suggestion)

Thanks! Will update and keep readily available.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 23, 2022, 06:33:29 PM@Danihel Txechescu Your translations were mostly fine, except they dont follow the new spellings. Are you still using the old Översteir?

Yes. I went to Talossan.com and then to English<->Talossan, and, well, that didn't work, so I used my (old) copy.

Attached, for Inkscape.

I'm not married to the Alfios font (the serif one). OCRB is needed. Roboto available here: https://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/roboto-2014

When making changes, please make sure it still complies with ICAO Doc 9303 parts 3 (§ 3.2, 4.5) and 5 (§ 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1).

Another sample.

The number of ID is comprised by a series (A) + year of emission (22) + citizen ID (292, zero-padded to 4 digits) + a serial/consecutive number for the emission (00).

This is all done in Inkscape (SVG), so it's easier to edit and automate.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 21, 2022, 01:59:17 PM
[...] I don't have an amazing design sense.  As I recall, you do -- maybe you want to take a crack at it?

Oh, I certainly wasn't born with design genes, but I did some research back in the day, and did again now.

So, there are a bunch of standards for and around ID's. The most popular size for ID cards is defined by ISO/IEC 7810 as ID-1, at 85.6mm x 53.98mm (pretty much credit card size). Another standard (ISO/IEC 7501) picks that up for machine readable identification cards, which encompasses passports, visas, and national ID's. There is an equivalent standard set by ICAO (https://www.icao.int) as Doc 9303. (It's in their best interest as these are travel documents, and it's freely available.)

These standards have a bunch of requirements, and I believe the images I'm attaching here fulfill them all, so this would be a legit/legal/valid/100%correct ID. And when I say legal I actually mean it -- The nationality is stated (as per ISO 3166-1 plus ICAO extensions) as unspecified; IANAL, I wouldn't recommend traveling with it.

Codes and checksums are correct. Translations are likely incorrect.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 22, 2022, 04:14:42 PM

Quote from: Danihel Txechescu on January 22, 2022, 03:19:14 PM
I thought it was "King John" and not "King John I".

it's both, but the latter is more formal. He's the first King John! He would be the third King Robert, if that were his name, or the second King Florence.

Well, TIL. I don't know where I got the impression that we were on the side of "no first": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnal_number#%22The_first%22

I thought it was "King John" and not "King John I".