PDA

View Full Version : New Site Logo Design



zeropsi
11-10-2006, 06:32 PM
Based on the boom of Web 2.0, I recently started moving alot of my legacy websites up to new Web 2.0 standards. From surfing around and reading about alot of the sites and new designs, I decided to attempt to redesign a logo for one of my sites in the a new Web 2.0-esked theme.

I am not sure how sold I am on the final product, and would like some feedback from some of you seasoned veterans on some design tips and tricks for a logo.

Thanks.

http://www.investchallenge.com/interest/splash.jpg

jscheuer1
11-10-2006, 07:01 PM
I think the image is interesting and professional looking. My only initial negative impression was that the word 'beta' is emblazoned upon the image as if it were some kind of an award or other 'claim to fame'. Beta means:

'Not ready yet'

So, if you want to have an award emblem, find another word to use in it or, if you want to truthfully advertise the beta state of the service/software whatever it is, use a less incongruent container like - say, a box.

Oh, and 30KB is too many bytes for such a simple image. Optimize it (http://tools.dynamicdrive.com/imageoptimizer/)!

Twey
11-10-2006, 07:26 PM
Beta means:

'Not ready yet'Maybe in English. In Web 2.0-speak it's a lot more positive :)

Actually, in development terms, betas tend to be usable but untested.
I recently started moving alot of my legacy websites up to new Web 2.0 standardsWhat "Web 2.0 standards?" There have been no new standards of late and, indeed, no formal definitions of Web 2.0. Personally, I won't be calling it Web 2.0 until we drop HTTP. This is Web 1.3, at best.

zeropsi
11-10-2006, 10:45 PM
I think the image is interesting and professional looking. My only initial negative impression was that the word 'beta' is emblazoned upon the image as if it were some kind of an award or other 'claim to fame'. Beta means:

'Not ready yet'

Technically, my site is in "BETA" stage: http://www.investment-challenge.com


Maybe in English. In Web 2.0-speak it's a lot more positive :)

Actually, in development terms, betas tend to be usable but untested.What "Web 2.0 standards?" There have been no new standards of late and, indeed, no formal definitions of Web 2.0. Personally, I won't be calling it Web 2.0 until we drop HTTP. This is Web 1.3, at best.

Well, I just meant a lot more colorful, using AJAX, use of gradients and rounded corners, and XHTML complaint.

Not standards as far as HTML.

Twey
11-10-2006, 11:03 PM
Well, I just meant a lot more colorful,I have no comment for this.
using AJAX,AJAX is a terrible idea. JSON is far easier to parse in Javascript. I hope you provided a server-side backup for non-JS (and non-XHR) browsers.
use of gradients and rounded corners,Again, this doesn't merit a comment.
and XHTML complaint.It's currently a very bad idea to serve XHTML to clients. Either you've dropped support for quite a few browsers (including IE) or you're serving the XHTML as text/html, which means you're forfeiting all the benefits of XHTML and introducing a whole new ream of problems (http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml) in their place. You're much better off with HTML 4.01 Strict.

/EDIT: I've looked at the site. Without Javascript, the email address does appear to be submitted, but the script to which it is submitted produces no output.

The XHTML is indeed being served as text/html. There is absolutely no point in this, and indeed. your page may as well be invalid.
Oh -- it is invalid. If you serve this as XHTML, it won't parse. Invalid XHTML Transitional, at that. Transitional DOCTYPEs are intended for the transition between an older DOCTYPE and a newer. They are most certainly not intended to be used when writing new sites.

zeropsi
11-10-2006, 11:14 PM
I have no comment for this.AJAX is a terrible idea. JSON is far easier to parse in Javascript. I hope you provided a server-side backup for non-JS (and non-XHR) browsers.Again, this doesn't merit a comment.It's currently a very bad idea to serve XHTML to clients. Either you've dropped support for quite a few browsers (including IE) or you're serving the XHTML as text/html, which means you're forfeiting all the benefits of XHTML and introducing a whole new ream of problems (http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml) in their place. You're much better off with HTML 4.01 Strict.

I am interested in your reasons for why you dislike AJAX?

I am trying to move away from table designed sites and completely rely on CSS driven sites. It is far easier to do our site redesigns with a CSS driven page, over a page that needs to be recoded and restyled.

My basic goals from moving my site from its previous design and layout to a "Web 2.0 site" is because it needs an Internet application, RSS feed, clean and nice looking URLs, and now the ever famous tagclouds.

Basically just moving my boring site principles along.

Twey
11-10-2006, 11:21 PM
I am interested in your reasons for why you dislike AJAX?I gave them above: XML is a remarkably inefficient carrier of data where Javascript is involved, especially where light-weight, easily-parsed alternatives such as JSON are available.
I am trying to move away from table designed sites and completely rely on CSS driven sites. It is far easier to do our site redesigns with a CSS driven page, over a page that needs to be recoded and restyled.Indeed it is. A much better idea semantically, too. I commend you, but fail to see how the application of CSS has any relevance to the discussion, which dealt with AJAX and XHTML.
My basic goals from moving my site from its previous design and layout to a "Web 2.0 site" is because it needs an Internet application,Define an "internet application." This forum is an internet application: it accepts and processes data submitted over the Internet. This has been around since the advent of forms and HTTP POST.
clean and nice looking URLsI presume you're referring to the use of XMLHttpRequest (XHR). An ugly URL is preferable to no URL at all, and pretty URLs can be achieved via mod_rewrite or equivalent without breaking the browser's history and bookmark functions.

zeropsi
11-10-2006, 11:37 PM
A much better idea semantically, too. I commend you, but fail to see how the application of CSS has any relevance to the discussion, which dealt with AJAX and XHTML.

Maybe I have my classifications mixed up, I had always assocaited a XHTML site as a site that follows a XML heirarchy and is controlled and styled through a CSS sheet.


Define an "internet application." This forum is an internet application: it accepts and processes data submitted over the Internet. This has been around since the advent of forms and HTTP POST.

Basically I have designed a number of user interfaces that interact with my databases and return information back to the users web browser. My idea with incorporating AJAX was to reduce the number of page reloads and speed-up the content delivery.


I presume you're referring to the use of XMLHttpRequest (XHR). An ugly URL is preferable to no URL at all, and pretty URLs can be achieved via mod_rewrite or equivalent without breaking the browser's history and bookmark functions.

I was more referring to the apache mod_rewrite, I got sick of having super long URL strings from my various pages and applications, and with the recent surge of SEO and search-friendly URLs, I wanted to rethink them and give them somewhat of a beautification.

jscheuer1
11-11-2006, 03:13 AM
All this over an image . . . :cool:

Twey
11-11-2006, 12:31 PM
Maybe I have my classifications mixed up, I had always assocaited a XHTML site as a site that follows a XML heirarchy and is controlled and styled through a CSS sheet.No, an XHTML site is a site that uses XHTML. CSS can be used with HTML just as easily and effectively.
Basically I have designed a number of user interfaces that interact with my databases and return information back to the users web browser. My idea with incorporating AJAX was to reduce the number of page reloads and speed-up the content delivery.That's fine, but I still think you'd be better off with JSON than XML as a format for the returned data.

mwinter
11-11-2006, 12:46 PM
I am interested in your reasons for why you dislike AJAX?

I don't dislike "AJAX", though I do dislike the name. The problem with it is usage, which is all too frequently atrocious. Because AJAX is a current buzzword in Web development, there seems to be this imperative to use it for any purpose, rather than because there's any tangible benefit. There are also cases where it's used in preference to any equal and better-supported approach. For instance, using AJAX instead of frames, or simply reloading the document. Both are almost always a better option (despite the problems with frames), yet AJAX is used instead because "it's cool".



... I had always assocaited a XHTML site as a site that follows a XML heirarchy and is controlled and styled through a CSS sheet.

What is "a XML heirarchy"? That's not a phrase that really means anything. If I had to guess, I'd say that you're referring to XML well-formedness requirements. However, there's nothing stopping an author from writing decent HTML (though a look at much of the Web might suggest otherwise).

As for using style sheets, any document written in the past several years should be using CSS to suggest presentation. There's no special relationship to XHTML at all.



Basically I have designed a number of user interfaces that interact with my databases and return information back to the users web browser.

So, it's a website, then? :rolleyes:



My idea with incorporating AJAX was to reduce the number of page reloads and speed-up the content delivery.

The overhead from reloading a document is minimal. A few kilobytes in a well-authored document. As you would need to provide a script-less fall back anyway, the effort seems wasted.

Using "AJAX" entails waiting for a complete response before rendering begins. HTML can be rendered incrementally. The total number of bytes may be increased, but it's perceptually faster. Loading content via "AJAX" also disables several interface features, such as the Back button and the ability to bookmark content. It's not a worthwhile trade-off, in my opinion.

Mike

zeropsi
11-11-2006, 04:01 PM
This has turned into quite the conversation over my logo. :)


I don't dislike "AJAX", though I do dislike the name. The problem with it is usage, which is all too frequently atrocious. Because AJAX is a current buzzword in Web development, there seems to be this imperative to use it for any purpose, rather than because there's any tangible benefit. There are also cases where it's used in preference to any equal and better-supported approach. For instance, using AJAX instead of frames, or simply reloading the document. Both are almost always a better option (despite the problems with frames), yet AJAX is used instead because "it's cool".

Well, since I do alot of my designing and developing for myself I am always pushing myself to learn new thing, new methods, so I can showcase them in a portfolio if I would ever need to find a new line of work. So as much of a "buzzword" AJAX is to you, I can't imagine how it flies around the water coolers at Media Agencies that design websites for clients. It's a much better card in my hand, than shuffled back in the deck.



What is "a XML heirarchy"? That's not a phrase that really means anything. If I had to guess, I'd say that you're referring to XML well-formedness requirements. However, there's nothing stopping an author from writing decent HTML (though a look at much of the Web might suggest otherwise).

Well, basically the hierarchy just refer to the flow of the code.

XML example:


<results>
<race value="1">
<winner>Barbosa</winner>
<place>Lucky Foot</place>
<show>Tuscany Gold</show>
<payout>15:1</payout>
</race>
<race value="2">
<winner>Red Skies</winner>
<place>Admiral Benson</place>
<show>Horse Play</show>
<payout>5:3</payout>
</race>
</results>


XHTML code:


<div id="wrapper">
<div id="header">
<div id="logo"></div>
<div id="banner">
</div>
<div id="navigation">
<div id="menu"></div>
</div>
<div id="footer"></div>
</div>




As for using style sheets, any document written in the past several years should be using CSS to suggest presentation. There's no special relationship to XHTML at all.

Like I said, it was just a misclassification on my part, I had just always used the two interchangeably.


So, it's a website, then? :rolleyes:

I would like to think it's alot more than "just a website". At least in my example. I have developed an interesting application that allows users to fictitiously purchase $10,000 worth of real world stocks at real world price and track their progress over a period of time, and compete with others on the site, or within their set-up groups to see how can accumulate the most cash by the end of each period. Call me crazy, but that is not "just a website."


The overhead from reloading a document is minimal. A few kilobytes in a well-authored document. As you would need to provide a script-less fall back anyway, the effort seems wasted.

Using "AJAX" entails waiting for a complete response before rendering begins. HTML can be rendered incrementally. The total number of bytes may be increased, but it's perceptually faster. Loading content via "AJAX" also disables several interface features, such as the Back button and the ability to bookmark content. It's not a worthwhile trade-off, in my opinion.

Mike

As mentioned above, my example may be a bit more adverse than the next, since I am trying to create an environment that duplicates "streaming" quotes that are being syndicated from a third-party, so in my humble attempt to provide rapid information, this was the method I decided to move forward with.