New Site Logo Design

[zeropsi]

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.

[jscheuer1]

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!

[Twey]

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 standards

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.

[zeropsi]

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]

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 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]

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 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]

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 URLs

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.

[zeropsi]

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]

All this over an image . . .

[Twey]

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.