That's brilliant. That is what I want to know. Anybody giving me input on what to change can do so as well, but I want to primarly narrow down what users like you and Jens and stuff like to see on the internet, so I can create something "whole". It's useless discussing it with more designers because each designer has a different view, but with users, it's more rounded and much better. Plus, not many designers are going to be visiting my site.phishman420 wrote:
1 is nice, 2 sucks, and 3 is OK. I just meant that I couldn't tell you what to change. I can only tell you what looks good and what doesn't (in my opinion).
Would one of these work as a better background?
All images we use are images we have taken with our own cameras. Never use stock images.
Well, after more effort, we came up with this ( well, I did ).
I think it's certainly better than all the other options. Thoughts?
I think it's certainly better than all the other options. Thoughts?
I also think it looks a lot better, but try to do something with the background. It's too white. Add some kind of texture or something.Zimmer wrote:
Well, after more effort, we came up with this ( well, I did ).
I think it's certainly better than all the other options. Thoughts?
http://i44.tinypic.com/jj9u6h.png
I just clicked on your sig, and I like the look of that more.
Last edited by phishman420 (2009-01-31 14:30:11)
Really? I hate the current design. I truly hate it, and I made it. It's foul, in my opinion. Unprofessional, messy and downright ugly.
Cool, I will try something with the background. It was just to test though, there will be content in the big white space.
Cool, I will try something with the background. It was just to test though, there will be content in the big white space.
I agree with ig, the last one is a little plain, but a good idea.
Imo, the main thing is that the first thing people have to think when they visit is "web designer" - ie don't be afraid to expiriment, make it abstract, whatever - I don't know.
Like this site. If you took away all the text, you could still guess that it had to do with a design, the layout says it's a blog, thus it's probably a blog about design. Therefore, it's probably a blog with tips and tricks, as that's the most common with such blogs. See what I mean?
I could be completely "wrong" here, but I like being able to see what a site is about at first glance, without having to read shit.
Imo, the main thing is that the first thing people have to think when they visit is "web designer" - ie don't be afraid to expiriment, make it abstract, whatever - I don't know.
Like this site. If you took away all the text, you could still guess that it had to do with a design, the layout says it's a blog, thus it's probably a blog about design. Therefore, it's probably a blog with tips and tricks, as that's the most common with such blogs. See what I mean?
I could be completely "wrong" here, but I like being able to see what a site is about at first glance, without having to read shit.
background is too random, perhaps something that exploits your logo. I wouldn't use much other than neutrals since your showcase thumbnails should most of the talking.
Hm... Blah.
What do you think we have been doing Jens?
Trying shit that hasn't been done before. But it gets shot down. It ISN'T a design company. It's a development company. We design and develop.
Webdesignerwall is lovely, but it's way too graphical for a main page of a development company. Too much attraction to the head rather than the content.
And about the "guessing what site it is". The first thing you see is the INSPIRATION WEB DEVELOPMENT... so what else are you to think it is?
What do you think we have been doing Jens?
Trying shit that hasn't been done before. But it gets shot down. It ISN'T a design company. It's a development company. We design and develop.
Webdesignerwall is lovely, but it's way too graphical for a main page of a development company. Too much attraction to the head rather than the content.
And about the "guessing what site it is". The first thing you see is the INSPIRATION WEB DEVELOPMENT... so what else are you to think it is?
I think the problem with trying things that haven't been done before is 90% of the time there's a good reason no-one has done them.Zimmer wrote:
Trying shit that hasn't been done before. But it gets shot down.
The current site isn't bad, it's just the background image and the the font that spoil it for me, I despise serif fonts they look so old fashioned and the background is a bit well, I dunno, I just don't like it, the colour changer doodah is nice tho.
That is basically the whole site.TheEternalPessimist wrote:
The current site isn't bad, it's just the background image and the the font that spoil it for me, I despise serif fonts they look so old fashioned and the background is a bit well, I dunno, I just don't like it, the colour changer doodah is nice tho.
Logo fails, fonts fail, colour fails, bg fails, navigation fails.
lol there's nothing wrong with with most of it, just a font change and a nice stock image on the background would sort it. You can jiggle the rest around to suit later.
But there is the problem. What stock image? How to place it. What it would look like with the content on it, etc etc etc.TheEternalPessimist wrote:
lol there's nothing wrong with with most of it, just a font change and a nice stock image on the background would sort it. You can jiggle the rest around to suit later.
I mean, honestly, if you look at the designs I am throwing out there. It isn't as if they are major changes from the current. Colour, background and logo change. The rest will stay pretty much the same...
True I suppose, and as you've probably guessed from our numerous PM chats over the past couple of years I can't really tell you what to put where
I'd have a play in Photoshop and see what I could come up with but, I recently formatted +lost the dvd with cs3 on and a certain warez site is dead atm so I can't DL it See what happens later.
One thing I would try to keep at all costs though is those site thumbnails, i seriously like the image slide off effect.
I'd have a play in Photoshop and see what I could come up with but, I recently formatted +lost the dvd with cs3 on and a certain warez site is dead atm so I can't DL it See what happens later.
One thing I would try to keep at all costs though is those site thumbnails, i seriously like the image slide off effect.
Hm, alright, I'll keep the thumbnails thing.TheEternalPessimist wrote:
True I suppose, and as you've probably guessed from our numerous PM chats over the past couple of years I can't really tell you what to put where
I'd have a play in Photoshop and see what I could come up with but, I recently formatted +lost the dvd with cs3 on and a certain warez site is dead atm so I can't DL it See what happens later.
One thing I would try to keep at all costs though is those site thumbnails, i seriously like the image slide off effect.
Trying out a few things:
Question.
Could it be the name that is hindering progress?
I have to admit the name did make me giggle but only because of a friend of mine, he's dyslexic so he tends to spell words how he says them so active comes out as arktive but, I like the name, problem with a made up word is I can't think of any way to make a theme to match it because it has no meaning.
^ That looks pretty good btw, slip some contact gubbins in there somewhere and ur not far off, possibly a faint texture for the background.
^ That looks pretty good btw, slip some contact gubbins in there somewhere and ur not far off, possibly a faint texture for the background.
Actually, the name come from a very basic background.TheEternalPessimist wrote:
I have to admit the name did make me giggle but only because of a friend of mine, he's dyslexic so he tends to spell words how he says them so active comes out as arktive but, I like the name, problem with a made up word is I can't think of any way to make a theme to match it because it has no meaning.
^ That looks pretty good btw, slip some contact gubbins in there somewhere and ur not far off, possibly a faint texture for the background.
Interactive, interarctive, interarktive, arktive. We started out with Interarktive, but it was too long ( I thought ) so we cut it.
With the first idea of the name, we made a logo with a hand drawn arc at the side... I was thinking if we could do that with this... but unsure.
I'm no good with logo concepts, I wouldn't know where to start.
The one two designs ago with the cut off text logo: best treatment of the text mark so far.
The only real two problems I see with the current design are:
- the simple vector-cartoony swirl logo thing is clashing really, really hard with the highly textured rest of the page.
- the main content areas have straight edges, when the header items do not. It doesn't match.
The design, overall is probably just fine, but out of sync with itself.
The only real two problems I see with the current design are:
- the simple vector-cartoony swirl logo thing is clashing really, really hard with the highly textured rest of the page.
- the main content areas have straight edges, when the header items do not. It doesn't match.
The design, overall is probably just fine, but out of sync with itself.
Haha. But I don't exactly want it to be "just fine".chuyskywalker wrote:
The one two designs ago with the cut off text logo: best treatment of the text mark so far.
The only real two problems I see with the current design are:
- the simple vector-cartoony swirl logo thing is clashing really, really hard with the highly textured rest of the page.
- the main content areas have straight edges, when the header items do not. It doesn't match.
The design, overall is probably just fine, but out of sync with itself.
So you think the design before the last one is the best so far?
I wasn't really planning on keeping the current design, even if it got positive feedback. I can't stand looking at it. Hm, dunno.
Thanks for the feedback guys.
Trying a few new things, opinion is wanted.
So far, you guys have been great, thanks a ton.
Some muck arounds, but I dunno, maybe you like them.
So far, you guys have been great, thanks a ton.
Some muck arounds, but I dunno, maybe you like them.
Any thoughts guys?
Zimmer is failing
Zimmer is failing
too facebooky. Hard to read.Zimmer wrote:
Trying a few new things, opinion is wanted.
So far, you guys have been great, thanks a ton.
http://i44.tinypic.com/erwv81.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/28hn9g0.jpg
Some muck arounds, but I dunno, maybe you like them.
I had the exact same initial thought.Miggle wrote:
too facebooky.