Web Design Forums

Larixk · 11-12-2006, 04:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by djeglin

lol... ok, to those of you who were at all serious in your comments, then thanks. To those deriders amongst you, who frown on the use of "web 2.0" on "your" forum, because forward movement in technologies frightens you, and threatens your security as the "elite" in your field (either that or you just have a problem with the terminology... Cant see why... Its been adopted by, err, almost everyone)... well... It wouldn't be polite for me to comment.

The thing is, Web 2.0 isn't a style thing. People are jacking eachothers styles today and are calling that Web2.0.
Web 2.0 is more of a technology/philosophy kind of trend. Essentially it has nothing to do with reflecting logo's and soft gradients.

Dusteh · 11-12-2006, 05:42

How to make yourself look like a twat:
Believe you participating in web2.0 by adding gradients and drop shadows to your logo.

Web2.0 is advanced social networking and next-level interactivity. Somehow a little online portfolio doesn't justify the term.

djeglin · 11-12-2006, 07:12

Guys, I realise what web 2.0 is... I spent 4 years as the lead columnist on internet matters for the biggest computer magazine in Europe. However, "web 2.0" does seem to have a style that fits nicely with it, that sleek, shiny style that we have all come to know, and obviously, some of us to hate. This "style", I would imagine, was originally conceived to reflect the sleek nature of many of the apps developed with these technologies.

Web 2.0 is NOT advanced social networking, that is simply facilitated by the technologies that go to make up the Web 2.0 buzzword. However, I do take your point, but there was really no need to put it in that manner.

Anyway, the point of this is, that I think I will come up with another iteration of the logo that might be more palletable, and then see what you guys think... But please, no more lectures on stuff I already know

saints · 11-12-2006, 07:13

interesting logo, but you must just simplify it a bit its ok but it looks too confused maybe utilise another colour

djeglin · 11-12-2006, 07:46

thanks saints. appreciate someone giving useful feedback and not just trolling it lol

Alexanda · 11-12-2006, 08:05

what is interesting about the logo?

djeglin · 11-12-2006, 09:45

apart from the conjoined x's... nothing. And even they arent anything wacky. I'm looking into some other ideas at the moment, anyway... maybe to satisfy people something a little more subtle

sjd · 11-12-2006, 12:04

Quote:

the drippy bit doesnt work, its too subtle and looks like a mistake.

Unless it's a hardcore porn site.

11-12-2006, 08:05	#26 (permalink)
Alexanda European Champions 2008 Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 2,280	what is interesting about the logo? __________________ whats facebook?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-12-2006, 05:42	#22 (permalink)
Dusteh Sir digby chicken caesar Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 4,039	How to make yourself look like a twat: Believe you participating in web2.0 by adding gradients and drop shadows to your logo. Web2.0 is advanced social networking and next-level interactivity. Somehow a little online portfolio doesn't justify the term.

11-12-2006, 07:12	#23 (permalink)
djeglin goober :-) Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Birmingham, UK Posts: 518	Guys, I realise what web 2.0 is... I spent 4 years as the lead columnist on internet matters for the biggest computer magazine in Europe. However, "web 2.0" does seem to have a style that fits nicely with it, that sleek, shiny style that we have all come to know, and obviously, some of us to hate. This "style", I would imagine, was originally conceived to reflect the sleek nature of many of the apps developed with these technologies. Web 2.0 is NOT advanced social networking, that is simply facilitated by the technologies that go to make up the Web 2.0 buzzword. However, I do take your point, but there was really no need to put it in that manner. Anyway, the point of this is, that I think I will come up with another iteration of the logo that might be more palletable, and then see what you guys think... But please, no more lectures on stuff I already know

11-12-2006, 07:13	#24 (permalink)
saints Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: SOUTH AFRICA Posts: 91	interesting logo, but you must just simplify it a bit its ok but it looks too confused maybe utilise another colour

11-12-2006, 07:46	#25 (permalink)
djeglin goober :-) Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Birmingham, UK Posts: 518	thanks saints. appreciate someone giving useful feedback and not just trolling it lol

11-12-2006, 09:45	#27 (permalink)
djeglin goober :-) Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Birmingham, UK Posts: 518	apart from the conjoined x's... nothing. And even they arent anything wacky. I'm looking into some other ideas at the moment, anyway... maybe to satisfy people something a little more subtle

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)