Old 11-12-2006, 04:38   #21 (permalink)
Larixk
Senior Member
 
Larixk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Utrecht, Netherlands
Posts: 993
Send a message via MSN to Larixk
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2006, 05:42   #22 (permalink)
Dusteh
Sir digby chicken caesar
 
Dusteh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,395
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2006, 07:12   #23 (permalink)
djeglin
goober :-)
 
djeglin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 525
Send a message via MSN to djeglin
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 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
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2006, 07:46   #25 (permalink)
djeglin
goober :-)
 
djeglin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 525
Send a message via MSN to djeglin
thanks saints. appreciate someone giving useful feedback and not just trolling it lol
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2006, 08:05   #26 (permalink)
Alexanda
European Champions 2008
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 2,315
what is interesting about the logo?
__________________
whats facebook?
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2006, 09:45   #27 (permalink)
djeglin
goober :-)
 
djeglin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 525
Send a message via MSN to djeglin
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2006, 12:04   #28 (permalink)
sjd
Registered Abuser
 
sjd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Manchester, England.
Posts: 174
Quote:
the drippy bit doesnt work, its too subtle and looks like a mistake.
Unless it's a hardcore porn site.
  Reply With Quote
Reply



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

Advanced Search


Contact Us - Web Design Forums - Archive - Top
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8