tahir
|
Site redesignWe've decided to have another go at redesigning the site, this is what i've come up with so far, the intention is to get a unified look across the forum and homepage, the banner is to stay the same, obviously below the banner will change as necessary.
This is very rough so please feel free to comment as vociferously as you like.
|
fonant
|
Is this to replace the current downsizer.net look?
I like the world-in-leaf logo, but it should be top left where you've got the google ads (and should be clickable to get the home page). I think I've got a marginal preference for the version with the enveloping leaf too, looks more caring and relaxed and less "the world is mine!".
The reverse-video buttons are nice, and allows the use of some nice green colour.
My personal preference is to minimise "edges" so I prefer coloured areas to group things rather than lines (which have two edges each).
Do the google ads bring in any useful income, or could they be dispensed with? I'd be tempted to almost hide them away, as they make the site look less neat.
Perhaps prepare several skins and let people choose their favourite? You could even monitor the stats 
Anthony
|
Mr BlueSky
|
Hi Tahir
I take it this is just a rough outline of what you are aiming for. Not being too critical but the "downsizer.net" line is very sawtoothed.
I agree it is a very good idea to have the "home, forums, links, articles, search" along the topr with the header. Will make things much easier for users to find.
When you say that the banner is to remain the same I am assuming that you mean the photographic banner on the main homepage. I am very impressed with this and would be dissapointed to see it go. In fact I would be pleased to see this wonderful image at the head of all the downsizer pages although I quite understand that this may result in loss of page space and therefore may not be practical.
More info please. I will be happy to help with the site re-design in any way that I can. Please let me know what needs to be done.
Simon
|
tahir
|
| fonant wrote: | | Is this to replace the current downsizer.net look? |
Yes
I ditched the world in leaf because it took up a lot of space vertically, I thought it was quite caring not "the worlds mine", I quite like it without the leaf but I'm open to persuasion.
We do have the google argument every now and then but it's our only source of income...
How would you get rid of the lines?
Skins?  You 'aving a larf mate it's took me almost 2 days to do this (graphic design is not my forte)
|
tahir
|
| simon wrote: | | I take it this is just a rough outline |
Very
| Quote: | | I agree it is a very good idea to have the "home, forums, links, articles, search" along the topr with the header. Will make things much easier for users to find. |
That's the idea
| Quote: | | When you say that the banner is to remain the same I am assuming that you mean the photographic banner on the main homepage. |
Do you mean the banner on the forum? We always liked that but it just doesn't scale. We're after a banner that will stay the same irrespective of whether you're at the home page or forum.
| Quote: | | I will be happy to help with the site re-design in any way that I can. Please let me know what needs to be done. |
That'd be great. I hope you have a better understanding of what we're after now so any help (from any of you) would be great.
|
Mr BlueSky
|
| tahir wrote: | | fonant wrote: | | Is this to replace the current downsizer.net look? |
Skins? You 'aving a larf mate it's took me almost 2 days to do this (graphic design is not my forte) |
 Never mind .... time well spent!
We are all here to help if you get stuck. I think that by "skins" Fonant just means a few more "jpeg"s similar to the one above but modified with regards to colours, font, layout. This should prove somewhat easier than re-creating the image from scratch.
Have another cup of coffee Tahir, you could be up late tonight! 
|
tahir
|
So how would we make skins work? Obviously the front page is mambo, and the forum is phpbb, they both need to look the same(ish)
|
Mr BlueSky
|
| tahir wrote: | | Do you mean the banner on the forum? We always liked that but it just doesn't scale. We're after a banner that will stay the same irrespective of whether you're at the home page or forum. |
Sorry, yes I meant the forum banner - not the "homepage" version.
Is there any way that we could make it scaleable? It would be easy enough for me to recreate a few different sized versions of the banner for use on different pages if this helps. It would certainly be worthwhile (IMO) if it would mean saving the original banner. I am rather attached to it now. 
|
tahir
|
| simon wrote: | | Is there any way that we could make it scaleable? It would be easy enough for me to recreate a few different sized versions of the banner for use on different pages if this helps. It would certainly be worthwhile (IMO) if it would mean saving the original banner. I am rather attached to it now. |
You've gone and bolluxed the whole process now
I do like the old one, but then the new ones nice too, this means we'll have to go back to at least the staff room (at some stage) to discuss the logo again
|
nettie
|
I like it. I can see it's only a rough idea at the moment but it looks very clean and easy to use so far. I like the heading and I liked my leaf but the logo looks good to me either way.
|
Mr BlueSky
|
| tahir wrote: | You've gone and bolluxed the whole process now
|
Whoops!  Sorry
It wasn't my intention to do that
I think this may call for a "banner vote". I don't mind if I get out-voted but I am hoping that others have the same affection for the "original downsizer" that I do.
Sorry again if this has boleauix'd things even more. Life is hard Tahir 
|
tahir
|
We'll cross that bridge when we find it, how would we make the buttons work with "old DS" if that was what we decided to do?
I like oldDS a lot but I think newDS looks fresher and cleaner (or will do once a semi competent graphics person has had a bash at it)
|
Mr BlueSky
|
Ok, that's sorted.
Just in case things go contrary to my favour I have saved the original banner in "my documents" for posterity.
Well, it may sound sad but it beats going out "bus-spotting" on a saturday morning!
|
jema
|
I really do not think we can do anything scalable/skinnable.
|
tahir
|
| jema wrote: | | I really do not think we can do anything scalable/skinnable. |
I'm anti skins myself.
The only scalable I'm referring to is to have different sizes of logo available if we need them for links for external sites etc.
|
caty_anne
|
hi,
like the layout but i think the logo should be on other side if your using a smaller screen you might have to scrool to see it and could miss it altogether. i think the buttons are a bit dark ,maybe try the same shade as ,downsizer.net, text.like the major buttons at the top easy to find. logo should be linked to home page.white background is fresher and i think quicker to load.
just a few ideas.
|
tahir
|
Thanks Caty_Anne, fancy sorting out the logo? I just sort of bodged it, and the downsizer.net etc doesn't look too good either...
I'll try the lighter colour in the buttons tomorrow.
|
caty_anne
|
where can i get the logo so i can have a go
|
tahir
|
All I've got is the .gif that I've uploaded here, I'll email it to you.
|
caty_anne
|
sorry im not very up to date for the logo did you decide to not use the leaf just the world and man
|
jema
|
| caty_anne wrote: | | sorry im not very up to date for the logo did you decide to not use the leaf just the world and man |
We have the leaf on the main site currently, but we lost a bit of momentum trying to come up with the final design for both the main site and the forum. Tahir is putting some wind into those sails again
|
tahir
|
| caty_anne wrote: | | sorry im not very up to date for the logo did you decide to not use the leaf just the world and man |
I reckon the world and person works better
|
jema
|
| tahir wrote: | | caty_anne wrote: | | sorry im not very up to date for the logo did you decide to not use the leaf just the world and man |
I reckon the world and person works better |
I am in to minds on that point, but size is a real issue on the logo.
|
tahir
|
| jema wrote: | | size is a real issue on the logo. |
That's why I said "works better"
|
Fee
|
| jema wrote: |
We have the leaf on the main site currently, but we lost a bit of momentum trying to come up with the final design for both the main site and the forum. Tahir is putting some wind into those sails again |
Hi Guys,
I've been a bit naff, and really flippin' busy with work (plus festivals and becoming an Auntie  ) ...no excuses though, thanks for the wind, Tahir, my sails have been flaggin somewhat My spinnaker's being halled up as we speak!
So...I was supposed to be adding some lettering around the logo, is this still going to help?? I'll read through previous posts to get a heads up when I get another chance, it's gonna be bits of time pinched from here and there I'm afraid...work deadlines approaching swiftly!
Let me know how I can help guys
Fee
|
jema
|
I have a feeling lettering round the logo has gone down in importance, as it is then so much more difficult size and change wise. Thanks for the offer of help though. I am sure we will need it.
|
nettie
|
Hey Fee, I wondered where you'd been!!!
|
tahir
|
| Fee wrote: | Let me know how I can help guys
|
Congrats on becoming an aunty Fee, Caty_Anne is reworking the logo, so it'd just be nice to see what you think of it once it's done. the fonts used need thinking about...
|
Fee
|
Good stuff
|
tahir
|
Unfortunately Caty_Anne was unable to do it so Mary of ZebraGraphics has kindly had a go at it, here are the (much better than mine) results, comments appreciated.
|
tahir
|
I think I like the last one the best
|
jema
|
I can hardly see the difference between 1 & 2 which are the ones I prefer. I have a feeling they may be just a tad too big. But I think they are better than what we have
|
jema
|
| tahir wrote: | | I think I like the last one the best |
I don't think the font suits the site. It is too formal.
|
sean
|
I like the third one. The fifth one would be better without the serif on the 'i'.
Probably time for a poll, methinks.
|
Bugs
|
| sean wrote: | | I like the third one |
So do I
| Quote: | | Probably time for a poll, methinks. |
So does me
In the unlikely event anyone needs me, I'll be having a lie-down and listening to calming music. If anyone wants to make me a hot, strong cup of tea, it's milk, no sugar thanks
|
jema
|
| sean wrote: | I like the third one. The fifth one would be better without the serif on the 'i'.
Probably time for a poll, methinks. |
i'm ok with three
|
Treacodactyl
|
| Bugs wrote: | | sean wrote: | | I like the third one |
So do I
| Quote: | | Probably time for a poll, methinks. |
So does me
|
So do I.
|
tahir
|
I like 3 too
|
mpw
|
If anyone wants to see any variation on number 3, just let me know what you want.
Mary
|
tahir
|
| mpw wrote: | If anyone wants to see any variation on number 3, just let me know what you want.
Mary |
Simon and Fee both have grpahics experience and Nettie's was the fair hand that crafted the logo in the first place so maybe we'd better wait till they've all seen it before we go any further?
|
nettie
|
I definitely prefer the italics, and the lower case stuff. I like the third one best, however I'd also like to see it with the dark green writing underneath.
|
tahir
|
Amended version:
|
tahir
|
I like the 2nd one, but does anyone else think the globe colours look a bit dull?
|
sean
|
On the original the blue writing echoed the blue on the globe. If you made the lower bit of the writing a darker/more intense blue, could you change the blue on the globe to match? It might give it a bit more definition.
|
mpw
|
Like this?
|
jema
|
I find the blue there a bit on the flourescent size, sort of post meltdown look to it
|
sean
|
That's the sort of idea though.
|
mpw
|
OK, how about this?
|
sean
|
I like that, but I'm looking on an iMac, so I've no idea what it looks like to everybody else. Anyone with a CRT monitor got an opinion?
|
mpw
|
Well, I'm on a Mac (isn't everyone?!) with a CRT monitor and it looks good to me
|
sean
|
It was the screen that I meant rather than the system. I really like it.
|
jema
|
| mpw wrote: | OK, how about this?
|
Looks good here
|
tahir
|
Not enough contrast between the two greens IMO
|
jema
|
| tahir wrote: | | Not enough contrast between the two greens IMO |
On one screen here, I'd agree with that statement, on the other I think it is fine.
|
mpw
|
I can fiddle about with the greens some more if you like, but there's always the issue of monitor calibration - some will see a greater contrast than others.
|
tahir
|
Would it be better to have the land masses in a more yellowy or ochrey colour?
|
Mr BlueSky
|
Personally I like the third one down with the two colours. I think it does the job a treat. Nice on the eye too. Well done Mary!
|
tahir
|
| simon wrote: | | Personally I like the third one down with the two colours. I think it does the job a treat. Nice on the eye too. Well done! |
Agree, my only concern is the contrast between the two greens
|
Mr BlueSky
|
Yep, I think that if you could lighten up the "land mass" maybe fade it just slightly it would be a goer. I agree it would be fair to have a poll on the final contenders though.
OK, so where has my add attachment option gone????? I was gonna repost the third one down
|
tahir
|
Mines still there, maybe Jema's new server doesn't like you?
|
Mr BlueSky
|
or maybe I used up all my alloted bandwidth yesterday posting my new duckling pics eh? 
|
tahir
|
| simon wrote: | | or maybe I used up all my alloted bandwidth yesterday posting my new duckling pics eh? |
WEll Jema's the man that'd know
|
Mr BlueSky
|
Well he's showing as online so I think he must have dropped off
|
jema
|
Can't see why anyone would be having a problem 
|
mpw
|
I've changed the landmass colour on the most recent version and the third one down on the original set.
If I'd known you lot would be so hard to please...
|
mpw
|
Where did the logos go?!!!
I'll try again...
No, no good. What's happening, Jema? I can't get the image links to work.
|
mpw
|
Ooops!
Ahem, everything's fine now...
|
Mr BlueSky
|
Definatley the bottom one ..... a bit more subtle works well
|
Mr BlueSky
|
Actually, at a second glance they both look really good. I am happy with either (not that it is up to me). I say it is time to put the two finalists to the vote. What say everyone else? Or do we need to have a vote on whether to put it to the vote or not?
This is getting very "Monty Python" somebody sort it out quickish!
|
tahir
|
I prefer the bottom one too, but lets see what everybody else says
|
jema
|
| simon wrote: | | Definatley the bottom one ..... a bit more subtle works well |
I'd go for the top of the two, don't like the bottom blue much.
But lets keep the perspective here and say these are far better either of them than where we are, so i think we are at the hair splitting stage.
|
tahir
|
| jema wrote: | | these are far better either of them than where we are, so i think we are at the hair splitting stage. |
Definitely
|
Mr BlueSky
|
Cast yer votes now please!
If someone will have the bravado to put the poll on that is
|
tahir
|
| simon wrote: | | If someone will have the bravado to put the poll on that is |
What options are we presenting?
|
nettie
|
Can I suggest that we see them all, scaled down, so we can see how they'd look when used for other things, for example in magazines? That's when we'll notice whether there's enough contrast or not.
|
jema
|
| nettie wrote: | | Can I suggest that we see them all, scaled down, so we can see how they'd look when used for other things, for example in magazines? That's when we'll notice whether there's enough contrast or not. |
We do certainly need to have different formats. Especially a 120 width tower format.
|
tahir
|
Here's a rough resize
|
Mr BlueSky
|
Top one is better in the small format. Do we really need to see all the others? I think this will just confuse everybody no end IMHO
|
mpw
|
I'd go for the top one. At this reduced size, the 2 colours on the world get merged in the other, and the strapline isn't strong enough.
(I'll also do some resizing tomorrow, and do a black and white version in case that's needed)
|
tahir
|
| mpw wrote: | | (I'll also do some resizing tomorrow, and do a black and white version in case that's needed) |
B&W is definitely needed as we're supposed to be producing some jute shopping bags, the smaller sizes need to include (as jema says) a 120 wide one that works (if that's possible)
|
nettie
|
I am wondering why the original colour scheme has been changed? Not being precious or anything but I did like it.
|
Fee
|
Hi Guys,
Sorry for joining in so late, only just got a chance...er, I realise this is a late comment, but what's happened to the colours? Not sure they work with the globe 
Mary - trust me, these lot are really difficult, but it will pay off in the end
I thought the sandy coloured globe (both land and sea) were very pleasing on the eye, otherwise, it feels like whatever colour blue you use clashes horribly with the green of the figure, believe me, I tried several too, and they all seemed to stand out like a sore thumb.
Again, sorry these comments come a bit late!
Fee
|
tahir
|
Could we try it with the globe the same colours as the original?
|
nettie
|
In which case the underneath lettering would look better dark green or brown....
|
mpw
|
Sorry these are late folks, but it's been a busy day. I think I've taken all the recent comments into consideration with these latest versions: if not, I'm sure you'll let me know
|
mpw
|
... and here are the little'uns, all 120px wide.
|
Bugs
|
Ooh, the top one is really easy on the eye; if it scales down nicely (or if we can use the b/w as an alternative) that would be my choice. Is it back to Nettie's original colours too?
Edited as posting at cross purposes, the small green scheme looks fine on the left, doesn't it?
|
jema
|
With the little ones, surely we could have the logo larger? as hieght is not that much of an issue.
|
mpw
|
It can be as tall as you like, Jema, these are just in pro with the horizontal layout. How tall do you need it to be?
|
Mr BlueSky
|
you are doing a mighty fine job Mary. It is getting hard to choose a "best one" now. They all look good in different ways.
|
mpw
|
Well, gosh, one does one's best, in one's own modest little way ...
|
sean
|
I think the top one, probably. The third one down gives you more clarity when scaled down but doesn't look as 'nice' (technical graphics term) at full size.
IMHO.
|
nettie
|
Top left does it for me Thank you Mary.
|
jema
|
| mpw wrote: | | It can be as tall as you like, Jema, these are just in pro with the horizontal layout. How tall do you need it to be? |
It is a bit of a long/tall as a piece of string. Some places will want a 120x120 logo, other will simply want the 120 width, so height can be what works best.
|
Fee
|
Top ones look great Looks good in B&W too!
Fee
|
tahir
|
Top one's fine with me
|
Mr BlueSky
|
The new banner is absolutely wonderful but ......
(before I go any further I will say it again - Well done Mary!)
..... it doesn't work at the top of the page on it's own as it appears here. Too empty. It resembles a box of matches in an aircraft hanger. There is far too much "white space" IMHO. Also I think the current version ^up there^ is too big. Maybe if it could be chopped down in size (to say two thirds) then positioned to the left and then something else put in the right hand top corner???
Don't know. The banner is great but it looks out of place to me.
|
tahir
|
Have a look at the other thread, there are going to be buttons either side.
|
Fee
|
Looks cool
Fee
|
Bugs
|
On my screen (admittedly bigger than the one at home, and with a, er, high? resolution? So I can fit lots on the screen) the buttons either side aren't equally spaced, it's not terrible but it doesn't look as tidy as it could, is this something already discussed that I don't get?
|
