Recently I gave my blog a facelift and would appreciate feedback on first impressions of the home page.
didn't you already start a thread about the logo for this blog?
----------Paul DuccoBrand Design Melbourne
I did, here [[http://www.typophile.com/node/43874]], but your reply at that thread was not very helpful. Instead of saying merely 'lose the drop shadow ... definitely', you might have offered to say why you made this suggestion, rather than expect compliance uncomprehendingly.
I opened this thread hoping to get away from that sort of comment.
Sorry that you feel I personally made you start another thread.
"rather than expect compliance uncomprehendingly."
I didn't expect anything. It's your work, I offered a suggestion, I don't think the drop shadow adds any use to the "logo."
You posted this in the Logo critique section, so I was commenting on the 'logo' on the site. But the problems run much deeper. The 'type' used feels rigid, as does the structure of the information, it's all very tight and confusing in its structure.
What's the site about, what's the meaning of tepid air in relation to the site, why the colour choice, who is your audience, what are you trying to communicate?
... perhaps your approach is wrong.
Thank you, Ratbaggy, for this comment. I take your point about the purpose of the site being identified rather vaguely, and have made a change to the brief description in the header.
As for the 'structure' of the site, as you will have seen, it is organised logically, and with navigation obvious, despite your comment here that it is 'confusing'. The structure of the individual pages are, likewise, logical and with extra navigation as necessary.
It is possible much of your objections arise through visiting the site under a Windows OS. Of this I am aware and, because this is a personal site, I am not particularly concerned to create a site which is rendered more-or-less similar under several OSs.
Drop shadow detracts from a clean look, and is pretty passé by now. Most of the time it is best left out unless you need it to distinguish letters from the background. And you'll find that purist type aficionados will usually be against it because it presents the letters with unintended baggage.
Personally, I'd take it off, and make the med. gray one shade darker to compensate.
This 'logotype' looks far too 'tepid' without the drop shadow, as seen here [[http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p116/readred_2007/tepid_air.gif]]. Here, nothing has been changed, just the shadow removed.
I have tried using a slightly darker grey, but I feel the shadow gives both colours a better degree of separation from the background without resorting to 'reflections', while still allowing lighter colours.
I hear what you say about unintended baggage and 'fashion', but I don't pretend to be in the vanguard; I'm still struggling to catch up with the rearguard!
This ’logotype’ looks far too ’tepid’ without the drop shadow, as seen here http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p116/readred_2007/tepid_air.gif.
Your usage isn't horrible, but to me it looks better in the sample above without it.
but I don’t pretend to be in the vanguard; I’m still struggling to catch up with the rearguard!
I'm with you, but still, sometimes the pros know what they are talking about, which is why I started examining my infatuation with effects.
I'm not using 'effects for effect's sake' here and, personally, I rather do without the shadow, but this is my 'problem';
I really love the shape of the word 'air' in this font and, being in the ranks of the amateurs, I cannot find alternative fonts which I like for both words, produces the same effect in the word 'air' and still looks good, to me, completely unadorned.
Originally, I used 'Amerika Sans' which also made a lovely shape in the word 'air' but looked horrible in the word 'tepid'.
my first impressions are that it's plain, cramped, and there are too many combinations of type size/weight/color.