 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:10:11 -0000, Rune <aut### [at] runevision com>
did spake, saying:
> The results of my thoughts are above. What do you think?
Very nice, simple and stylish with a nice flair to it.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" wrote:
> I never liked the old version that much. With all the black, large areas
> of flat grey, and simple angular lines, it feels like you've stumbled back
> into the dark ages of the CLI.
I liked it back when I made it, but yeah, I've gotten tired of it now.
> The new version uses lots of light colours, so it doesn't feel like your
> wondering around in a dark room any more. It has much more space and
> openness to it. In all, it seems a lot more inviting.
:)
> I'm not too keen on the flat blue background. I'd probably add a slight
> texturing to it, just to add a little interest. I realise you're probably
> aiming for a "clean, uncluttered" look, but to me it seems a little empty.
Sure, it's worth considering. I'll try various things out and see what I
prefer.
> I'm also not too keen on the particular shade of green you've chosen. I'd
> have probably chosen a brighter, more saturated colour, or a darker
> "emerald" green. I'm generally not keen on yellow-greens. Maybe it's just
> me. But hey, you asked my personal opinion! ;-)
Yeah, I did. :) I don't think I'll change that green though.
> I think the orange and yellow colours you've used work quite nicely with
> the green.
:)
> Personally, I dislike sans serif typefaces. But apparently nobody else
> does, so...
I like sans serif, but besides that, research show that serif typefaces are
easier to read in print and sans serif are easier to read on the screen, so
they're mostly used that way.
> The logo of your head looks like it could use a bit more antialias. It
> looks kinda grainy at the moment, while the rest of the page is
> deliciously smooth and crisp.
Yeah, that part is still mock-up.
> PS. Is your neck really that long?
Apparently - the "drawing" is in fact a manipulation of a real photo.
> PPS. I really suck at designing things to make them look good... :-(
Have you tried? It takes exercise... :)
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" wrote:
> I think the new one looks very nice :-) Definitely makes me want to stay
> a while and look around. Feels a lot more personal now.
Great! Thanks. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" wrote:
> I prefer the lighter feel of your new design it looks simple. Obviously
> from
> your description you put a lot of thought into it and it shows.
Thank you! I'll proceed with it then. :)
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phil Cook" wrote:
> Very nice, simple and stylish with a nice flair to it.
Thanks. :)
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:44:45 +0100, "Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:
>"Stephen" wrote:
>> I prefer the lighter feel of your new design it looks simple. Obviously
>> from
>> your description you put a lot of thought into it and it shows.
>
>Thank you! I'll proceed with it then. :)
>
>Rune
You have my permission :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
>> Personally, I dislike sans serif typefaces. But apparently nobody else
>> does, so...
>
> I like sans serif, but besides that, research show that serif typefaces are
> easier to read in print and sans serif are easier to read on the screen, so
> they're mostly used that way.
You're probably right about that. Computer screens still have nowhere
near the resolution of a half-decent printed page, so...
>> The logo of your head looks like it could use a bit more antialias. It
>> looks kinda grainy at the moment, while the rest of the page is
>> deliciously smooth and crisp.
>
> Yeah, that part is still mock-up.
Ah well. ;-)
>> PS. Is your neck really that long?
>
> Apparently - the "drawing" is in fact a manipulation of a real photo.
Yes, I had a feeling it might be...
>> PPS. I really suck at designing things to make them look good... :-(
>
> Have you tried? It takes exercise... :)
I'm sure I commented on this a while back, but for example I once tried
to put a product box inside a POV-Ray render, and I was unable to make
it look like anything except a very cheap no-brand thing from a local
market...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" wrote:
>>> PPS. I really suck at designing things to make them look good... :-(
>>
>> Have you tried? It takes exercise... :)
>
> I'm sure I commented on this a while back, but for example I once tried to
> put a product box inside a POV-Ray render, and I was unable to make it
> look like anything except a very cheap no-brand thing from a local
> market...
Hmm. Remember that even the cheap brands have people designing them, trying
to make them look attractive so people will buy them. The better looking
branded products have probably spent a lot of effort getting to where they
are, with many rejected designs along the way. Comparing with them is
setting a bit high standards... :)
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
>> I'm sure I commented on this a while back, but for example I once tried to
>> put a product box inside a POV-Ray render, and I was unable to make it
>> look like anything except a very cheap no-brand thing from a local
>> market...
>
> Hmm. Remember that even the cheap brands have people designing them, trying
> to make them look attractive so people will buy them. The better looking
> branded products have probably spent a lot of effort getting to where they
> are, with many rejected designs along the way. Comparing with them is
> setting a bit high standards... :)
In summary: I am not a graphic designer.
(Unfortunately, I lack the creativity necessary for comming up with
original designs - be that visual or auditory. I guess I'm too much of
an automaton to think for myself...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>> Hmm. Remember that even the cheap brands have people designing them,
>> trying to make them look attractive so people will buy them. The better
>> looking branded products have probably spent a lot of effort getting to
>> where they are, with many rejected designs along the way. Comparing with
>> them is setting a bit high standards... :)
>
> In summary: I am not a graphic designer.
Noone are born graphic designers... Did you miss the part above about making
lots of bad designs before being able to make good ones?
> (Unfortunately, I lack the creativity necessary for coming up with
> original designs - be that visual or auditory. I guess I'm too much of an
> automaton to think for myself...)
I find that it comes down to enjoying the process. Do you like working with
designs, or are you only interested in a nice end result, and wish you
didn't have to put all the hard work into it?
If you really enjoy working on graphic designs, I think you can become good
at it. If you'd rather be doing something else, then it's probably not the
right thing for you.
I played the synthesizer when I was a child. For many years! I learned some
basics but never got beyond that. Basically, practising felt like a duty,
and I'd rather sit by the computer. I would have been really cool to be
great at playing that instrument, but obviously, I didn't have the
enthusiasm to get there. Eventually I gave up on it and focused on what I
liked doing, rather than what I just would have liked to be good at.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
