I plan on redesigning my website. I can get really started in a week, when 
I've handed in the last of three January exam papers, but so far I've worked 
on a mock-up of how I'd like it to look.

Image of old design: http://runevision.com/temp/design_old.png
Mock-up of new design: http://runevision.com/temp/design_sketch.png

The old design was made six years ago and basically was targeted at fellow 
hobbyists exclusively. Now, I'd like to expand the targeted audience with a 
new group: People from the game industry who might drop by my site. (I'm 
heading for a career in the game industry.) So I'd like to make them easily 
find out about my skills and also impress with a slick, professional looking 
site, that leaves a good impression and maybe even is memorable. Of course 
it should be just as accessible as before for the hobbyists at the same 
time...

The results of my thoughts are above. What do you think?

The new site has a lot more focus on me as a person. The reason is to make 
it perfectly clear that there's just one person behind all the content on 
the site and also to better link the site with the person. I hope it doesn't 
come across as too narcissistic or self-centered in a bad way.

I also tried something new with the colors. Normally deep blue and aqua 
would have been my first choice for a color scheme, signaling reliability, 
depth, and sophistication. However, I was going for something more fresh and 
slightly daring. I went with green (organic, new beginnings and growth) and 
a little orange (flamboyant and energetic) and in combination, the colors 
are also slightly sporty. Enclosing these wild colors in smooth, glassy 
boxes hopefully creates a somewhat unique look. I could go out on a limb 
analyzing my own design and say that it signals that I have an ability to 
take raw creativity and work it into clean and tidy designs...?

Hehe, anyway, let me know what thoughts it provokes in you. :)

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

> I plan on redesigning my website. I can get really started in a week, when 
> I've handed in the last of three January exam papers, but so far I've 
> worked on a mock-up of how I'd like it to look.
>
> Image of old design: http://runevision.com/temp/design_old.png
> Mock-up of new design: http://runevision.com/temp/design_sketch.png

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.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:10:11 +0100, "Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom> wrote:

>
>The results of my thoughts are above. What do you think?

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.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> Hehe, anyway, let me know what thoughts it provokes in you. :)

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.

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.

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! ;-)

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...

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.

PS. Is your neck really that long?

PPS. I really suck at designing things to make them look good... :-(

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:10:11 -0000, Rune <aut### [at] runevisioncom>  
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

>> 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?

No - but other people have been taught by professionals. ;-)

>> (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?

I enjoy drawing - yet still suck at it. Oh well. (Reminds me... I should 
put a few online.)

> 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.

I have a large powerful synthesizer in my bedroom. (And several soft 
synths. And a hardware 8-track box. And Cubase...) I enjoy playing, and 
I'm very good at copying the cool tunes other people think up. But I 
utterly suck at writing new material myself. I can never think of 
anything that would sound good...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:50:11 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>(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...)

I find my creative spirit is awakened when my life is in a bit of turmoil and my
emotions are close to the surface.  Usually some moderate alcohol abuse plays a role
too.  This leads me to an
observation that many creative individuals (thinking about rock musicians) may get
their creativity from their crazy life, but then try to sustain it during their
popularity, only to be put down (or
die) because of it.

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <aut### [at] runevisioncom> a écrit dans le message de news: 
478e5695@news.povray.org...
> The new site has a lot more focus on me as a person. The reason is to make 
> it perfectly clear that there's just one person behind all the content on 
> the site and also to better link the site with the person. I hope it 
> doesn't come across as too narcissistic or self-centered in a bad way.

I'm not sure that having your stylised head right on the front page is a 
good idea. IMHO, displaying your face *** does *** comes across as slightly 
narcissistic.

Of course it depends on the kind of job you're looking for. One of our 
students here made a CV on a very well-made DVD that basically showed him 
running and swimming, sunbathing naked in exotic locations and organising 
parties. This got him a nice job in a marketing agency who was looking for 
this kind of wild personality. Companies looking for software developers may 
be differently inclined though.

G.

Post a reply to this message

"Gilles Tran" wrote:
> I'm not sure that having your stylised head right on the front page is a 
> good idea. IMHO, displaying your face *** does *** comes across
> as slightly narcissistic.

Yes, this is what I contemplated, and one of the reasons I asked here.

> Of course it depends on the kind of job you're looking for.

Hmm. "Passionate game programmer with good creativity and all-round 
multimedia skills"

> One of our students here made a CV on a very well-made DVD that basically 
> showed him running and swimming, sunbathing naked in exotic locations and 
> organising parties. This got him a nice job in a marketing agency who was 
> looking for this kind of wild personality. Companies looking for software 
> developers may be differently inclined though.

I will have to think some more about this. Thanks for expressing your honest 
opinion.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

I like the new site.  However, I don't particularly care for that shade of
green; I'd make it maybe half a shade lighter in tone.  But that's merely my
idiotic
opinion :)

--
Dan
GoofyGraffix.com

Post a reply to this message

"Dan Byers" wrote:
>I like the new site.

:)

> However, I don't particularly care for that shade of green;
> I'd make it maybe half a shade lighter in tone.

Hmm. I think if it gets much lighter, the white text will be difficult to 
read on top of it, and I don't want to switch to black text there...

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

I think the design is excellent, really fantastic!  I admired the old 
look alot but I think this is an order of magnitude better.

The colors are fine in my opinion. Probably the higher overall tone and 
reduced clutter is the operative thing, so the design feel would 
probably work with other harmonies too, by why bother?  This looks great.

It seems, as I recall, that your designs have always played with 
outlining effects.  The substitution of 3d sculpting around the edges 
instead of the flat outlines is brilliant, softer but still gives 
delineation, and an added eye-pop.

The subtle beauty of harmonies in blue and green is something it took me 
a long time in life, personally, to come to understand.  I think you 
have used it here very cleverly.  And there is just enough of the 
contrasting yellow-oranges to give it an upbeat, pop feel.  I 
particularily love the subtle shifts in lettering from dark on lime in 
the top banner through the white on lime in the subbanners to finally 
black on white in the actual text box.

The self-photo does give it an edge and grabs attention right away.  The 
good thing is that it does humanize and individualize the message as you 
intended.  The bad thing is that it is also very potent and you cannot 
control how people will respond.

My personal reaction was that it grew on me: Weird! But Ballsy! Direct. 
No Mysteries Here.  I know who I'm dealing with.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" wrote:
>I think the design is excellent, really fantastic!  I admired the old look 
>alot but I think this is an order of magnitude better.

Wow, thanks! I'm glad you like it. :)

> It seems, as I recall, that your designs have always played with outlining 
> effects.  The substitution of 3d sculpting around the edges instead of the 
> flat outlines is brilliant, softer but still gives delineation, and an 
> added eye-pop.

:)

> The self-photo does give it an edge and grabs attention right away.  The 
> good thing is that it does humanize and individualize the message as you 
> intended.  The bad thing is that it is also very potent and you cannot 
> control how people will respond.

That sounds right.

> My personal reaction was that it grew on me: Weird! But Ballsy! Direct. No 
> Mysteries Here.  I know who I'm dealing with.

That sounds like a quite desirable reaction. I'm still in doubt about the 
portrait. I'm leaning towards keeping it, but I have to consider it a bit 
more. I appreciate your input, as well as Gilles' and anyone else who might 
comment on it.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:

> That sounds like a quite desirable reaction. I'm still in doubt about the 
> portrait. I'm leaning towards keeping it, but I have to consider it a bit 
> more. I appreciate your input, as well as Gilles' and anyone else who might 
> comment on it.
> 

You might differ scale or location possibly, to give slightly less play 
but retain the humanizing function.

There is also the opportunity, perhaps, to vary it from page to page, 
add a little humor or irony, or develop a kind of plot through out the 
site.  I wouldn't discard it outright.  Perhaps a little fine tuning and 
maybe you have something truly innovative there.  With or without, it's 
a very professional looking site, overall.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" wrote:
> You might differ scale or location possibly, to give slightly less play 
> but retain the humanizing function.

I have tried that now in several variations, but it just keeps turning out 
looking like some slick design ripped apart and clumsily recombined.

Like here: http://runevision.com/temp/design_sketch_alternative.png
I had to basically mirror the whole design to get just a remotely balanced 
layout, and even then it still looks bad. Maybe I have lost the ability to 
look at it neutrally.

> There is also the opportunity, perhaps, to vary it from page to page, add 
> a little humour or irony, or develop a kind of plot through out the site.

Humour is a good way to dodge the issue of narcissism, since it effectively 
destroy any suspicion that you take yourself too seriously. I was already 
aware of that, since my "branding strategy" is partly inspired by this site 
(http://tinysubversions.blogspot.com), which also features a prominently 
placed drawn portrait. This one, however, is a caricature, and I noticed 
that this avoids the issues I am having now.

I didn't want to use a caricature myself, and so I didn't quite know how to 
get some humour into it. Your idea of putting in variations is something 
I'll think some more about. Thanks for the suggestion.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message