Holy Swoosh Removal Batman!

Damn, beat me to it. Freakin' pedants.

So what is the deal with the logo Jon?

In Response to jettaboy20 (#9843):

The old logo sucked; the new one sucks slightly less.

I've hated our old logo for years; we've had an understanding, the the logo and I, that when an opportune time came, it would be out the door. That time has come.

Basically, I want something that prints nicely without all the bevels and crap that I put on the logo when I designed it eons ago before I knew anything about design.

This one keeps the oval element of the last one, and some of the same color scheme, but I think it has more of a playful, simple feel. Kinda like a Danish toy company, almost.

Now that we're on our way to phasing out a lot of the old CafePress designs (which used the old logo) and the new book is coming out, this seemed like as good a time as any.

I've found, over the years, that visual appeal is extremely important -- people won't bother to check out your offerings if they're not immediately attractive to the eye. I think the logo change was necessary for that reason alone.

In Response to jon (#9848):

While I liked the old logo, in retrospect it reminded me of what ESPN uses on their football score box in the corner of the game.

So when does the black t-shirt with just the new large logo on the front show up?

In Response to jon (#9848):

I'm not that fond of the new logo. It seems so, mundane. Kinda like a Swedish furniture company [ikea.com] rather than a Danish toy company [lego.com].

In Response to Dynedain (#9853):

That's cool; not everyone has to like it. And I think it kinda grows on you -- I know it did for me.

The best albums always turn out to be the ones you're not sure about at first.

In Response to jon (#9856):

The best albums always turn out to be the ones you're not sure about at first.

Not always.

Strange Angels is much better album than Life on A String.

And Opiate is better than Lateralus, too.

And I was sure I liked both of those albums at first listen, whereas the other two took me a bit.

I remain ambivalent on the new logo. I think it needs more swooshiness. Just Do It!

In Response to zamphir (#9857):

Maybe it should be all swirly and rainbow-colored too.

this one looks like the "mood" logo

In Response to jon (#9848):

To be completely honest, I feel that it contrasts just a bit too much. While it maintains the same color scheme as other areas off the sight, its location is surrounded by much darker color, and I think it's a bit too glaring because of that.

Other than that, I applaud its simplicity.

In Response to zamphir (#9857):

begin thread hijacking

And Opiate is better than Lateralus, too.
Now that's just blasphamy. Undertow, then Lateralus, with Opiate pulling up the rear.

I'm going to side with John on this one. We've had quite a few discussions about this subject down at the pub, and we've come to the conclusion that while you may be sure the album is great when you first listen, do you actually like it right off the bat? Probably not. Kid A was mind-numbingly great on first listen, but I wasn't sure if I liked it; I was just trying to get my head around it.

end thread hijacking
But the new logo keeps jumping out at me, it just doesn't seem right yet. Maybe in a few weeks. It keeps giving me the urge for ice cream, [hphood.com] but a tee with just that logo would be pretty sweet too.

In Response to jettaboy20 (#9866):

John
blasphamy

You're baiting me again, aren't you?

I'd think that you would not want to master that particular skill.

Undertow, then Lateralus, with Opiate pulling up the rear.

And you're going to completely ignore Aenigma because?
Not that I've listened to it.

And Opiate is a better album than Lateralus. Lateralus is too produced and too technical.

while you may be sure the album is great when you first listen, do you actually like it right off the bat?

Yes, yes I do. Because in order to be mind numbingly great, an album has to be likeable.

You don't agree? Too bad. I can say what I want to.

In Response to zamphir (#9868):

John
blasphamy
Oops, my bad.

You're baiting me again, aren't you?
Not on purpose anyway.

And you're going to completely ignore Aenigma because
I knew I was forgetting something. Actually, I think Aenima is probably their best work, and Lateralus is too overproduced and technical, but I think the material on it is much better than Opiate; for some reason, I never got too into that album.

in order to be mind numbingly great, an album has to be likeable. You don't agree?
I do on some level, and you make a compelling argument, it all depends on at which point you determine that you 'like' an album. I don’t usually claim that I like it until it’s in my regular rotation, and it has made such an impression on me that I can’t live without the album. But, by your definition, I liked Kid A on first listen, and I can respect your interpretation - I'm still sticking by my theory though.

Um, this new logo makes me sad and tired. But mostly just sad. I've always said, if it ain't broken then don't fix it. In my opinion, the old logo wasn't broken. On the other hand, it is Jon's comic and quite frankly he can do whatever the hell he wants to do without even if we don't particularly care for it.

it reminds me of milk. the hood logo maybe?

I realize this is probably the wrong word to use, but the new logo looks a little too... cartoony.

The old logo had panache. It had strength. It had balls. This one looks like a quick-and-dirty, 1-minute job in Photoshop, whereas the old logo looked like at least an 5-minute Photoshop job.

So, basically... old good, new bad.

Hmm... I don't personally like the way it looks. Can't quite put my finger on why. I guess I think it's just a little bit too simple.

In Response to mea37 (#9886):

Can't quite put my finger on why.

Usually this sort of thing happens when things are not quite symmetrical. I guess in this situation, although the text is in the centre, the fact that the 'g' hangs over one side of the ellipse gives the illusion of asymmetricality.

I'm not a fan of the logo either, by the way.

In Response to unFalln (#9890):

I think zamphir was right in desiring swooshiness. If it had a gray swoosh on it, I think it'd be loads better.

Now that it's just two colors, you can change those two colors as you see fit, kind of like what Apple does with their logo now.

And to take it a step further, you could color-categorize each section of the site (red for archive, blue for store, etc.), and have the logo show up a different color on each one. Just a thought.

In Response to FeldmanSkitzoid (#9902):

Now that it's just two colors, you can change those two colors as you see fit, kind of like what Apple does with their logo now.

Bingo. I even have a one-color version that works on the same principle.

In Response to themysticalone (#9895):

I think you've been spending too much time at eNormicom. [enormicom.com]

In Response to jon (#9908):

one-color
<pedant> It's not technically one-color (although it is what could be called a 'one-color process' image). Yeh see, if I'm looking at this image on a screen, then it's made up of light. Which means that it's made up of two signals - one that contains all colors of light mixed together equally, and one that contains no light at all. Which is the same as if I'm looking at it on paper, except which color is which has been switched.

And you can't even necessarily call it a one-color process, as well. Because if you wanted to print that on, say, a BLUE t-shirt and you wanted it to be a black and WHITE image, then you'd need TWO inks.

Unless you're claiming that the 'black' is the only color there, and the other stuff is 'transparent'.

In which case, in light you've got no-color because black is the absence of light. And in ink you've got all-colors. </pedant>

For those of you keeping track of these things, this is the Drunken-Monkey Pedant style. This style appears much like I'm drunk on the power of my own intellect, but in fact is all a sham designed to fool the enemy into making a spurious comeback.

In Response to zamphir (#9910):

And you can't even necessarily call it a one-color process, as well. Because if you wanted to print that on, say, a BLUE t-shirt and you wanted it to be a black and WHITE image, then you'd need TWO inks.

The black is a stand-in for a generic background color. If I was printing it on a blue t-shirt, I'd leave the blue as a background and only use a single hit of white (or some other color that nicely complimented the blue).

but in fact is all a sham designed to fool the enemy into making a spurious comeback.

Nah. it's much easier just to mod you down.

In Response to jon (#9911):

Nah. it's much easier just to mod you down.

<shrug>
Karma. It comes and goes.

In Response to jon (#9909):

Dear God:
I will never want a swoosh again.
                  signed,
                        tmo

I guess the image is growing on me, though I still think it's too much contrast. ADmitedly, the white on generic color does look strangely acceptable.