You could do this with it. Just some options
Open Uru Forum Logo
Moderator: OpenUru.org Moderators
-
- Member
- Posts: 281
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:17 pm
Re: Open Uru Forum Logo
Last edited by Gehn, lord of ages on Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My posts represent the views of me, Gehn, lord of ages, and not any companies or groups which I don't belong to.
Re: Open Uru Forum Logo
Excellent logos, Tweek.
It might be more appropriate to use a smaller background rectangle when using the logo without a resource extension.
I would suggest avoiding overlapped text. It can look very messy and would work against the clean, simple, workmanlike lines of the basic logo idea.Mac_Fife wrote:Nice, simple, clean. I like them. They seem to hit most of JW's original criteria. The only thing I'm not sure about is the requirement that it should not look odd when used without the "Forums", "Wiki" extension (no problem on a white ground of course). How about making the resource name a larger font and placing it behind the "OPEN URU" text? Would that work?
It might be more appropriate to use a smaller background rectangle when using the logo without a resource extension.
Re: Open Uru Forum Logo
The resource extensions (forums, wiki, bugs, etc) actually take the graphic beyond the 16:9 format I suggested, so if they are somehow represented differently, whether in word or symbol, that's great. It would look fine I think. I'd probably rather have "Open URU" not entirely capitalized, with or without the word break, though the "pen" could be just slightly smaller if not actual small caps, and it would still look fairly well as intended by Tweek. The ".org" is not there, but I don't mind it tiny, or below, or at 90 degrees at the end of "Open URU" perhaps with a style mark before or after it. A short vertical line, for example, could replace the dot and, at a right angle with the "o" of "org" at the top, the dot would not be needed unless it has a stylistic reason to be there. Smaller in any case is good for the ".org" but I should explain it needs to be there and visible because I don't want OpenURU.org to be perceived as arrogantly pretending to be a gateway to all of Open Source URU.
Perfect speed is being there.
Re: Open Uru Forum Logo
Wow go away for a couple of days. Here are my lastest interpretations of what has been put forward so far. Personally I cannot get away fron the key idea. My friend suggested a sauce bottle pouring code out.
Though I confess I like what Tweek has done. Very basic and to the point which is what this place is about. In that spirit I too wanted to make it simple but stylish.
Though I confess I like what Tweek has done. Very basic and to the point which is what this place is about. In that spirit I too wanted to make it simple but stylish.
Re: Open Uru Forum Logo
Is white the definitive color ?Mac_Fife wrote:(it's not green for a start )
Re: Open Uru Forum Logo
Hi folks,
I've used Tweek's design to come up with a few examples for an OpenURU.org logo. What do you think?
I've used Tweek's design to come up with a few examples for an OpenURU.org logo. What do you think?
Perfect speed is being there.
Re: Open Uru Forum Logo
They work for me, for the most part. I think I prefer the blue variant.
A couple of observations:
1) Transparent PNGs don't work with some older browsers while transparent GIFs do. I've had this headache too and ended up sticking with the PNG, since the GIF version of the image I was using didn't look nearly as good as the PNG, and I wasn't going to bend over backwards for a handful of people still using IE6.
2) I think the spacing of the letters in "wiki" is just too large. I see what you're trying to do - have the word fill the same space as "forums" - I'm just not sure it works. I'll go with majority opinion on that though.
A couple of observations:
1) Transparent PNGs don't work with some older browsers while transparent GIFs do. I've had this headache too and ended up sticking with the PNG, since the GIF version of the image I was using didn't look nearly as good as the PNG, and I wasn't going to bend over backwards for a handful of people still using IE6.
2) I think the spacing of the letters in "wiki" is just too large. I see what you're trying to do - have the word fill the same space as "forums" - I'm just not sure it works. I'll go with majority opinion on that though.
Mac_Fife
OpenUru.org wiki wrangler
OpenUru.org wiki wrangler
Re: Open Uru Forum Logo
There is a major exploit in IE6 that hit the wild in late December. I've now seen multiple machines infected via the exploit in spite of different anti-virus programs. MS Security Essentials, AVG, and Symantec did not stop it. Once repaired they would find the infection and clear it. As soon as the user went back on the net, they were reinfected. It is only in the last couple of weeks that security services figured out what was happening. Once IE6 was replaced reinfection stopped.
I would not worry about older browsers. Those computers won't last long...
I would not worry about older browsers. Those computers won't last long...
Nalates
GoW, GoMa and GoA apprentice - Guildmaster GoC - SL = Nalates Urriah
GoW, GoMa and GoA apprentice - Guildmaster GoC - SL = Nalates Urriah
Re: Open Uru Forum Logo
This is going a little bit OT, but:Nalates wrote:I would not worry about older browsers. Those computers won't last long...
Unfortunately, for reasons that I can't go into on a public forum, IE6 is the only browser approved for use within my workplace , and I don't see it being replaced anytime in the forseeable future. I know of many other companies in the same position. I also understood that the exploit Nalates refers to had a wider scope than just IE6 - Security Bulletin MS10-002 relates to IE5, IE6, IE7 and IE8, but then that bulletin covers a range of vulnerabilities, not just the one that was publicised.
Back on-topic: I agree that it's not worth getting hung up on supporting things like IE5 or IE6. At the same time, I don't support the attitude of "just tell users to to switch to Firefox/Safari/Chrome/whatever" that I've seen some sites do: It's not helpful and, as I know, not practical for some people, and I'm not interested in getting involved in "browser wars". If the effect of the browser non-compliance is fairly minor, like a DIV with the wrong margin and padding, or an image that doesn't show transparency, then most people can live with that: In fact, a lot of those users won't even realise that what they're seeing is "wrong".
I know some web authors who make a kind of crusade out of trying to make their pages usable on as wide a range of browsers as possible (including text browsers like Lynx), but those guys must have too much time on their hands!
Mac_Fife
OpenUru.org wiki wrangler
OpenUru.org wiki wrangler
Re: Open Uru Forum Logo
We typically design for the top browsers (IE, FF, Chrome) and the current versions and there immediate predecessors. Support for older or special browsers costs more.
While Chrome is, for all practical purposes, impregnable, there are many sites it won't work with.
Since you're limited to IE6 at work I suspect you are also behind a firewall that filters incoming traffic...
I agree it is unfair and for commercial sites unacceptable to tell them to upgrade... but spending time to design for older browsers makes no sense to me. With viruses becoming more deadly for older computers, it is becoming a problem for those that use them. Today I was working on a new XP SP3 system behind a DSL modem firewall. Someone had tried to get it connected via AT&T and failed. I was called to get it running. I installed the Security Essentials and found 2 viruses already in the machine. If its XP and not updated, it's likely infected.
I love using PNG files and transparency in web pages. The newer browser support them.
The GoC site sees these browser stats:
1. Firefox ------------ 38.63%
2. Internet Explorer - 36.48%
3. Chrome ------------ 11.59%
4. Safari -------------- 7.30%
5. Opera -------------- 4.72%
6. Mozilla ------------- 0.86%
7. SeaMonkey -------- 0.43%
IE Versions
1. 8.0 - 64.71%
2. 7.0 - 25.88%
3. 6.0 - 9.41%
FF Versions
1. 3.5.7 -- 43.33%
2. 3.5.6 -- 24.44%
3. 3.0.17- 11.11%
4. 3.0.16- 6.67%
5. 3.5.3 -- 3.33%
6. 3.0.1 -- 2.22%
7. 3.0.14- 2.22%
8. 3.5.5 -- 2.22%
9. 2.0.0.20 - 1.11%
I think any problems from PNG and transparency will be minor. Out of 100 visitors only 4 (3 IE6 - 1 FF2) would be way out of date.
Oh... and the logo... that works.
While Chrome is, for all practical purposes, impregnable, there are many sites it won't work with.
Since you're limited to IE6 at work I suspect you are also behind a firewall that filters incoming traffic...
I agree it is unfair and for commercial sites unacceptable to tell them to upgrade... but spending time to design for older browsers makes no sense to me. With viruses becoming more deadly for older computers, it is becoming a problem for those that use them. Today I was working on a new XP SP3 system behind a DSL modem firewall. Someone had tried to get it connected via AT&T and failed. I was called to get it running. I installed the Security Essentials and found 2 viruses already in the machine. If its XP and not updated, it's likely infected.
I love using PNG files and transparency in web pages. The newer browser support them.
The GoC site sees these browser stats:
1. Firefox ------------ 38.63%
2. Internet Explorer - 36.48%
3. Chrome ------------ 11.59%
4. Safari -------------- 7.30%
5. Opera -------------- 4.72%
6. Mozilla ------------- 0.86%
7. SeaMonkey -------- 0.43%
IE Versions
1. 8.0 - 64.71%
2. 7.0 - 25.88%
3. 6.0 - 9.41%
FF Versions
1. 3.5.7 -- 43.33%
2. 3.5.6 -- 24.44%
3. 3.0.17- 11.11%
4. 3.0.16- 6.67%
5. 3.5.3 -- 3.33%
6. 3.0.1 -- 2.22%
7. 3.0.14- 2.22%
8. 3.5.5 -- 2.22%
9. 2.0.0.20 - 1.11%
I think any problems from PNG and transparency will be minor. Out of 100 visitors only 4 (3 IE6 - 1 FF2) would be way out of date.
Oh... and the logo... that works.
Nalates
GoW, GoMa and GoA apprentice - Guildmaster GoC - SL = Nalates Urriah
GoW, GoMa and GoA apprentice - Guildmaster GoC - SL = Nalates Urriah