Print

[Selroth]

For the sake of comparison, here's the old logo:

[booklover492001]

The new one looks far too angry to me... While it may be better graphically I don't think it lends itself to the feel of this site.

[J'Karrah]

I agree that the new logo seems rather angry.    While the dragon in the original logo is displayed with an open mouth it doesn't seem as angry or gruff and the new one.  There is something in the posture that suggests a roar of greeting as opposed to a dragon angrily warning off intruders.

I really like the colors and style of the new dragon, though.  Maybe the same dragon with a bit friendlier expession.

Also, as I mentioned in another thread, I think the flames obscure the text too much in the new logo.

[Karnanyd]

Erm... yeah.  I'm not such a fan of the new logo, to be honest.

[Vellos]

I really, really, really dislike the name change.  That, and I can barely read the URL in the new one.  Not a fan, but eh, not a huge deal.

[Astoroth]

I dont like it much either, but someone did put alot of work into it. So we might not like it, but we should thank the person that made it, they worked hard on it.  I do agree that the old one could have used an upgrade though. Also, I have a small complaint, the roleplay draconomicon URL is gone off of the navigation bar. I dont know the URL by heart, so i just clicked on that to get to the website, and now i cant go there and do my moderator duties and check forums and stuff. Can you guys put it back?

[Selroth]

Hmmm...  The new logo doesn't seem to be taking off that well it seems.  I still think it's better than the old cause I never liked the old one myself :)  I see what you mean with the flames; I tried touching it up and such and it was a no go.  It got that way when it was converted to .gif.  The .png is fine, but Internet Explorer has problems with it for whatever reason.  

I'll see if I can talk to BestDragonMaster about it and get it changed around some.  The dragon is more colorful and the style is more popout-it, but I can definitely agree on it being too agressive, especially for a site that wants pretty much the opposite.  

Does anyone else not like the name change itself?

[JoeCapricorn]

I like the namechange...

The only qualm I have is that when I go to places that I visit alot, I type in the first few letters of the URL (such as en. for en.wikipedia.org, or draco for this place) I also go to Draconic.com, and draconity.org would mean in order to go to draconic the entire site has to be typed. But I'm not -that- lazy, it's just a couple extra letters now and I'll get used to it. ^_^;

But as for the logo...

No flames, and no anything of sort covering the logos lettering. Have the lettering stand out more. I noticed the dragon, but it wasn't until I read about the namechange that I knew about the lettering, then I looked closely and spotted it. Logos displaying a website name shouldn't require look-closely-ness... o.o;

The dragon itself was alright, but I think that if you remove the flames, give the dragon a noticable but not overly giddy smile, and 'sweeten' the eyes (Change them to green or blue?)... it would look awesome!

Perhaps BestDragonMaster could come up with a bunch of different ideas and submit them for a vote?

or a logo contest of sort? Those are always fun :3

[J'Karrah]

It got that way when it was converted to .gif.  The .png is fine, but Internet Explorer has problems with it for whatever reason. ?

Why not just use jpg?  What program was used to create the logo?  If Adobe Photoshop (CS or LE) use the "Save for Web" function rather than "Save As" to get the opitmal file size while still preserving quality.

Or just send the original psd file (or the png) and I can convert it for you.

As for the name change, either way works for me.  I have to admit I like "Draconomicon" a bit more, but I can understand wanting to distance the site from being assicoated too closely with the D&D book by the same title.  (Although to be honest I always sort of associated it with more with the Necronomicon, but then I've always been a huge Cthulhu fan :wink:)

Draconity.org does seem to focus one's mind more towards the concept of alternative spirituality, IMHO.

[JoeCapricorn]

I'd also like to add that with alternate styles perhaps it might be possible to have multiple logos, including the old one, and some new ones? If it's not too complex that is...

[Selroth]

The reason we can't go .jpg is because .jpg doesn't have transparency.  And it can be quite a mess having a different logo for each theme (as they all tend to pull from the same file) according to background, and it's also difficult to gauge where the logo is always going to go on a given technology, so it can make it a hassle to cut out a section of the background and include that in a .jpg image.

[Ethelshai]

Could it work in .GIF format ?

[Selroth]

It is .gif :)

[Ethelshai]

Ah ok ^^ Sorry ^^;

[atomicdragon]

GIF is really the wrong format for an image of that type, as GIF is normally limited to 256 colors and works better for line art than art with gradients.  If you need transparency, use a PNG.  IE can't handle the alpha channel, but it will work if you have either all or no transparency (alpha values of 0 or 255) which is exactly what transparency a GIF offers.

[Tags:]

Tags: