3 ms·

I don't see any reason to replace logos with text, even if it can be done. You did it reasonably well, I just don't see the benefit. Couple that with your abus

I don't see any reason to replace logos with text, even if it can be done. You did it reasonably well, I just don't see the benefit. Couple that with your abuse of stylized text (why is everything blurred?) and width that doesn't fit in my preferred browser size, and for me the 2009 site is WAY better.

collypops 16y ago
For me, it was just an experiment. The blur is just an attempt at shadow effects. I know I've insulted the style gods with this one, but I'm just messing around. I don't consider it anywhere near my best work, but I learned something from it. This post on HN is just to round off the whole experiment and get some feedback before I put up something more permanent. I'm glad you like the 2009 site!
jbrennan 16y ago
I think the benefit of using styled text over images is they scale up nicely, instead of becoming pixelated. On the desktop this maybe isn't so important, but it makes a nice difference if you're zooming in on a mobile browser (or using a high-resolution display like iPhone 4's display).
- tintin 16y ago
  Well that's why SVG is implemented. <img src="my_svg_logo.svg" alt=""> Now you even support more browsers.
  - jbrennan 16y ago
    Maybe I'm misinterpreting (or just have my facts wrong) but I thought SVG is generally poorly supported among browsers, even today. I seem to think WebKit browsers have decent support for it (though I remember it being sluggish in desktop Safari, and broken in Mobile Safari), and I'm not sure about IE support. Conversely, the newer CSS text effects seem to have better support. But I could be wrong. I'm not a web developer, it's just what I seem to remember.
    - tintin 16y ago
      True, but the support will be better than using CSS for logo's.
- collypops 16y ago
  That was one of the main reasons behind it. Viewports are getting larger/smaller and sharper all the time, so we'll soon get to a point where we want our sites to scale, but we'll be limited by fixed-size images.

collypops 16y ago

For me, it was just an experiment. The blur is just an attempt at shadow effects. I know I've insulted the style gods with this one, but I'm just messing around. I don't consider it anywhere near my best work, but I learned something from it. This post on HN is just to round off the whole experiment and get some feedback before I put up something more permanent. I'm glad you like the 2009 site!

jbrennan 16y ago

I think the benefit of using styled text over images is they scale up nicely, instead of becoming pixelated. On the desktop this maybe isn't so important, but it makes a nice difference if you're zooming in on a mobile browser (or using a high-resolution display like iPhone 4's display).

tintin 16y ago
Well that's why SVG is implemented. <img src="my_svg_logo.svg" alt=""> Now you even support more browsers.
- jbrennan 16y ago
  Maybe I'm misinterpreting (or just have my facts wrong) but I thought SVG is generally poorly supported among browsers, even today. I seem to think WebKit browsers have decent support for it (though I remember it being sluggish in desktop Safari, and broken in Mobile Safari), and I'm not sure about IE support. Conversely, the newer CSS text effects seem to have better support. But I could be wrong. I'm not a web developer, it's just what I seem to remember.
  - tintin 16y ago
    True, but the support will be better than using CSS for logo's.
collypops 16y ago
That was one of the main reasons behind it. Viewports are getting larger/smaller and sharper all the time, so we'll soon get to a point where we want our sites to scale, but we'll be limited by fixed-size images.