Playing With A New Brand
September 08, 2004 | 
53 Comments
Summary: I’ve updated the look and feel of my site as part of my ongoing re-branding efforts.
You may notice things have changed around here. I’ve begun to work on my re-branding efforts and figured I’d get the visual aspects of that up and running. I’ve not completed all the work I need to do there, but it’s pretty far along.
I realize it’s different and that many won’t like the changes. I will make many adjustments in the next few weeks, and I’ll be listening to every bit of feedback I get. So feel free to chime in if you care to. Realize, though, that I’m trying to do something different without making huge changes to the site. The goal here is to differentiate and inject some must needed “uniqueness” into the look and feel of Asterisk.
What’s changed?
Well, not a whole lot, to be honest.
Gone is the arrow/asterisk tag that many of you loved. It wasn’t created by me (it’s a dingbat) and I felt it important to have something original.
The colors are obviously different. Before I was using something that jived with what others were doing. This time I wanted something all my own. Something different. I actually am really pleased with how it turned out.
Like last time the colors came from a photograph. It’s my new favorite way to come up with a color scheme.
I switched up the font. I wanted to go with something a bit “classier” so I changed my body font to a Serif—Georgia. I also tinkered a bit with the sizing and line-height, trying to go something that was a bit easier to read. Please let me know how it works for you, as I’m not 100% sold on it.
That’s really it for the major changes. There are quite a few minor things. A new tag-line. Some softer image effects and a few wording changes. Nothing I feel will have a huge effect on the user experience.
As always, let me know what you think.
Filed under: My Sites
Comments
1. Rob Mientjes said:
I like it. This makes it indeed easier to read. Job’s a good’ne.
Posted on September 8, 2004 11:46 AM | #
2. Kyle said:
I like it as well. Not TOO different and the Serif font is a nice touch. I aslo dig the new “bullet” and brandmark. Kinda organic and cool.
Overall better than a full redesign!
Posted on September 8, 2004 11:49 AM | #
3. Jinjiru said:
Well, i like it more than the previous version. It looks like… more elegant, i suppose.
Good job, indeed.
Posted on September 8, 2004 11:50 AM | #
4. Brian Fox said:
I really like the colors and the new Dingbat - I do though find the new body font a bit more difficult to read… other than that though, congrats - Its much more eye appealing [other than the font]
Posted on September 8, 2004 12:05 PM | #
5. Gabriel Mihalache said:
These redish sepia tones (if I’m not mistaken) are really hot! We must be on the same wave-length since my design has also been gravitating towards the same b&w/gray/sepia/red combo.
Posted on September 8, 2004 12:26 PM | #
6. Greg said:
I think the color scheme and dingbat replacement is great. I’ve always liked the original touches on this site. I’d add some myself, but since I’m completely unoriginal I remain touch free.
I agree with Brian that the body font seems a bit more difficut to read, but I could be crazy. My monitor at work bit the dust and this “new” replacement has some issues.
Posted on September 8, 2004 12:31 PM | #
7. Keith said:
Thanks.
Brian – Is it just the serif font, or the size, that you find hard to read? I’m beginning to realize that no matter what you do, someone is going to have trouble reading it.
Gabriel – I didn’t realize these colors were “hot” – I was really going for something unique. Looking at your site, you’ve got a very similar theme, not the same by any means, but similar. Looks good. I really grew to love the colors as I was working on them.
Anyway, I think there is room for a few simialr color schemes on the Web. I was just beginning to feel my old one was pretty used up. This one will be here for a bit.
Posted on September 8, 2004 12:33 PM | #
8. Lea said:
I like the subtle changes. I don’t know if they would constitute as “rebranding” efforts as much as “refreshing” efforts–the same way that Pepsi and Coca-Cola’s logos have stayed the same the past 60 years or so, but always updated for the times.
Meanwhile, was it intentional or not to choose a seasonal colour scheme when you refreshed this layout? It’s very… fall/autumn. :-)
Posted on September 8, 2004 12:38 PM | #
9. Keith said:
Lea – “refreshing” works for me. Really the branding efforts go beyond the look and feel, it’s really just me acting on things I’ve been learning.
As far as the autumn look, I guess it depends on what you mean by “intentional?” I’d say no, it wasn’t, but then again I do know my preferences change with the seasons…so maybe “unconsiously intentional”?
I do hope they’ll last me longer than until winter! ;)
Posted on September 8, 2004 12:45 PM | #
10. Dave P said:
Hi Keith,
Here are my impressions, since you dared to ask:
I really like these colours; I didn’t think you could improve on your last design, but you did.
I’m not sure if the left over orange used in the nav bar and for links fits as nice as it should; maybe a little more red?
I really liked the headings you had for each section of the side bar and I’m sorry to see them go. I thought your site was really unique in this respect.
As for the font… to be completely honest I didn’t notice the change until you mentioned it. But now the fact that it’s serif is irking me… perhaps it’s just conditioning?!?
Overall though, I’m really impressed. Good job!
Posted on September 8, 2004 01:10 PM | #
11. Jeff Croft said:
Keith-
Overall, I like the subtle changes. They are obvious enough to point you in a new direction but subtle enough to retain my sense of “you”.
I like the serif body font, and I find it easier to read. However, I think that a serif body font deserves sans-serif headers. Just one opinion – take it or leave it. :)
Great work!
Posted on September 8, 2004 02:04 PM | #
12. Keith said:
Dave P – You know, I used to be bothered by Serif for body font on the Web too. But after lots of research and testing I’ve found that it really doesn’t seem to matter as far as readability.
One of the reasons I’m using it here, is to see how it plays with y’all and see if it makes that much of a difference. It’s grown on me, I can say that.
Posted on September 8, 2004 02:05 PM | #
13. Brian Warren said:
I like it. A distinct improvement. Looks more purple than red on my screen, but it’s not like that’s a bad thing. I like Georgia. Always have.
Posted on September 8, 2004 02:05 PM | #
14. Keith said:
Jeff –Thanks for the comments, I do value your opinion…but (you knew this was coming!) if there is one thing aesthetically that really bothers me it’s sans-serif headers with a serif font. Not sure why, but it looks all wrong and backwards to me.
I can handle serif headings with serif fonts…and serif headings with sans-serif fonts, but not sans-serif headings with a serif font.
It’s probably just me…
Posted on September 8, 2004 02:09 PM | #
15. Richard MacManus said:
Congrats on the new design, the reddish colour scheme is very eye-catching - and yes it’s unique!
Personal pref, but I find the serif font a little difficult to read. It doesn’t seem to flow as well as a sans-serif, and it’s almost as if each individual letter is saying “look at me!” rather than each letter flowing into the next (like a sans-serif does). But that’s just my opinion, like I said, and my design skills are nowhere near as good as yours.
I also like the new tagline!
Posted on September 8, 2004 02:13 PM | #
16. Beerzie Yoink said:
Looks great, less filling.
Posted on September 8, 2004 02:13 PM | #
17. Kim Siever said:
I don’t see red at all. I see varying values of purple. Very royal and respectable.
Maybe my flat panel monitor displays colours differently.
Posted on September 8, 2004 02:38 PM | #
18. Steve said:
The only change I really don’t like is the new font. For whatever reason it does seem a little straining to read. This font has always bothered me though because the “curves” of it aren’t smooth, they are almost pixelated.
Posted on September 8, 2004 02:39 PM | #
19. Keith said:
Kim – It is supposed to be more purple than red. Kind of a mauve-ish. I kind of like the fact that it’s described differently by different folks. Makes it fun.
Steve – It’s cause you aren’t on a Mac…sucker. ;) No really, I will say the font does look a whole lot better on my Mac and I can see what you mean when I move over to the PC.
Posted on September 8, 2004 02:44 PM | #
20. Scott said:
If you want smooth fonts on PC’s go to “Control Panel > Display > Appearance > look for ‘Effects’ and enable Clear Type”.
Posted on September 8, 2004 02:51 PM | #
21. Chris Vincent said:
I like it. :)
Georgia really looks good for body copy, I think. We may be seeing a lot more copy in serifs in the future.
The red is different, and I’ll need to adjust; it looks like I’m looking at the old Asterisk through rose-tinted glasses! :) We may be seeing red used a lot more in the future (as we try to pull away from all the damned blue).
I do like the logo a lot, and it fits surprisingly well into bullet-form.
Good work! Little tweaks are always a little fun.
Posted on September 8, 2004 02:58 PM | #
22. Jeff Croft said:
Keith-
No worries – it’s your site!
I’ll also echo the point that Georgia is one font that looks WORLDS better on a Mac. Not sure why, but the difference is astonishing.
Posted on September 8, 2004 02:58 PM | #
23. Jonathan M. Hollin said:
Sorry Keith but the serif font is really detracting from the content. I am being slowed down by the font.
I am viewing on a PC with a TFT. I have ClearType enabled, even so - the font looks, er, ugly. Sorry!
I also have to agree with Dave P, the orange links don’t integrate with the new (adventurous) colour scheme.
The new logo is cool, reminds me of the “White Rose”, the heraldic symbol of Yorkshire (England) - the county I live in.
Posted on September 8, 2004 03:16 PM | #
24. Mike D. said:
Looks great overall. Love the Husky purple.
Coupla’ suggestions:
1. While Georgia body text looks splendid on OS X (anti-aliased), it is borderline unreadable the PC. Aliased serifs just never looked good, and hence the movement towards sans-serif body copy on the web. If I were you, I’d keep the Georgia in there as a default for Mac users and use Verdana as a default for PC users, and then offer a quick styleswitcher just in case people want to customize.
2. I agree about the previous comment regarding the orange being a “holdover” color. I think a deep brick red or even more purple would look nice.
Posted on September 8, 2004 03:19 PM | #
25. Keith said:
Jonathan and Mike – Gotcha on the font. It’s really too bad as it looks very nice on a Mac. But I’m pretty sure I’ve got more PC readers, so I may have to go back to the Verdana.
I’m not really keen on using some sort of platform detect, but I may put a style switcher in there. We’ll see.
As far as the orange “holdover” – I like it. I think it’s a good contrast to the purple. I did try some other colors, like a lighter version, and they didn’t look right to me.
I think it’s pretty subjective, but I’m happy with it. Although I see I need to tweak it a bit in the sidebar…just some unfinished business.
Thanks for the comments!
Posted on September 8, 2004 03:41 PM | #
26. Blair said:
A color-blind readers ‘chime’:
Hi Keith,
first let me state that “I really like your sites layout, design, plus the content” and have made it one of my regular reads. (enough praise?) :)
(take the following with a grain of salt).
Seeing as how your looking for some feedback on design readability, the only things I find a bit hard to view is the orange on ‘dark mauve-ish’ and the black text on ‘dark mauve-ish’.
In your top nav bar, the orange with the lighter background is a bit easier on the eye. Same goes for the ‘summary’ the black text on the lighter background works better for me.
As you may have guessed I am not totally color-blind, just enough to annoy!.
Keep up the great work.
Cheers
Posted on September 8, 2004 03:54 PM | #
27. Jonathan M. Hollin said:
Personally, I would really appreciate a return to a sans-serif font. Having said that, I have just visited the website on my iMac and I am stunned by the difference between the PC and the Mac renditions of the font - the text looks really good on the Mac. Damn.
As with all design, individual preferences mean that you can’t please all of the people all of the time. The design is yours Keith, if you like the orange, you stick with it. I will get used to it eventually.
Posted on September 8, 2004 03:55 PM | #
28. Jonathan M. Hollin said:
By the way (and completely off topic), did you do something with the comments handler Keith? I only ask because it is noticeably quicker to post comments now than it used to be.
Posted on September 8, 2004 03:57 PM | #
29. Keith said:
Jonathan – Will probably do something about the font. I’m also considering the orange (at least as it relates to the body and sidebar) as I can see the contrast might be a bit “off” – trying more purple. See how that goes.
When I moved to Dreamhost my comments got faster…not sure why.
Posted on September 8, 2004 04:01 PM | #
30. Geoffrey said:
This is a completely subjective comment (naturally), but for some reason the new tagline seems to have one too many syllables. The word “talk” seems to hang there for me. But overall I do prefer the new tagline to its meta-pretentious un-kerned predecessor. ;-)
Overall: Nice work, love the rich colors. Cheers!
Posted on September 8, 2004 04:08 PM | #
31. Keith said:
Geoffrey – Hey now! The old tagline was supposed to be funny, and it was kerned! Obviously not very well…anyway, the word “talk” is important. I dunno, sounds fine to me….but I guess even if it does seem to hang for some, it’s important to have it in there as that what it’s all about. Discussion.
I thought about “Real World Web Design Discussion” but that seemed a bit stuffy.
Thanks for the comment! ;0)
Posted on September 8, 2004 04:13 PM | #
32. Geoffrey said:
Yeah, I do like what the tagline says. The word “Talk” is a better choice over discussion too. Plain language always wins in my book. I think it’s just me, the more I see it, the less I have a problem with it.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Posted on September 8, 2004 04:22 PM | #
33. Donnie Jeter said:
A nice facelift - nothing major. Sometimes less is more.
Posted on September 8, 2004 08:19 PM | #
34. bryan_loeper said:
the line height could be a touch spacier, no more than 5-15% more tops, and it’d be more comfortable to read. other than that, i really like the new look so far :)
-bryan-
Posted on September 8, 2004 09:29 PM | #
35. Zelnox said:
I find the new font really goes well with the background. I prefer the previous colours more.
Posted on September 8, 2004 10:30 PM | #
36. Lukasz said:
Honestly? I don’t like. The colour is … well, it’s ugly. It looks sickly. Like a rotten plum or something. The previous one was more, say, proffesional, from the lack of better word.
I also somehow find that Georgia does not fit to sophisticated, complex designs. The best place for this font is plain white background with a lot of whitespace around (dive into mark is a perfect example, i’d like to say the same about my site). sidenote: hm, maybe it was the font you used before? can’t recall atm :-). Still, it does not go with the design.
Flower is ugly. Asterisk was much, much better. More crispy. More sexy. I just don’t like the new one. Maybe it is because the flower (its middle, particularly) is somewhat blured. It does not look good. Also, I would never thought that the asterisk was not designed by you. Well, if it was that important to you…
To recap: I don’t like it. I was never fond of complex, higly detailed designs but if I was to chose, I’d pick the previous one.
Posted on September 9, 2004 12:40 AM | #
37. Ste Grainer said:
Okay, we’ll get the good stuff over … I like pretty much everything. I think I see your recent trip to Hawaii in several of the branding changes (the asterisk logo and the background color, in particular). I also love what you did with the A in Asterisk. :)
My main problem is with the body font, and it’s not so much the size or the serif, but the combination of the two. Georgia is a wonderful font, but I tend to find that the serifs lose their vitality at smaller font sizes. For instance, I’m looking at the text beneath the comment box, and my eyes are drawn to the bottom of the ‘p’s and ‘g’s - instead of a strong capping serif, they look like they fizzle; the form gets lighter and seems to blur. (This is on a 20” Apple Cinema Display with the font anti-aliasing set specifically for flat panel monitors.) Perhaps just a minor resizing of 0.05 - 0.1 em would suffice to make the body copy a little more readable/enjoyable.
Posted on September 9, 2004 03:32 AM | #
38. chuck said:
keith,
I like the subdued effect your site has now … and I like the new dingbat … very nice
about the georgia font selection - its fine, even on my PC (I have windows clear type activated, so it’s not pixelated) … the only thing I might do is increase the line-height just a smidge, but that’s a minor quirk …
my only other consideration would be to add some type of distinctiveness to the sidebar headings besides bolding them … again just a small tweak …
and like I said before when you previewed this new “refreshing” - I’m not a big fan of the orange (at least not with this subdued mauve color) … but I know you got the color scheme from a photo, so that is cool …
overall - a definite upgrade and I like the mellow feeling it casts as I read …
Posted on September 9, 2004 04:07 AM | #
39. Small Paul said:
This is really odd. I could have sworn I’ve read these comments before.
I know you put up the preview in late August, but I got the oddest sense of deja vu reading your post, and the comments. But they’re all new!
Weird.
Posted on September 9, 2004 05:14 AM | #
40. geeky said:
I really like the new font - very easy to read (and I’m on a PC). I’ve always liked Georgia. The new colors are nice too.
The only thing I don’t really care for is the new logo. I understand your reasoning for getting rid of the old logo, but the new logo doesn’t say anything to me about Asterisk. It doesn’t have anything to do with the name Asterisk, nor what you talk about here.
Posted on September 9, 2004 05:31 AM | #
41. isaac said:
I’ve not read all of the above comments so I hope i’m not touching on something thats already been said. But, I think you should rethink your primary nav. I feel the dirty orange doesnt go with the purple and never really liked the serif font. Go graphics brother!
Posted on September 9, 2004 08:32 AM | #
42. Scrivs said:
Well after reading ALL the comments I don’t think I will say anything about the font. I think in Windows the letter-spacing for Georgia doesn’t flow too well. Maybe if you played with that some you could keep the font and help make it more readable. The letters just seem to cram themselves together.
Since not much has changed, but the color scheme I will say that I like the previous one better as I can see it having more longevity. For some reason I get the feeling this scheme won’t last forever as it sets a different tone for the site.
Of course I usually have no idea what the hell I am talking about.
Posted on September 9, 2004 08:59 AM | #
43. Kim Siever said:
I prefer Verdana for copy text on the web. However, I must say I don’t know what everyone is talking about with regards to the Mac/PC difference.
I just pulled up the site on my iMac and my PC and both render the same to me. I am running OSX and Windows XP (with ClearType enabled). Both computers use flat screens.
Posted on September 9, 2004 09:01 AM | #
44. Keith said:
Thanks for all the comments. And thanks for being constructive, for the most part. I realize some folks won’t like it and I’m fine with that. Some people didn’t like the last one either, or the one before that.
It’s impossible to please everyone.
The colors are here to stay. I really like them myself (orange included) and more important–they’re unique and help differenciate my site.
Scrivs mentioned the old scheme being more “professional” and well that’s nice and all, but lots of sites carry that look. I wanted something different, something unique and something fun.
I thought quite a bit about it and tried a few different things and this is what I came up with. I did make a few minor tweaks yesterday.
As far as the font goes, I think I’ll probably put it back the way it was. At least with Verdana people didn’t have “problems” reading it and I’d much rather go with functional when it comes to body font.
Seems like some of you “liked” the Georgia, but I guess in the case of this site, Verdana is easier to read. Since it’s about the content…I’m going back to verdana.
Thanks again everyone.
Posted on September 9, 2004 09:52 AM | #
45. Gabriel Mihalache said:
Huh… the orange is just wrong… much like wearing orange socks with a formal suit. The dingbat, the detailed arabesque pattern, the muted tones… it’s “subdued glam”.
Maybe you could tweak the contract/brightness/alpha of the menu item so that the orange would fit better.
OR, is your use of plain, “un-patterned”, orange a tribute to Andrei Herasimchuk?
Posted on September 9, 2004 12:00 PM | #
46. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
I think, on the whole, this is a solid improvement. My only peeves are the treatment of links in the main content area. Both within’ headings and text. The colors seem too similar to the body copy. Sometimes it’s nice to be able to scan for links quickly. I have wrestled with this on my site as well, which also features a generally black and white palette. Sometimes I feel like the links don’t have the proper emphasis, yet I don’t want to add too much, if any, color.
Again, though: an improvement. The new dingbat is far superior, and as has already been mentioned in your announcement of this effort, the tagline, while containing and tired and somewhat annoying “real world [insert profession here]” phrase, is better than the sarcastic one you had before.
Posted on September 9, 2004 12:17 PM | #
47. Keith said:
Gabriel – You don’t like orange…duly noted. To be honest I’ve tried several “flavors” of orange and I like them all. I feel it’s a good contrast to the purpleish. No, it’s not a tribute to Andrei.
STR – I agree about the links. I don’t think it’s that important (usability-wise) to have the color be too different. It’s more important to make sure they’re underlined.
Too many site (IMHO) rely on color for this kind of information. As long as they look like links, I think that is enough detail.
Posted on September 9, 2004 01:46 PM | #
48. Lars said:
I love the color scheme! Different and unique, but in a good way. Definitely a keeper as far as I’m concerned.
Is the background graphic a manipulated version of the one you used before? It seems to have more texture now. Either way I reallly like it and how it gives the design a literary feel, in line with your focus on writing.
Well, it’s really hard to find anything to criticise. I’m sorry.
I was going to suggest a slightly darker shade of orange in the top menu, to increase text/background contrast, but I see you changed the color and now I think I’d prefer a slightly more orange tone. But with so many different screens out there it’s almost impossible to please everyone, and I can certainly live with it. Another teeny weeny yellow polka dot thing I just noticed is a line break just before the word ‘Comments’ in your footer (1,024x768). I also spent a few moments pondering whether the L and K of the ‘talk’ part of the tagline really should extend beyond the title, and yes, I think it should. As for fonts, I’m fine with Verdana, although this is one of those rare designs where a serif font could be an even better fit. Perhaps you could try (dare I say it?) Times New Roman? To boldly go where no self-respecting designer has ever gone before!
So there. Nitpicking has never been this difficult.
I’d be interested in seeing the photograph you used for the color scheme!
Posted on September 9, 2004 03:59 PM | #
49. Jonathan M. Hollin said:
Thanks for going back to Verdana Keith. It’s much more readable now and the content is what we all come here for.
Posted on September 9, 2004 04:03 PM | #
50. Keith said:
Lars – Thanks. Yeah, the serif font was really hard to read on PC. But it looked great on a Mac…Too bad really. I like the Verdana fine too and I guess when push goes to shove I’m a designer that lets function win almost every time.
As far as the orange. I adjusted it to make it a bit milder. It’s really hard becasue it seems to vary greatly screen to screen. I realize the contrast isn’t as high, but I think it fits nicely.
Jonathan – No problem. I wasn’t sold on the Georgia and went with what was more readable to more people. I may add a font switcher as I’ve got time. I really did like the Georgia better…but the reader is always right, eh?
Posted on September 9, 2004 04:37 PM | #
51. Brian Warren said:
Sniff… i liked the georgia…
Keith - a style switcher? That way we mac folk can enjoy the beauty…
Posted on September 10, 2004 09:32 AM | #
52. Neczy said:
Im not sure if this is something intended, but your site looks sorta screwed up in Linux. I haven’t seen it on my Mac, or Windows machine so I’m not sure if its intended or not *shrugs* Its Knoppix though, so it could just be this…
Posted on September 10, 2004 05:34 PM | #
53. Lars said:
The thing with Georgia on a PC is that the anitaliasing only kicks in above a certain point size, which happens to be too large for body text. Your comment numbers look really nice though (I’m on W2k).
Posted on September 11, 2004 09:52 AM | #
Comments are now closed