Forums

  • avatar
    37 sounds
    44 posts


    I like three of the designs: 1, 2, and 5

    My concern with 1 is that it is large/long. It wouldn't be easy to use in all cases because of its length. Would like to see more color in this one too, maybe the bacground image before the word in color instead of gray.

    On 2, I would like to see the o with the waveform in it the same size as the rest of the letters, and the wave form altered so the peaks fit within the circle of the o instead of going to the top and bottom edge of the o. The wave form then approximates the circle of the o, and is nicely understated. I think this would be my favorite with that change, though I would want to see it. Not sure if it would improve it, but a color gradient flowing through the word might be neat.

    On 5, I would like the e in the font to drop straight down and have a little lip like the d at the end does to indicate it is an e instead of a c. Or perhaps with an entirely different sans serif or other font (isn't there one made from musical notes?). And I would like to see either an assymetric waveform above the word (a gong waveform? or random?) or coloration of the equalizer bands. So the bottom is violet and it goes up the spectrum to yellow or white at the top.

    If I had to pick without any changes it would be 1 or 2.

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    4 posts


    Hi gang!

    If I may introduce myself a moment, my name is Myles de Bastion and I am one of the designers working on the front-end update to Freesound 2.0 / Nightingale.

    This thread has given us a lot of valuable feedback about the direction that Freesound users (you) want to see from the new design.
    Something recurring in the comments is that there should be less of a jumping on the "Web 2.0" band-wagon and more keeping a "blank canvas" feel that is context independent.

    For our future drafts we should avoid any design elements that suggest a context. For example with the logo/design, we should avoid references to recording hardware because that would exclude sounds that are synthesized, manipulated or computer generated when Freesound is a platform for ALL types of sound.

    In a similar way, the colors and presentation of the homepage should be more minimal and less busy. We've realised our mistake in the first draft as it was too playful and bold. This could have an effect of attracting a type of crowd who would upload pop songs when really we want to encourage sounds in the vein of effects and stand alone samples etc.
    So the design should not really be visible or attention grabbing from the sound files themselves. We can look to flickr.com and youtube.com for examples where the design is a simple container to show-case the uploaded content.

    So now that we really are beginning to understand the message that Freesound.org should convey, we shall work on new drafts that will be in the best interest of the website's ethos and it's users.

    If anyone has further points to raise, they'd be greatly appreciated!

    - Myles

    Freesound Web Designer
  • avatar
    193 sounds
    16 posts


    spuddle, that sounds perfect. What new features\functions are going to be available?

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    4 posts


    morgantj
    spuddle, that sounds perfect. What new features\functions are going to be available?

    Hi Morganti! I'm afraid at Bram's request, we shouldn't discuss features or functions in this thread. We're focusing on the design and layout at this point. smile

    Freesound Web Designer
  • avatar
    121 sounds
    1544 posts


    yes, please, only design related discussions in here. Have a look at the blog if you want to know more about the next version of freesound. There's a few posts on it concerning the next version!

    - Bram

    Warning: if you break the rules, see my avatar. Freesound Admin, Moderator, Ex-Freesound-Coder & Benevolent Dictator For Life.
  • avatar
    371 sounds
    254 posts


    Thanks for your post here spuddle,a good read and I'm definately looking forward to any new developments!

  • avatar
    3050 sounds
    476 posts


    Hi

    not much of a visual guy here, nearly a mole actually. I would like any but since most people voted #1 I guess it must be cool, other than that I have no opinion

    And how about making a 'freesound sound', kind of a sonic logo? Now that would be an interesting challenge to sound designers...

    D

  • avatar
    211 sounds
    32 posts


    I believe Dobroide has set an interesting and accurate issue...
    making a "freesound Sound", as a sonic logo would be an essential combination and a boost complement for the visual logo.

    PS: I voted n*1

  • avatar
    306 sounds
    74 posts


    I didn't vote because I think there is more to gain than what is presented now.
    Make it more simpler. Breaking glas, cool idea, but stylize it more, like a wine glass exploding in a limited set of pieces under sound waves of an opera diva. Don't mess with the letters, make them very readable.
    I am no supporter of drawn sound waves because they don't add a message, they just copy the meaning of the word 'sound' graphically.
    Adopt a stylish animal, e.g. a roaring lion. This will show the world freesound.org is independent and not to be overlooked. Compare Linux.
    Anyway, I welcome every improvement of the site. Keep up the good work, Bram & co.
    Herbert

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    1 post


    I voted for number 6, though I'd like to see the shattered glass go. It doesn't add anything to the logo.

  • avatar
    127 sounds
    194 posts


    Logo# 2 is by far the nicest and cleanest of the bunch. #1 was second best.

    Simplicity is key, and 2 has that all over it.

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    1 post


    2 is easily the best design.

  • avatar
    410 sounds
    40 posts


    2, because it's classic and modern at the same time. It would have been great 30 years ago and will probably be good 30 years from now.

    I don't like the new site design in the bottom picture though, the currenct sober design is really neat.

    www.rutgermuller.nl
  • avatar
    0 sounds
    3 posts


    I like 3 the best. All the others look a little fake-ish. Like if I typed in something in the URL and i accidentally spelled it wrong and it went to a "Clone site" that does the same thing except it really doesn't...

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    1 post


    1 AND 3! grin

  • avatar
    251 sounds
    94 posts


    why are all logos shown in a variety of sizes except for logo 1? It will look rubbish in the context of branding.

    1 looks like a nice picture, but 2 is by far the best for a logo.

    In seriousness, I think this voting is badly flawed because 1 is not displayed under the same conditions as all the others.

    www.hungryjoe.tv
  • avatar
    7 sounds
    10 posts


    I voted 4 but 3 and 1 are runners up. The rest look cheap.

  • avatar
    4 sounds
    1 post


    +1 for old (current) logo!
    I love it more than all new versions.

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    2 posts


    I like 1 and 6 with the breaking glass, but I think 2 has the cleanest look.

    Darcy
  • avatar
    0 sounds
    2 posts


    juskiddink
    Logo 2 is really very split-up...........frees..(freeze?)........und..(and?).It might work better if you white-out the middle of the O.....but I don't like it.

    But if you white out the center of the O.........what's left?

    Darcy