A few people have commented on the site’s new look, and reviews are mixed thus far. What do you think?
This entry was posted
on Monday, November 14th, 2005 at at 7:36 am and is filed under Question, Site.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I’ve already voted favorably for the new design… so I’ll tell you why I prefer it. First off, though I did like the old design, this is undeniably more professional in feeling. I also think the symbolism of the old site – while cool – proved confusing in more than one instance. If another theist mentioned you burning in the flames at the bottom for eternity, I might’ve had to bang my head on the wall.
Besides, the idea is to help people overcome religion, right? I think that may be easier to do without symbolism, particularly since people tend to see what they want where symbols are concerned.
you need to change the mask color in your transparency settings on the .gif with the “the evangelical atheist”. The jaggies around the edges are ugly and distracting.
The new site needs a little work. The blue background is too heavy. I would recommend adding some texture to the background (like Mio’s suggestion) or picking a different color.
Matt, I don’t know what you’re seeing. I don’t see jagged edges. I’m using Firefox, but I don’t see it when I switch to IE, either. Can anyone else see what he does?
I also don’t mind the blue background, but a texture might work. I’m not a web designer, though.
Uh oh, I don’t exactly remember what the old design is now, but I think I like this new one. I like change once and awhile to keep things fresh. And I like the blue, although for me the letters look less crisp than perhaps they could be. Is this what you all are talking about with “jagged edges”?
I use RSS Owl, which I love, and I see the new banner and the clouds and flames at the bottom. Best of both worlds I would say. I agree with Paul the content is the thing. Keep up the fantastic work.
Your font choices work, but your color choices do not., because blue suggest passivity, which belies what this blog stands for. I vote to keep the new logo, but warm up the background. A pure variant of red or orange might work.
On second thought, I now see a rationale for your deep blue background choice, but I stand by my first impression that it seems less “on fire” than before.
Uberkuh, what is your rationale? Just curious… I like the blue because it’s seemingly benign, but with a depth and intensity that counters any suggestion of passivity – at least to me.
I like the new design. However, on my machine at least, the grey sidebar from the front page extends into individual entries and comments, which is kind of jarring. I’d recommend changing it to plain white on pages where text is going to fill the midsection.
I have been out of it for the last week. I had a very hard trip to Dallas, allowing for only 12 hours of sleep over 3 days. Not surprisingly, I got sick as a result. Anyway, after being gone for several days I was surprised by the change. All the more so because the first time I loaded it, I still had much of the old imagery cached. The result was not pretty and I was trying to think of a kind way to say WTF! It even seemed to change the content. I was beginning to wonder if it was the work of evangelical hackers. I took a screen shot because I just couldn’t believe my eyes.
Of course, when I forced a reload of the page I got the new correct look. What a relief!
I think I agree with addict_no_more, this new look steps out of the old clichés of religion being good and atheism being evil. I don’t feel evil. When we were first talking about the God or Not carnival we had a similar discussion. The old imagery is an easy trap to fall into. I like the classy business like template, but I do think it is just a tad austere and could use a little jazz. Not dancing gif jazzy, but maybe a little something?
Now that I’m more used to it, I will admit it is kind of swanky. But I do miss the sky at the top, which gave a sense of serenity, of being concious of the real world and not just the one we build around us with words.
Of course, we come here for you, not the site design, I Am. I’d follow you to some sloppy tripod site with open tags and huge bitmap graphics, if it comes to that.
Oh, I like the latest changes. Subtle, but very effective. Okay, maybe the logo changes aren’t subtle.
BTW, I’m starting a blog. I’ve got a big mouth and a lot to say. And a friend pushed me over the edge yesterday. Stay tuned, you’re going to be a blogfather again very soon.
I didn’t think the old design was bad, but I like this one – it definitely looks professional, and the design is strong, simple and clean. My vote’s for keeping it.
ummm….your purple and blue clash is making me sick
It’s kinda bright. Sorta reminds me of a night club.
Your previous site design felt more modern and had a visual theme that was relevant to the topic.
This new design is too old school. It makes me feel like Im watching an episode of The Great Space Coaster.
You guys are a tough audience. Frankly, I like this latest version most of all. I don’t think it’s too bright, I dig the purple and teal together and while I’ll admit there’s a bit of a retro feel, retro is hot now… it make me think of the 80s, and the 80s are back, baby! Retro chic.
Besides, why does the design have to have a relative theme? Most of the atheist blogs I’ve been to don’t have a theme, and the old design, as previously mentioned was often misinterpreted.
However, I must say that the Evangelical Atheist Banner at the top fills me with a vile sickness that can only be surpassed by plunging my face head first into an un-flushed toilet.
November 14th, 2005 at at 7:41 am
I prefer the old design to the new one.
November 14th, 2005 at at 7:57 am
Can you work the symbols from the old BG into the blue background? Fainter, but they should still be there.
November 14th, 2005 at at 8:38 am
I’ve already voted favorably for the new design… so I’ll tell you why I prefer it. First off, though I did like the old design, this is undeniably more professional in feeling. I also think the symbolism of the old site – while cool – proved confusing in more than one instance. If another theist mentioned you burning in the flames at the bottom for eternity, I might’ve had to bang my head on the wall.
Besides, the idea is to help people overcome religion, right? I think that may be easier to do without symbolism, particularly since people tend to see what they want where symbols are concerned.
November 14th, 2005 at at 10:44 am
you need to change the mask color in your transparency settings on the .gif with the “the evangelical atheist”. The jaggies around the edges are ugly and distracting.
November 14th, 2005 at at 11:01 am
The new site needs a little work. The blue background is too heavy. I would recommend adding some texture to the background (like Mio’s suggestion) or picking a different color.
November 14th, 2005 at at 11:13 am
Matt, I don’t know what you’re seeing. I don’t see jagged edges. I’m using Firefox, but I don’t see it when I switch to IE, either. Can anyone else see what he does?
I also don’t mind the blue background, but a texture might work. I’m not a web designer, though.
November 14th, 2005 at at 11:26 am
Uh oh, I don’t exactly remember what the old design is now, but I think I like this new one. I like change once and awhile to keep things fresh. And I like the blue, although for me the letters look less crisp than perhaps they could be. Is this what you all are talking about with “jagged edges”?
November 14th, 2005 at at 11:57 am
I much prefer the old design. It was classic.
November 14th, 2005 at at 12:05 pm
I see the jagged edges too. The new logo looks awful on my pc.
November 14th, 2005 at at 12:46 pm
Quite frankly, I don’t care what the site looks like, as long as the text is legible. I’m here to read, not to sight-see.
-Paul
November 14th, 2005 at at 12:46 pm
Are the people seeing pixelation still seeing the sky graphic? Clear your cache. That might be the problem.
November 14th, 2005 at at 12:57 pm
I use RSS Owl, which I love, and I see the new banner and the clouds and flames at the bottom. Best of both worlds I would say. I agree with Paul the content is the thing. Keep up the fantastic work.
November 14th, 2005 at at 1:24 pm
Oh, the header is much better. The rest doesn’t seem much different.
November 14th, 2005 at at 1:30 pm
Your font choices work, but your color choices do not., because blue suggest passivity, which belies what this blog stands for. I vote to keep the new logo, but warm up the background. A pure variant of red or orange might work.
November 14th, 2005 at at 1:31 pm
Keep the wider margins, too. That rocks.
November 14th, 2005 at at 1:35 pm
On second thought, I now see a rationale for your deep blue background choice, but I stand by my first impression that it seems less “on fire” than before.
November 14th, 2005 at at 1:56 pm
Uberkuh, what is your rationale? Just curious… I like the blue because it’s seemingly benign, but with a depth and intensity that counters any suggestion of passivity – at least to me.
November 14th, 2005 at at 2:34 pm
Big thumbs up! Looks great!
It seems that some of the regulars fear change.
But they’ll get used to it, and grow to love it, I’m sure.
November 14th, 2005 at at 2:47 pm
I like the new design. However, on my machine at least, the grey sidebar from the front page extends into individual entries and comments, which is kind of jarring. I’d recommend changing it to plain white on pages where text is going to fill the midsection.
November 14th, 2005 at at 2:51 pm
I have been out of it for the last week. I had a very hard trip to Dallas, allowing for only 12 hours of sleep over 3 days. Not surprisingly, I got sick as a result. Anyway, after being gone for several days I was surprised by the change. All the more so because the first time I loaded it, I still had much of the old imagery cached. The result was not pretty and I was trying to think of a kind way to say WTF! It even seemed to change the content. I was beginning to wonder if it was the work of evangelical hackers. I took a screen shot because I just couldn’t believe my eyes.
http://www.skepticrant.com/uploaded_images/EAc-748674.jpg
Of course, when I forced a reload of the page I got the new correct look. What a relief!
I think I agree with addict_no_more, this new look steps out of the old clichés of religion being good and atheism being evil. I don’t feel evil. When we were first talking about the God or Not carnival we had a similar discussion. The old imagery is an easy trap to fall into. I like the classy business like template, but I do think it is just a tad austere and could use a little jazz. Not dancing gif jazzy, but maybe a little something?
November 14th, 2005 at at 2:57 pm
Morgan:
I just fixed that. I had uploaded the wrong file. Thanks for letting me know.
LBBP:
THE HORROR! Graffiti aside, I now understand why people were so upset. That’s horrible looking.
I’m playing with a few ideas on how to jazz it up.
November 14th, 2005 at at 4:29 pm
addict_no_more, I assume I AM was going for a dramatic, deeply mysterious evangelic look here with the deep blue. Think of pipe organs and Kleenex.
November 14th, 2005 at at 5:01 pm
Think of pipe organs and Kleenex.
*Insert childish masturbation joke*
Now that I’m more used to it, I will admit it is kind of swanky. But I do miss the sky at the top, which gave a sense of serenity, of being concious of the real world and not just the one we build around us with words.
Of course, we come here for you, not the site design, I Am. I’d follow you to some sloppy tripod site with open tags and huge bitmap graphics, if it comes to that.
November 14th, 2005 at at 5:07 pm
I noticed that The Raving Atheist is now on your blogroll. Not sure if that was an error or you had a change of mind. Just asking.
November 14th, 2005 at at 5:29 pm
Well, he has been actually writing about atheism lately, so that might be it.
November 14th, 2005 at at 7:36 pm
The new one looks fine. Admittedly, I haven’t seen the old one, so I can’t really make a comparison.
November 14th, 2005 at at 7:43 pm
looks great!
November 14th, 2005 at at 7:46 pm
I prefer the old look, but I don’t really care which one you choose as long as you keep up the consistently great content.
One problem with the new look is that the search results page doesn’t look good if no matches are found. The “Not Found” text overlaps the title bar.
November 14th, 2005 at at 8:35 pm
“Are the people seeing pixelation still seeing the sky graphic?”
Ha ha. Aye, I know I haven’t been commenting much lately, but my affecting your site is a bit ridiculous, no?
And I vote aye. Not that the old look was bad, but sometimes change is good just because it is change.
November 14th, 2005 at at 9:31 pm
I miss the clouds.
November 14th, 2005 at at 10:57 pm
ooh! ooh! Add some churchy music in the background. Or would that be too annoying?
November 15th, 2005 at at 1:12 am
Ahh, this looks much better. And I think that music in the background would be annoying as hell =)
November 15th, 2005 at at 2:26 pm
I think it looks great. Classy. Keep it.
November 15th, 2005 at at 5:57 pm
Maybe keep the old logo and condense it into a button to preserve the memory? But keep this look definitely.
November 15th, 2005 at at 7:03 pm
Oh, I like the latest changes. Subtle, but very effective. Okay, maybe the logo changes aren’t subtle.
BTW, I’m starting a blog. I’ve got a big mouth and a lot to say. And a friend pushed me over the edge yesterday. Stay tuned, you’re going to be a blogfather again very soon.
November 15th, 2005 at at 7:29 pm
addict_no_more, make sure you link to your blog in your user name here.
November 16th, 2005 at at 1:15 am
I didn’t think the old design was bad, but I like this one – it definitely looks professional, and the design is strong, simple and clean. My vote’s for keeping it.
November 16th, 2005 at at 3:27 am
Your previous site design felt more modern and had a visual theme that was relevant to the topic.
This new design is too old school. It makes me feel like Im watching an episode of The Great Space Coaster.
November 16th, 2005 at at 3:32 am
Pinstripes! I like the white into white idea. Maybe bigger? Keep working. Extra credit for adding a subliminal image of Jerry Falwell.
November 16th, 2005 at at 2:43 pm
franky / Tanooki Joe:
RA is back on track, so he’s back on the blogroll.
November 16th, 2005 at at 3:57 pm
here, here
November 16th, 2005 at at 7:16 pm
Ok. the new logo is very nice.
November 16th, 2005 at at 10:17 pm
ummm….your purple and blue clash is making me sick
November 17th, 2005 at at 6:45 am
It’s kinda bright. Sorta reminds me of a night club.
November 17th, 2005 at at 8:09 am
ummm….your purple and blue clash is making me sick
It’s kinda bright. Sorta reminds me of a night club.
Your previous site design felt more modern and had a visual theme that was relevant to the topic.
This new design is too old school. It makes me feel like Im watching an episode of The Great Space Coaster.
You guys are a tough audience. Frankly, I like this latest version most of all. I don’t think it’s too bright, I dig the purple and teal together and while I’ll admit there’s a bit of a retro feel, retro is hot now… it make me think of the 80s, and the 80s are back, baby! Retro chic.
Besides, why does the design have to have a relative theme? Most of the atheist blogs I’ve been to don’t have a theme, and the old design, as previously mentioned was often misinterpreted.
November 19th, 2005 at at 10:32 pm
The blue is refreshing, if a little dark.
However, I must say that the Evangelical Atheist Banner at the top fills me with a vile sickness that can only be surpassed by plunging my face head first into an un-flushed toilet.
But good job!
November 20th, 2005 at at 1:04 am
Thanks, Aeger. It’s all about the fans.
December 16th, 2006 at at 6:37 am
tenuate…
likely good!!…