|
tim
Mar 22, 2005, 11:18 PM
Post #52 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
I take it you read useit.com for fun and excitement, then?
How about IBM -- they spent a bit on usability consultants and guidelines. How'd they fare?
http://www.baekdal.com/...bility/ibmusability/
IA is a field rife with buzzwords and charlatans. The more interesting work (IMHO) is being done in specific areas:
http://www.baekdal.com/...able-XMLHttpRequest/
The last thing I want a site built and run by volunteers, serving an anarchic community, is a strictly defined 'process'. This isn't GM. (for example, we didn't lose a billion dollars last year... we made money)
|
|
|
|
|
zozo
Mar 22, 2005, 11:27 PM
Post #53 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2004
Posts: 3431
|
Woah sorry there Tim. I was under the assumption you wanted a site that actually worked the way you hoped it would. But apparently people arnt planning or thinking before they dive into something anymore. I guess things are passing me by.
My bad - carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 22, 2005, 11:29 PM
Post #54 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: Agreed. There's no embarrassment in trying something that doesn't work. So why call it marketing research after it has failed? Because, fundamentally, the deployment was for the sake of showing it to people at RRR...
I think that was a tactical mistake. I do not think an unfinished product should ever be revealed until the bugs have been worked out. And the redesign wasn't anywhere near that point yet. The first impression is too important. You would have better off showing them concept boards, which by definition are for evaluation and feedback purposes.
In reply to: In reply to: Speaking of marketing research, it seems that one major mistake that was made was that none was done before the rollout. Marketing research is not 'design by committee'; it's the systematic gathering of feedback from the intended target audiance. To some extent, both the month-long survey we conducted in November, and the deployment at RRR, were meant to do just that.
See my comments above, but I think we're on the same page.
In reply to: In reply to: A little beta testing would have revealed all the problems that the full-scale rollout did, and would have avoided the management of this site from appearing to be in over their heads. We're always in over our heads. That's the fun part ;-)
I understand fully, but that's not an impression you want the advertisers to get.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
skinner
Mar 23, 2005, 12:00 AM
Post #55 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2004
Posts: 1747
|
In reply to: I think that was a tactical mistake. I do not think an unfinished product should ever be revealed until the bugs have been worked out.
Why put the time and effort into bringing a test version of anything to a finished product state, only to find it does not function as expected or the masses object for whatever reason?
I also think it's virtually impossible to deliver a "bug free" product without releasing it for real-world testing. Take any Microsoft product for an example.. bug free? :roll:
I appreciate the fact that it "didn't cost anything", but am well aware of the amount of work involved in re-working the site. The colors didn't really bother me one way or the other, and the logo was well done. Personally however I would prefer to see a logo that would somehow convey "Rock Climbing" at first glance, even in the absence of and text stating such.
<---All of the above is just my personal opinion--->
I for one appreciate the efforts of Tim (and whoever else is helping) to re-work and improve the site. I can only assume that a lot of time and hard work goes into just maintaining the site. Considering it pays so well, I doubt that you have people beating down your door to take your place.
Anyways.. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 23, 2005, 12:25 AM
Post #56 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
How is Lucent Technologies doing these days Dingus?
They went through a complete redesign and came up
with one of the worst graphic mistakes ever. Their logo
consisted of a hand-drawn red circle which was refered
to by their employees as "the red *sshole."
Now let's look at TAZO tea. A brand new tea comes onto
the market trying to take market share away from
Celestial Seasonings as well as a whole host of other tea
makers. They do this through inovative "hippy" looking
design and come away as one of the fastest growing
specialty food manufacturers.
The IBM logo is a direct reflection of a solid object, a
motherboard, as well as hinting at all of the qualities
described by the other posters. But the one main
question you must ask is, how many times has the IBM
logo needed to be revamped? Never. This in the face of
the exploding technology field it is based in.
Dingus, if you don't think we live in a visual culture then
I feel bad for you.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 23, 2005, 12:28 AM
Post #57 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
Oh yeah, TIM,
Do not go with a Tami Knight illustration/cartoon.
One of the tests of a great logo is if you can put
it on the head of a pin and still recognize it.
Nike, IBM and Coke can all do this, but a cartoon
rat (and don't get me wrong, I LOVE Tami Knight)
cannot do this.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Mar 23, 2005, 12:57 AM
Post #59 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: Oh yeah, TIM, Do not go with a Tami Knight illustration/cartoon. One of the tests of a great logo is if you can put it on the head of a pin and still recognize it. Nike, IBM and Coke can all do this, but a cartoon rat (and don't get me wrong, I LOVE Tami Knight) cannot do this.
Very good point. One of the strengths of the monkey was that it passed this test with flying colors (the current logo does not). The weakness, I think, is a lack of conceptual focus and a thorough consideration of what the logo is supposed to represent. Anyone who feels the production values were not up to spec from a professional standpoint is out of their mind!
|
|
|
|
|
voltzwgn
Mar 23, 2005, 12:59 AM
Post #60 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2002
Posts: 140
|
I'd vote for using WonderWomen's new tattoo design for the logo, check it out it simple timeless and deep all at the same time. I'd insert the picture here but I'm just not that good maybe someone else can do it.
|
|
|
|
|
sixter
Mar 23, 2005, 1:03 AM
Post #61 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2003
Posts: 262
|
One of the tests we had to do when learning logo design was to reduce it to the space of 1/2" square. Now I am not saying this should be used as a logo, but this is something I came up with for use in one of my web design projects in school.
http://img.photobucket.com/...0/sixter/climber.jpg
A logo should look GREAT and be recognised when reduced down. Difficult with text logos, and detailed line work. A simple, clean, easy to recognise logo should be used.
My current personal mark.
http://img.photobucket.com/.../sixter/neko_opt.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
phlsphr
Mar 23, 2005, 1:54 AM
Post #62 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2003
Posts: 262
|
In reply to: People here are attached firmly to the status quo, and the status quo (in this case) sucks. The current design is a piece of s---. Failure to replace it with something better is the only thing that I have any fear of.
Perhaps this belongs in a seperate thread, but I'd be interested to hear more specifically what you do not like about the current design. Just calling it names isn't enough. Spell out just what you think is lacking. As a thought experiment, imagine that the brown thing was the status quo, and this was the beta--what would you or others be complaining about? By the way--has ANYONE complained that they lost the brown thing?
I'm all for taking measured risks. Sometimes risks fail.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Mar 23, 2005, 2:21 AM
Post #63 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: In reply to: People here are attached firmly to the status quo, and the status quo (in this case) sucks. The current design is a piece of s---. Failure to replace it with something better is the only thing that I have any fear of. Perhaps this belongs in a seperate thread, but I'd be interested to hear more specifically what you do not like about the current design. Just calling it names isn't enough. Spell out just what you think is lacking.
The current design fails in several respects:
1) information density
2) usability ("do what I mean")
3) efficiency (it is very bloated HTML)
4) intuitiveness (for first-time visitors)
5) search engine visibility and crawlability
Any one of the above is a showstopper. To hit all five is a command performance in the arena of fuckups. It's simply unacceptable for the existing design to be permanent.
In reply to: As a thought experiment, imagine that the brown thing was the status quo, and this was the beta--what would you or others be complaining about? By the way--has ANYONE complained that they lost the brown thing?
Yes. Several directly to me.
In reply to: I'm all for taking measured risks. Sometimes risks fail.
Indeed. Viewed as an individual deployment, the 'brown thing' of this past weekend was a failure. Viewed as a process of overcoming the inertia of 3 years of stasis, renovating the front page, rethinking assumptions about what's right, and shaking things up, I claim it was a resounding success. The eventual product will thus be stronger than if we had not taken a risk, and the marginal cost is very close to zero, so I am not unhappy with this temporary setback.
|
|
|
|
|
phaedrus
Mar 23, 2005, 5:23 AM
Post #64 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 3046
|
For what it's worth, I have yet to be able to see the new logo everyone is talking about. I've cleared my cache and history, and just about anything else I can think of to no effect. Anyone else having that issue?
|
|
|
|
|
weasel
Mar 23, 2005, 6:55 AM
Post #65 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2003
Posts: 136
|
Logos are an interesting thing. It's not even so much as what they are, but the simple fact that they stand for a certain company. Take the Nike swoosh for instance, maybe I'm missing something, but that has absolutely nothing to do with basketball. Or any other sport for that matter (well maybe hockey or something).
I'll only use climbing company logos in my examples, but I'd like to point out a few things.
Logos that we, as climbers, instantly recongnize are:
Black diamond, it's simple, has nothing to do with climbing but entirely to do with the name.
Petzl, showing that it's possible to make a logo totally recognizable with just text and an oval around it. Trango also uses this principal, probably because of the short name.
Then there's La Sportiva, Montrail and MSR that have a mountain in the backround symbolizing what they make their gear for, but also the company name. Now with MSR, I think it's also because the name is MOUNTAIN Safety Research.
Now, most of these are brand names. Names that usually are pretty irrelevent to what they make/do. rc.com doesn't exactly have a name to call ourselves by. Sure we use rc.com or rockclimbing.com, but that's a website address, not a name that can be used in a logo. So instead of something like Mammut, where it's a name and a picture, we have to come up with something like the Nike swoosh or the Black Diamond diamond.
You simpley have to disect logos and their meaning. Once you understand them, you can make a successful one. Of course that isn't the only thing, but also proliferation. If the current rc.com logo were in every Climbing mag, every R&I mag, and on every other helmet of the guys at the ice park, it would be every bit successful despite how crusty it is.
10 of 18 climbing company logos I'm looking at include an abstract (there's another important aspect) object in the logo relating to the name.
Examples:
BD
Arc'Teryx
Mammut
Montrail (to ME that's a mountain with a trail on it)
Mountain Hard Wear
MSR
Osprey
The North Face (I think so)
Anyway, I'm not trying to say I know what makes a good logo, but I think at least I begin to understand it. Consider what I've said when thinking of of a logo idea.
What I first thought of but I know most people won't like because of the "spiritual" side it's supposed to have, was a silluette of someone climbing slightly overlapped by a screenshot of a forum window from a computer. It encompasses climbing and the fact that this is a website. We don't make shoes, gear, or clothes. We type on an electronic version of a conversation. I don't think we should forget that.
I apologise for making this hard to read, I'm not a very good writer.
Anyway, just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Mar 23, 2005, 7:59 AM
Post #66 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
sixter proposed an image. I did. What if you stopped arguing and then take a pen and try to design something?
|
|
|
|
|
phlsphr
Mar 23, 2005, 1:10 PM
Post #67 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2003
Posts: 262
|
Sixter makes an important point. A good logo shoujld still hold up when reduced. For this site, a good logo will do this while at the same time tying in to rockclimbing (and not favoring one type of climbing over another).
In reply to: One of the tests we had to do when learning logo design was to reduce it to the space of 1/2" square. Now I am not saying this should be used as a logo, but this is something I came up with for use in one of my web design projects in school. http://img.photobucket.com/...0/sixter/climber.jpg A logo should look GREAT and be recognised when reduced down. Difficult with text logos, and detailed line work. A simple, clean, easy to recognise logo should be used.
Here's a similar logo my wife (she's the graphic designer) and I worked up for the Ohio Climber's Association:
http://www.ohioclimbers.org/oca/art/OCA_logo.gif
For what its worth, my vote would be for something like this. A simple logo that features a climber that holds up well even when reduced.
|
|
|
|
|
phlsphr
Mar 23, 2005, 1:38 PM
Post #68 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2003
Posts: 262
|
In reply to: The current design fails in several respects: 1) information density 2) usability ("do what I mean") 3) efficiency (it is very bloated HTML) 4) intuitiveness (for first-time visitors) 5) search engine visibility and crawlability Any one of the above is a showstopper. To hit all five is a command performance in the arena of f---. It's simply unacceptable for the existing design to be permanent.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 1 (too much information on a page on the current site? too little?). 2 and 4 are related. One problem with the brown site was that by removing the left-hand sidebar you were taking a step backwards in terms of usability. One good measure for you is how many clicks it takes the user to get to where he/she want to go. One the current site I can get to, say, a listing of the routes on endless wall, in 3 clicks. The brown design added two more clicks--click on routes, click on n. american part of map--making it less easily usable and intuitive. I think everyone is all for improvements to 3 and 5. One simple measure of 3 is how long it takes pages to load. Unfortunately the new design seemed slower. Finally two items you don't mention are
6) Aesthetic Values (does the site look good?)
and
7) Comercial value (does the site generate advertising revenue?).
Reading betweent the lines from what you have posted it seems to me that what was being tried primarily was this--eliminate the side bar and make the advertising more prominent in order to generate more advertising revenue. I think ultimately when folks have more time to think about it, that's a bigger issue than the monkey or the brown color. I didn't like the monkey or the color, but I really didn't like the fact that usability was being sacrificed for the sake of more ads.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Mar 23, 2005, 2:31 PM
Post #69 of 76
(15006 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
[quote="tim"]
The current design fails in several respects:
1) information density
2) usability ("do what I mean")
3) efficiency (it is very bloated HTML)
4) intuitiveness (for first-time visitors)
5) search engine visibility and crawlability
Any one of the above is a showstopper. To hit all five is a command performance in the arena of f---. It's simply unacceptable for the existing design to be permanent.
In reply to: Excellent - You've already identified the main problems with the site, Tim. All that remains is for you to implement whatever solutions seem best to you, and for you to remember that you can't please all of the users all of the time. The silent majority assert their assent. As for the branding, those who say branding and design is simple are absolutely right. Those who say it is complex on the other hand are also absolutely right. Good design is like good climbing; even though it's excruciatingly difficult, it looks effortless. Having participated in very successful rebranding projects - as an example, The Macallan whisky, a project which went so well that nobody even noticed it had happened but sales went up anyway - and very unsuccessful ones - as an example, I was involved in the rollout of BP's current logo, which was universally slated in every newspaper on earth - I can honestly say that I don't think there's a hard and fast rule for what makes for success. I would say this though: if you don't hire a professional, don't expect the result to look professional. The questions Martha suggested be asked way back at the start of the thread are the sort of questions that no professional should even be able to start designing a logo without asking. Stuff about sizes, colours and positions is minor. Sort out what it has to do and make it do it effortlessly. The rest will follow.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 23, 2005, 5:37 PM
Post #70 of 76
(15009 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: I think that was a tactical mistake. I do not think an unfinished product should ever be revealed until the bugs have been worked out. I disagree. I think running a new format and getting user reactions and comments prior to bringing it to a finished product is not only a valuable way of testing, but done routinely.. It's called "Beta". Why put the time and effort into bringing a test version of anything to a finished product state, only to find it does not function as expected or the masses object for whatever reason? I also think it's virtually impossible to deliver a "bug free" product without releasing it for real-world testing. Take any Microsoft product for an example.. bug free? :roll:
You missed the point, but that's par for the course around here.
In reply to: I appreciate the fact that it "didn't cost anything"...
Oh, it cost alright. It would have been interesting to do a pre-post survey of potential advertisers on their image of this site and its management before and after they viewed the redesign. I suspect that management now has a bit of damage control work to do.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 23, 2005, 5:38 PM
Post #71 of 76
(15009 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: I think that was a tactical mistake. I do not think an unfinished product should ever be revealed until the bugs have been worked out. I disagree. I think running a new format and getting user reactions and comments prior to bringing it to a finished product is not only a valuable way of testing, but done routinely.. It's called "Beta". Why put the time and effort into bringing a test version of anything to a finished product state, only to find it does not function as expected or the masses object for whatever reason? I also think it's virtually impossible to deliver a "bug free" product without releasing it for real-world testing. Take any Microsoft product for an example.. bug free? :roll:
You missed the point, but that's par for the course around here.
In reply to: I appreciate the fact that it "didn't cost anything"...
Oh, it cost alright. It would have been interesting to do a pre-post survey of potential advertisers on their image of this site and its management before and after they viewed the redesign. I suspect that management now has a bit of damage control work to do.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 23, 2005, 5:56 PM
Post #72 of 76
(15013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: People here are attached firmly to the status quo, and the status quo (in this case) sucks. The current design is a piece of s---. Failure to replace it with something better is the only thing that I have any fear of. Perhaps this belongs in a seperate thread, but I'd be interested to hear more specifically what you do not like about the current design. Just calling it names isn't enough. Spell out just what you think is lacking. The current design fails in several respects: 1) information density 2) usability ("do what I mean") 3) efficiency (it is very bloated HTML) 4) intuitiveness (for first-time visitors) 5) search engine visibility and crawlability
I would add that the climbing FAQ needs to be fully developed and more visibly positioned as well. If you want people to actually use the FAQ rather than the forum for simple questions, then it seems to me that the FAQ should have nearly the same visiblility as the forums.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
trevor
Anonymous Poster
Mar 24, 2005, 4:57 AM
Post #73 of 76
(15013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2006
Posts: 0
|
I have been through this logo design process so many times with RC.com that I have lost count. I've hired a couple designers and a new logo is nearly impossible to create.
The first problem is that the name, although very popular in the search engines, is a really long one!
R O C K C L I M B I N G . C O M
Try getting this into a thumbnail! We tried using an abbreviation, but RC just reminds me of RC Cola.
Second, we are using a medium (web) that really is quite hard to represent a large pretty logo. I personally think the current logo in all it's glory is hard to beat. Good job Andy Meadors!! In fact, I never felt we needed to switch, but I didn't make this decision.
The third problem is that climbers come from all sorts of background and styles (desert, mountain, beach, tropic, ice) (trad, sport, bouldering, aid). That means you can't do anything that would represent one of these because it automatically alienates the rest. In addition, have you ever seen a really small carabiner on a logo? It looks horrible! Besides we don't make biners, so why would one be on our logo?
Another way of doing the logo is just in a unique font. The current one is a good example of that. Here is another example:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=50881
(this is two versions of the same idea, NOT one logo)
The last option that I'm familiar with is to create a unique shape or animal that is distinctly different. The reality is that it doesn't have to be perfect. How many of you thought you had the best high school mascot in the world? Looking back ten years later, was that mascot really so cool. Most are cheesy art school projects. But atleast it gave everyone something to rally behind regardless if the nose was too big or the tail too fat.
I would really like to see a contest and let's vote on the best option. I'll throw in some cash personally for this. Maybe we can have a few other volunteers pledge some money for the winner.
One final thought. Most logos need a while to grow on you. They also need to be seen in different settings to really work. And most people can't handle change when it comes to marketing and branding, even when the old was really bad. Finally, not everyone is going to love or even like the winning logo design. I figure if 50% or more like it then it's an amazing logo.
Trevor
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Mar 24, 2005, 8:04 AM
Post #74 of 76
(15013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
Trevor, and whoever on the site management team is in charge of this, www.worth1000.com is an awesome site for such logo contests. You can go there and hook up with a corporate contest, and get input from a ton of people who are rather good with graphics, and usually wind up with a decent logo. Check the current ones out here.
What one COULD do is start a contest there, and offer a link to it here, so that anybody here who wants to compete could go there and submit, but we'd also get input from a wider range of people with more experience in the graphic arts. Might be a good option to consider. :)
Of course we don't really need a contest if we've got a designated designer, unless they don't mind handing off that project and simply supervising the contest and deciding which logo to use or whatever. We COULD do a contest and get good results, I think, but we don't need to, since that part is covered already. I would hate to be stepping on anyone's toes, cause that's never fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
