I was browsing through www.web20logo.com and all I see is clean and nicely designed logos. I have no clue what makes them categorized under the "web 2.0 style". Just because they are designed for web 2.0 companies?

I do get "web 2.0" when it is about layout, but not here.

Please, give me an example logo that is clean, professional but NOT web 2.0. (Keep in mind; Shell logo would be under "web 2.0 style" category if it was a web based company.)

glenngould wrote:

I was browsing through www.web20logo.com and all I see is clean and nicely designed logos.

Uh... what about del.icio.us? :shifty:

Honestly, a lot of those logos don't inspire any 2.0 feelings in me.

There are some common design elements among 2.0 logos. One is a vertical bar. It's not just used in logo design, though. It's not even that common.

I think what really gives me the "this is 2.0" feeling is the font. Typically a sans-serif, smooth font... Thin, often, but not always. These are decent examples.

I agree they have smt. common, but I can say nearly 90% of big firms in the world have "web 2.0 compatible logos", agree?

there really isnt a web 2.0 logo, there just logos made for companies that are said to be part of the 2.0 feel. You logo is really consideed 2.0 if your company is. 2.0 companys do things better, quicker, more efficient, and in new cutting edge ways, i.e "Wikipedia" = Dictionary.com that is made by its users.. hope this clearifies some of it

ok you said sans-serif i dont have that font in photoshop where can i get it or is a type of font?? help me!!!
thanks

jacobian91 wrote:

ok you said sans-serif i dont have that font in photoshop where can i get it or is a type of font?? help me!!!
thanks

sans serif isnt neccesarily a font, its a font style, sans and sans serif.. i cant remeber which one is which but one has rounded edges and one has straight lines edges, i do believe

jacobian: Sans serif isn't a single font, it's a type of font. Serifs are the little "feet" on the ends of some fonts (such as Times New Roman), sans serif fonts, therefor, are fonts that don't have those serifs (such as Verdana, or Ariel, among others).

alright thx

While I know the web 2.0 thing has actual technical parameters, it reminds me of the uber-trendy as they guzzle their double decaf lattes and whisper 'brown is the new black' to one another.

MissLee wrote:

While I know the web 2.0 thing has actual technical parameters, it reminds me of the uber-trendy as they guzzle their double decaf lattes and whisper 'brown is the new black' to one another.

your so not up on the latest vashion, pink is the new blavk and green is the new brown...

but yeh seriosly dont get confused when people say 2.0 feel because really there is none

MissLee wrote:

While I know the web 2.0 thing has actual technical parameters, it reminds me of the uber-trendy as they guzzle their double decaf lattes and whisper 'brown is the new black' to one another.

I tend to look at this whole web 2.0 BS with the same light. It is just a trendy little cliche being used to try and package a bunch of hyperbole. Today it is web 2.0 tomorrow it will be something else.

Web 2.0 is just a marketing term, and it really doesn't have anything to do with design (it is mostly about how content is created and organized and about the emergence of rich internet applications). There is a certain design aesthetic that goes with Web 2.0 sites, though. The majority of them follow it, but not all do. Design in that "2.0 mold" certainly isn't a requirement of having a web 2.0 site.

This might help shed some light on the basic rules for the Web 2.0 design style: http://www.ll.outer-heaven.net/blog/?p=8

And this might shed some light on what Web 2.0 is in general: http://www.digital-web.com/articles/web_2_for_designers/

As might these:

http://oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228
http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html
http://web2.wsj2.com/the_state_of_web_20.htm

Bleys wrote:

This might help shed some light on the basic rules for the Web 2.0 design style: http://www.ll.outer-heaven.net/blog/?p=8

I very much disagree with that guy in many ways.

I think it is a pretty good overview of the general design style associated with Web 2.0 (though none of those things are hard and fast rules--i.e., not having rounded corners won't make your design fit less into the aesthetic). He does well to outline the general principles at play in the style, in my opinion.

KLB wrote:

I tend to look at this whole web 2.0 BS with the same light. It is just a trendy little cliche being used to try and package a bunch of hyperbole. Today it is web 2.0 tomorrow it will be something else.

Great quote Ken....I think it's a just a trend, a CSS based website trends. Who cares about this 2.0 when Flash based site is in its worldwide general trends?

:rofl:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html


there is a full explanation,
heres a quick summary
Netscape = Web 1.0
Google = Web 2.0
Encyclopedia Brittanica = web 1.0
Wikipedia = 2.0
Personal Websites = Web 1.0
Bloggs = 2.0

hope you kinda get the point now, there is no 2.0 logo. none

intrinzik wrote:

there is no 2.0 logo. none

No, but so-called 2.0 applications/sites/etc. tend to share some characteristics mainly in template design but often in the logo as well.

the only similaritie i c in them is that there well designed/thought out logos, thats it theres tons of none "2.0" logos with the same characteristics

MissLee wrote:

While I know the web 2.0 thing has actual technical parameters, it reminds me of the uber-trendy as they guzzle their double decaf lattes and whisper 'brown is the new black' to one another.

...and thats is exactly why I don't buy into the whole "it has to be 'web2.0' or its not good enough. Sometimes I feel like the real web 2 standard is along the lines of:

I do think that understanding WHY web2.0 is 'important' would hel those who wonder about what it is too.

IMO - its not too important unless you have a search engine, blog, store-front, or want to plain show off that you can make a server side application - wow (in a Ben Stien sort of way)

Well, like I said, Web 2.0 was originally a marketing term, and in a lot of was that's still how it is used. But is also a useful term to use when talking about a new breed of websites that make use of new technologies (or new use of old technologies, at least) to create better online apps, that focus on user created or use organized content, user participation and interaction, etc.

Web 2.0 might be a silly term, and it might be a misnomer, but it does stand for a number of important shifts in technology, content creation, and organization that will be useful for the web in the long run.

Besides, if calling my web app web 2.0 will help attract investors, I'm all for it. :lol:

I understand that - I can just do with out the flood of crap that will come with it. User created things seem to lose themselves wihtin themselves. It gets created for a certain market, then the floodgates open with everyone trying to create the same or similar things with a slight twist - then it all just gets overabundant - look at realestate and the way that goes.... I think its the same thing.

I do see important shifts, but is it really NEW so much that its labeled "2.0" - RUBY - really old (and with RUBY on RAILS, its just a 'dreamweaver' approach to RUBY - which is great I think), PHP - old, AJAX - old, SOAP - not as old as the others, but its not really 'new'. Its new to the "little guys" so to speak yes and the mass market who are exploring API and so on can collectively come up with better things if not at least reformed things, which takes me to my original point - the flood.

Hey, whatever gets your investors going is great - go for it. I was just sayin' I don't buy the hype associated with the "version" and why along with my 2 cents. Thats all... not arguing

Well, I think applying any sort of "version" to the Internet as a whole is something of a misnomer. But as a marketing term, calling it "web 2.0" is a great idea. And it doesn't really bother me. If they called it "Bob" it wouldn't bother me. It's just a name.

The Internet2 project is probably more accurate if you really want to talk about the "version" of the Internet.

A couple of excellent posts of note that relate to this discussion from bokardo:

Why to use the term "Web 2.0" (or, Why it doesn't matter what term you use): bokardo.com . . .
How Web 2.0 is about a lot more than rounded corners and nifty javascript: bokardo.com . . .

I can understand why the terms are used, as it really implies a new school of thought. Developers used to think about presenting something visually first and foremost, and worried about the way something functioned second.

Today in "web 2" its quite the opposite. If you look at a lot of the "2" sites, you'll notice that they are not graphically ornate, but rahter plain and clean - its their function that makes them "2.0". Its not a second generation function nor is it some new and uncommon language. Its simply the designer thinking "Function over form" as opposed to "form over function".

I still do see, as with anything, something good happening but the wake being messy. As an example - the DJ circuit. It used to be that you had to have a lot of skill to get behind a turntable and mix records in a crowd. You had to earn the title "DJ", now any 12 year old who goes to Wal-Mart and buys a "DJ in a box" kit is a "DJ". THy aren't great, and they have no concept of what being a DJ is, but they get to step into the circuit and as a result it brought the purity and uniqueness of the scene really down. Aside from that the circuit became mainstream and all the people who shunned it at first now sit on this soap box claiming to have been "down" the entire time.... we call that posing. I am just afraid we'll see the same trend shift happen here, thats all.

Its practical thought - sure you can do a lot in CSS, but if you have tabular data, use a table - thats what it is for. Just becuae you CAN do something in one language, doesn't mean its a smart way of doing it.

The previous posts by me were mainly just my devils advocate posts - but in whole, I do pretty much see why web 2.0 is something of importance.

To comment of previous posts about "why does the web 2.0 stuff seem to be different looking and logos and stuff - its because you have to make it attractive, and clean as possible. If you look at a lof of the "2.0" sites, you'll notice little subtle embellishments - tiny gradients, slight reflections, soft glows, very smooth text...and a seemingly closer payment of attention to typography. You have to make it all fit, and on top of that a lot of these designers are coming from the web 1.0 world so they are used to thinking like a designer and not a programmer.

ej ronin wrote:

If you look at a lot of the "2" sites, you'll notice that they are not graphically ornate, but rahter plain and clean

I think that's what makes 2.0 design: simplicity and cleanness.