New Look

We needed a new look. Try reloading if you aren't seeing it. I snagged the scan from this fine site. I used to change the images once a week. I shall try not to let this pair languish for months without giving them a break.

UPDATE: I've changed the filename for our logo. It's no longer called 'banner', on the hypothesis that this might have been the source of some apparent false positives in the ad blocking department. Is anyone out there STILL not seeing any logo at all?

Comments

[Gary Farber]

Mm. I see black text on white background, with links in two shades of blue. Then there are the little circles before posts, that appear to have some sort of too-small-to-see picture inside them.

And that's it. This is in both Firefox 1.0.1 and in IE 6.02etc; the only significant difference is that in IE for some reason I can see that the circles are oldish-style images of a man and a woman, whereas via Firefox they're too dark to see anything beyond a filled circle.

Oh, and the type in the IE version is default far too small to be read until I bump it up several times.

I don't know if there's more to your look that I've been supposed to have been seeing before or now. I'm not sure I recall it being this minimalist before, but I also tend to find page design pretty forgettable if it's not getting in the way in obnoxious fashion, which is what far too many pages and blogs do. Forgettable is good. On the other hand, the absence of the blog title or anything at all as any sort of logo might be going a bit too far; or not.

[Gary Farber]

Oh, and "I snagged the scan."

What scan? I checked the page you linked to, and there's a glimpse of a paperback cover on the right, but I can only see approximately the top right quarter of it; the rest of it is off the page and while the text on the left can be scrolled, on the rest of the page there's no scrolling (in Firefox). What relationship there is to your page, I have no idea.

Hmm, in IE, I can see the whole paperback cover on that page, in a very weird design that has it at the bottom right of the page, underneath and to the complete right of the text, with nothing else connecting them; I rather expect it's not what's intended.

What relationship the book cover has to your blog design, I have no idea, I'm afraid.

[Matt Weiner]

As one of the original complainants about the old icons, I think these are just ducky. I can immediately tell who posted what, which was my complaint about the old 'uns (I think there needs to be a negative in that sentence somewhere, but damn if I can figure out where it goes).

[jholbo]

You really can't see our logo at the top of the page, Gary? Anyone else having this little problem?

[ben wolfson]

No problems here (firefox 1-something).
Belle's looking distinctly damier than before.

[Jacob T. Levy]

I couldn't see the logo in either Mozilla or IE on my Win 2K desktop at home, but see it fine on my Win XP laptop. (And I like it.)

[Aeon J. Skoble]

Looks fine -- Win XP Pro. In fact, the new avatars are easier to see (and distinguish) than the old ones.

[Standpipe Bridgeplate]

I couldn't see the logo either, until I disabled an AdBlock rule that filtered out "banner" and the like. That might explain some of the Firefox wonkiness.

[Anthony]

Looks fine to me in Safari and Firefox.

[jholbo]

OK, the pic is titled 'banner'. I'll bet that's causing some filters to block it. I'll change the title and reload.

[Keith]

Like th enew avatars. Though, I liked the old Buck Rogers looking pics, too.

[Ralph Luker]

It's pretty clear that John and Belle get better looking with every change. What's their secret? Frankly, I need an improvement.

[Gary Farber]

I see the banner now, and the little round pics are also more or less visible (given my crap eyesight these days, lack of glasses, 15" monitor, and the tiny, tiny, violin that plays along).

I steadfastly refuse to respond to attempts to interrogate my adblocking files, even unto waterboarding. Hey, I'm still into my first few months with XP, and I am only an egg.

[Gary Farber]

Actually, let me clarify: I didn't mean to imply in the slightest that -- although I'm still new to XP -- that I was remotely even in the neighborhood of being stupid enough to put something as simple or global as just "banner" into any of my several adblocking programs. I merely meant to affirm that between several security programs, and a variety of protocols I'm not comfortable saying I'm 1000% comfortable with, I can't exclude the possibility of a strange and interactive wardro--, er, adblocking malfunction.

[Standpipe Bridgeplate]

I didn't mean to imply in the slightest ... that I was remotely even in the neighborhood of being stupid enough to put something as simple or global as just "banner" into any of my several adblocking programs.

That's a relief, because I sure wouldn't want to associate with anyone that stupid. Um.

[jam]

This is, I suppose, Belle when she was young and irresponsible.