Jon Tangerine, David DeSandro, Trent Walton have all come up with ingenious ways to create image-free logotypes by pushing the limits of CSS (Sean Martell made a mouth-watering CSS-based logo too, but doesn’t contain text) that one has to wonder: is this the next step in online branding and identity?
The simplest argument against this could be that a logo must be constant. In the absence of CSS styling, possibly even helper JavaScript, an image will not suddenly morph into a default browser style and render a brand generic. See the image above for how the CSS-based Opera logo degrades in different browsers.
Now that excludes the scenario where images are turned off, and where text—styled text—can come in. Instead of simple image replacement techniques, we now have @font-face embedding and other advanced effects to bring the text as close as possible to the original design.
Text is great because you can read it, as can search engines. Another thing text based logos have going for them is they’re easier to make bigger; that’ll win over a lot of clients.
But there’s a great deal of extra markup required to achieve the necessary look. Does this make sense for the notion of a logo, which is inherently more portable with an image than with a bunch of divs, spans, classes and IDs? Should logos always be images and nothing but, or can they be both text and images? Which should come first, designing the logo in the browser or in a graphics program? Or should all of this experimentation remain just that: experiments?
Me, I just love we could be on the brink of shattering print conventions, yet again.
I can’t help comparing Twitter Images (tweetimag.es), which extract a user avatars with just a URL to the more established universal avatar provider Gravatar, which is dependent on an email address.
While there are certainly more email users than any web service out there, Gravatar isn’t quite as buzzworthy as Twitter; it’s a more specific service after all. However, because of this Twitter Images service, extracting an avatar is much easier than Gravatar’s implementation and could gain more traction as a legitimate avatar solution on blogs. I won’t be surprised if Twitter scooped up this little project for itself.
On the other hand, being dependent on Twitter—whose popularity still causes downtimes to this day—may not be such a good idea for critical endeavors, and it may be more advisable to go for the service whose sole business is avatars (or if possible, identity management).
Gravatar and Twitter don’t have to be adversaries. I’d want Gravatar to take the high road and embrace all the popular identity channels, be it Twitter, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, MobileMe, OpenID, etc. Or should one leave the multiple avatar sources feature to the developers just like you can have different login and identity options on blogs and web services? Perhaps Mix Online’s Incarnate is the right way to skin the cat.
Jacob Gube of Six Revisions has compiled 30 visually-stunning sites which are all formatted like virtual business cards. Tim Van Damme, whose dot-com of the same name sparked this trend, also maintains a list as well.
There’s little else on each page except a rectangular area found dead-center, filled with icons representing the tons of new ways we can be contacted, befriended, stalked. We have the Web 2.0 era and all the insanely creative social media icon designers to thank for this phenomenon. (Sometimes blogs and other related sites are linked to in these cards, but who has time for those anymore?) If you don’t have the chops to whip up your own, services like Card.ly come to the rescue.
But that’s just the visual side of the metaphor being brought online. Business cards are meant to be exchanged because of the information they contain, so what good would these sites be without technological mojo? We have great frameworks like vCard, hCard, and perhaps the open identity systems like OpenID and oAuth. We also have companies working in the mobile space or have devices of their own (more here).
Then there are the lifestreaming apps, like FriendFeed, Tumblr, and chi.mp, which blur the lines between keeping one’s social accounts in one place and keeping up-to-date with said person at the same time.
How does one unassuming professional looking to establish an online presence actually choose from these possibilities? Social media evangelists pretty much recommend we get on everywhere, as many as and as much as we can help it. The goal is to be ubiquitous rather than obscure.
I have to wonder when we’ll ever reach true unification. Home phone. Work phone. Fax. Mobile phone. Email address. IM handle. Static homepage. Blog. MySpace page. Facbeook profile. LinkedIn profile. Facebook Fan Page. Twitter username. Then this—all of this.
How do you identify yourself offline and online? Do you pick one, or unload a bunch of URLs, aliases, and digits on your potential new client/drinking buddy/love-of-your-life? Is this whole business card business even a suitable metaphor, or yet another idea startups can cash in on? And we’re not even bringing up identity theft here.
*/
