I need this to look "softer" - Anyone know how?

[FuzzyLogik]

http://www.phazm.net/del/toohard.jpghttp://www.phazm.net/del/toohard.jpg

This site it supposed to look "web 2.0"esqe, but I can't seem to make it "soft" enough to qualify.

Anyone have and ideas on improving this design?

Thanks.

[xplod_ldg]

First of all Welcome to GD. Second .. what do you mean by softer?

[FuzzyLogik]

First of all Welcome to GD. Second .. what do you mean by softer?


Thank you, great to be here :)

By softer, I simply mean more aesthetically pleasing. The white should be very soft. I'm sure you understand when I say I want it to look like the same style as web 2.0

[Ms.O]

I would say two things:

1) Make the drop-shadow on the blue border a bit less "tight"....fuzzier, farther away from the frame, etc.

2) Sometimes warming up color choices can make things "feel" softer. Can you warm up that blue somehow or better yet, make it a warmer color to begin with?

I have no idea what you mean by web 2.0, so these are just a few suggestions from what I can see.

Welcome to the forum! :)

[Virgo Nightingale]

Thank you, great to be here :)

By softer, I simply mean more aesthetically pleasing. The white should be very soft. I'm sure you understand when I say I want it to look like the same style as web 2.0
I don't think of the web 2.0 style as being soft at all. For me, the term conjures up images of logos with crisp lines, gradients and reflections. Maybe that's just my interpretation. I think it looks quite soft as it is, really. Any softer and I might be imagining a pillow with my head napping on it....

[budafist]

I don't think of the web 2.0 style as being soft at all. For me, the term conjures up images of logos with crisp lines, gradients and reflections. Maybe that's just my interpretation. I think it looks quite soft as it is, really. Any softer and I might be imagining a pillow with my head napping on it....

That's what I thought. Web 2.0 is hard and shiney.

[cornfed]

I was thinking some reflections too, maybe in the corners. I think that would make it more web 2.0ish.

[xplod_ldg]

Thank you, great to be here :)

By softer, I simply mean more aesthetically pleasing. The white should be very soft. I'm sure you understand when I say I want it to look like the same style as web 2.0

I see what you mean. On the interpretation of web 2.0 I would have to agree with Virgo Nightingale and budafist.

The design is pretty soft as it is.

[FuzzyLogik]

I see what you mean. On the interpretation of web 2.0 I would have to agree with Virgo Nightingale and budafist.

The design is pretty soft as it is.

Alright, let me rephrase :)

I guess I don't want soft, I am building a web 2.0 application, and want it to conform to all the standards it intails. I am a coder by nature, though I have a strong background in design, I just don't have much experience in the new reflection/gradient style.

The way I had this in my head, it looked really nice, but when I put it in photoshop... not so much ;)

Not that I'm asking you to delve into psychosis or anything, but how can I convert this design to be... better?

[Virgo Nightingale]

I think we'd have an easier time helping you out if we knew a little more about the site. This design is already perfect if it's for, say, a store that sells baby clothes & furniture and such as it looks (I think, anyways) like a baby boy's blanket. But if you're going for that web 2.0 look, I'm guessing baby stuff not what the site will be about. The success of your design will also be dependent on how you design the other elements that you'll eventually add, like type treatment/placement, etc. It's kinda hard to critique the style for a website if all we're given is a background.

[FuzzyLogik]

I think we'd have an easier time helping you out if we knew a little more about the site. This design is already perfect if it's for, say, a store that sells baby clothes & furniture and such as it looks (I think, anyways) like a baby boy's blanket. But if you're going for that web 2.0 look, I'm guessing baby stuff not what the site will be about. The success of your design will also be dependent on how you design the other elements that you'll eventually add, like type treatment/placement, etc. It's kinda hard to critique the style for a website if all we're given is a background.

A Web Service site

Really, this is only meant to be visually pleasing, not marketing or anything.

Does anyone have examples of sites that use the "soft white"?

I am sorry for being so vague, I am just working this all out in my head.

[ecsyle]

Smaller radius on the corners. Softer drop shadows. Crisper diagonal lines in the outer rectangle.

That would help. You could also take the blue down, lighter, less saturated.

Like this?
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/1526/web2loluu2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Outer Rectangle

Color: #e3efff

Drop shadow::
Opacity 15%
Distance 0
Size 10
Contour Gaussian

Stroke::
Size 1
Position Inside
Color #ced9e7

Inner Rectangle

Color: #e3efff

Drop shadow::
Opacity 10%
Distance 0
Size 10
Contour Gaussian

Stroke::
Size 1
Position Inside
Color #d7d7d7

Both rectangles have a 20pixel radius

[ecsyle]

Remove the strokes and lighten and widen the drop shadows to make it "softer"

Still not quite sure what that means in this instance.

Personally I would remove the horizontal lines altogether, or, maybe make the outer rectangle much much darker, lighten up the lines, add some shine effects, and apply a gradient mask to the horizontal lines. That would be pretty web2.0-ish.

[chris_bcn]

Web 2.0 isn't a graphical style. added reflections etc. doesn't make it web 2.0. neither does using AJAX.

Bloody buzzwords

Bah Humbug. England are losing in the cricket and I'm grumpy

[budafist]

I never heard of web 2.0 until recently - I've only seen things visually referred to as Web 2.0, so it's a graphical style in my book. I think my education came from that web 2.0 logo link that was on here a while ago to another forum.

What does Web 2.0 mean Chris?

["Technical" Terry]

Here is a previous thread which shows some examples of what might be considered web 2.0 logos.

http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20428&highlight=Web+2.0+logo



(Views expressed in the thread may not be that of this poster.)

[xplod_ldg]

I have heard of web 2.0 beeing associated with graphical & design stuff, but it's not quite like that. The web 2.0 refers more to some principals. Ajax doesn't make a site web 2.0. Basically the web 2.0 is more about social interaction and democracy on the net (everybody contributes). It's about social networking sites, wiki concept, communication tools. The landmark examples of web 2.0 are Wikipedia, digg, Technorati etc. AJAX doesn't make a website web 2.0. Basically a few elements a web 2.0 site should include are :
- rich internet application techniques AJAX / non-AJAX based
- valid XHTML
- CSS 2.0 at least
- RSS / Atom
- Weblogs
- clean and understandable URLs etc.
You can read more about Web 2.0 and what it means here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2).

[ecsyle]

Web 2.0 isn't a graphical style. added reflections etc. doesn't make it web 2.0. neither does using AJAX.

Bloody buzzwords

Bah Humbug. England are losing in the cricket and I'm grumpy
Yeah, very true.