I have complained many times (OK, only those two times here on the blog, but countless other times to anyone within earshot) about people using JPEG for logos. It is bad, bad, bad.
But it just keeps happening.
Finally, I have stopped caring. Yes, go ahead and use JPEG for your logo. Send me the gnarliest, artifactiest, lowest-quality JPEG of your logo that you can find. And make sure it’s tiny. Like, 200 pixels wide or less.
Because I bill by the hour. I’m happy to fix your logo for you, and I will do it, whether you ask me to or not, whether you notice the difference or not, if this is what you send me as part of your project. (I can neither confirm nor deny that I might also write a blog post ranting about JPEG logos while I’m on the clock.)
Egads, I’ve never looked at that emoji closely. Are those dollar sign eyes with raised eyebrows, or closed eyes with dollar sign nostrils??? (Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.)
If you are
the a regular reader of this blog, you may notice things look slightly different than they did before. The light blue striped background behind the right sidebar is gone; there’s navigation at the top; the left sidebar on the featured item on the home page has now become a standard element of all of the posts and, hey, the home page is now back to a standard one-post-after-another blog layout. Also, the sidebar widgets are different, and if you scroll waaaaaay down to the bottom, that’s different too. But since you’ve never bothered to do that before now, you probably wouldn’t have noticed anyway.
Incremental redesign seems to be more common with websites these days than the biannual complete overhaul we’ve grown accustomed to from sites large and small over the years. Why? Perhaps it’s a sign of maturity (of the designs, not the designers): designs stabilize over time as they’re refined based on user feedback. Perhaps it’s inertia: sites are so much more complex these days that, despite the benefits of semantic HTML and CSS, it can still be a massive undertaking to redesign a website from the ground up. And perhaps it’s strategic: designers have an idea where they’re going, but it can be jarring to users to have the proverbial rug pulled out from under them with abrupt and large-scale changes to a site’s design.
So, which is it in my case? Honestly, it’s probably a combination of all three. Anyway, I hope you like the refinements, and if not, feel free to let me have it in the comment section!