By Alex Walker

SitePoint’s New Logo — and the Story Behind It

By Alex Walker

Logo redesigns. They sometimes feel a little like squeezing toothpaste from one tube into another.

  1. It’s fiddly work.
  2. You’re battling not to lose valuable stuff in the process.
  3. Even if you nail it, people will mostly just notice ‘how clean it looks’.

With that in mind, we recently took on the task of updating the SitePoint logo. Here’s the back story.

The Background

The first SitePoint logo was created for the site launch in 2000. Although more than a placeholder, it’s main task was to take us beyond the launch of V1.0 — to a time when we could then focus our full attention on a logo.

SitePoint Logo - early 2002

The logo you probably know best has been with us since early in 2002, and has graced all but the very first SitePoint book. In late 2001 we provided a color and style brief to a number local designers and asked for raw concepts we could work with. The current logo started as the seed of an idea provided to us by a local design agency. In time, we developed and honed that idea into the one you see today.

Obviously that was ten years ago now. It has served us very well, but it’s time for a refresh.

The Brief

Although nothing was ever totally ruled out, this was never likely to become a ‘tear-down-start again’ project. The SitePoint brand is known and widely liked, so there was no reason to leave that behind.

However we’ve got some new stuff bubbling behind the scenes at SitePoint and Mark (Co-founder) wanted our brand to be ready to reflect that fresh outlook (stay tuned later in the year for that).

Mark suggested we run the initial stages of the project on 99designs (our sister company), but our internal design team (who have a long history with the logo) were passionate about taking on the project. We ultimately convinced Mark to give us a shot at it before taking it to the masses, so we had to make the most of it and get it right

We settled on a few givens:

  • Orange and blue were to remain, but with possible flexibility in the hue and shade
  • The type was to be lowercase
  • There is a strong likelihood the design will use some re-interpretation of the angled brackets
  • The primary logo would be designed for a white background but needed to work on dark

The first round of concepts was all about generating lots of variation. In-house designers, Alex Walker and Harley Alexander were given a run at it, while three external designers were also contracted to each give their take.

The Process

Refreshing a logo is no easy task. Unless your brand has been fatally damaged, you will want people to be able to instantly recognize the old brand in the new one.

Evolution of the Starbucks logo

Evolution of the Starbucks logo

Clearly Starbucks have done a great job at pulling their identity through each redesign stage.

Shaping ideas

So, the question is: If you KNOW the new design probably won’t be radically different to the old one, surely it makes sense to start with the old design and just tweak it?

As practical as that sounds, no.

Here’s why: I think you can draw parallels between the design process and topiary (the art of trimming hedges into creative shapes). As a designer, your job is to grow as much raw, healthy hedge as you can. Later in the process it can be trimmed into shape.

Most client feedback — whether it’s a single person or a panel of stakeholders — is ‘reductive’ in nature. Like a good set of pruning shears, it tends to be better at cutting off the foliage that sticks out the most. In other words, stakeholders are better at telling you what they don’t want, than what they do.

And don’t get me wrong, that’s exactly the way it should be.

But it also means that if you begin with something that is quite close to the original logo, there’s almost nothing left to trim away. That can easily lead to a design impasse.

The takeaway is: Don’t be afraid to push the design boundaries early in the process. At worst, your craziest ideas will provide a nice counterpoint to your more conservative concepts. At best, it might just be a refined version of one of your crazy ideas that makes it through.

Round 1

There were about 30 concepts in first round. Here’s a cross-section.

What we learned:

  • The traditional format of a logomark followed by a logotype wasn’t a given. Concepts either wrapping the text in tag-like devices or replacing the tittle in the ‘i’ were given more attention than expected.
  • Lighter weight font treatments seemed to get a better response.

Round 2 

For round 2, we cherry-picked some of the favored ideas from the first iteration and used them as the basis for some new designs.

Round 3 

By this stage in the process, the general sentiment seemed to moving back towards the traditional logomark/logotype format. In particular, we seemed to be moving towards some variation using the orange and blue angled brackets set in front of a light-medium weight, lowercase typeface.

However this still left a lot to be determined:

  • How heavy should the angle brackets be?
  • Angled brackets are sharp and not necessarily friendly. Can we soften them without getting too cartoony or cuddly?
  • The negative space between the brackets creates a notional ‘s’ shape. Can/Should we be trying to emphasize this?
  • The brackets can fit together either as a balanced rectangle or a more jaunty off-center shape. Which works better for us?

Round 4

At round 4 we felt like we’d done a complete loop — but that wasn’t a bad thing as long as we were walking in the right direction. We knew it was going to be two angle brackets, but it had to be a natural-feeling evolution of the original logo. It became very finnicky- the variations we were coming up with were only minimally different. The details, the tapering and how wide ‘this part’ was compared to ‘this part’, whilst maintaining a meaningful negative space, were all questions we kept asking ourselves. It was tough! But, eventually we came up with some approachable bracket devices that shared some shape characteristics with the original logo, albeit with a refreshed feel. This was a great example of designers bouncing off each other’s successful ideas.

Toying with different shapes, we even had several solid coloured brackets printed and cut out- so we could figure out the exact spacing and positioning. We stuck little variations of sitepoint logos on the wall in front of us, along with larger printed ones that we thought were close. After spending about half an hour pushing a pair of brackets millimetres in each direction, Mark finally put his finger on one configuration. “That one!”.  We had the shape we needed.

We found taking the shape off the screen and quite literally into our hands was a really valuable step — we weren’t playing with something pristine and perfect, but it gave everyone the chance answer their own questions over the spacing and proportions. And in the end helped us to reach the final identity.

Playing with different spacing between the angle brackets.


After finding the right shape, we spent some time printing out several different iterations on the oranges and blues, and comparing them. We were aiming for a middle ground between reliable/trustworthy and fun/friendly. Brighter blues and oranges came across too playful — we didn’t want candy brackets for a logo! The colours needed to be deep, represent trust, knowledge, and echo the original brand colours.

We eventually settled on a deep sky blue, and an ever so slightly muted orange. We did test the colors quite extensively before settling— we printed example book covers, mocked up our websites with it, and also just printed the colors as blocks. Eventually, after narrowing down to 3 oranges and 3 blues we took them upstairs to get final sign off. After letting Mark mull them over for a few days, and he came back to us with finals. At long last!

What's the difference, right!?

A final final final final development version was mocked up and printed three times — one for the office, one for Mark’s office, and one for a final signature (the official sign-off we’d been waiting for!). Since then, we’ve placed copies strategically around the office and monitored people’s first reactions. It’s been really useful to be able to live with a logo for a while before unleashing it on the world. Happily, the feedback has been almost all positive.

In the end it has been a long, but rewarding process. It was fascinating to watch the design go through a complete loop —hopefully adding 10-15 years of design fuel to the tank on the way.

What are your thoughts?

  • 2 Thumbs Up!

    I love watching the evolution of brands.

    Thank you for the inside look of your process.

  • Ronald Lokers

    I liked the old logo more…

    The big version of the new logo looks ok, but the little version (like in the site header) does look like a logo created in Microsoft office “word art”. The too big and hard edge shadow effect is conflicting with the other effects that are used in the logo and makes it quite uncomfortable to look at… it just doesn’t look natural.

  • This was a really interesting read. I myself don’t do a lot of logo development and it is interesting to see just how many design iterations it takes to get it right. The new logo looks great!

  • Congratulations! on your new logo.
    but this whole quality centric, aiming for top notch quality harmonizing with the sitepoint’s brand often requires lot of patience and time.

    I very much liked the steps you have listed in, will act as clear path, rather than to be clueless and don’t how to reach to the expectations scenario

    It is great way to aim the expectations, and helps to match the steps with each other for designer/design group and concerned approval parties.

    Wish you very best for your business, sharped with new
    :- )

  • Hm. Guys. I actually think I learned this one from YOU. Maybe we don’t care about your new logo. I know that sounds awfully mean, but I’ve been with you guys (have all your books, read all your articles) for years and this article reads like a steaming pile of w@nk. I don’t mean to be mean. But . . . what’s happened? Have you been bought out by a larger company or something? Are you about to float? The web is for small and you guys are acting all . . . “big” all-of-a-sudden.

    Bring back the old Sitepoint. I’m sorry but – I liked you just the way you were. I understand if you don’t print this.

    • Jordan

      This comment is totally nonconstructive and makes you come across as a child. Get a grip, pal.

    • You’ve just earned a couple extra brownie points for printing this. Good to see you are open and transparent to showing both sides of the debate. The conversation is ON!! ;)

    • Alex Walker

      Hey Edwin.

      Maybe a little harsh, but I take your comments on board.

      On ‘why this article’: Sometimes I forget myself, but people are, and have always been interested when we make changes.

      To be honest, when you’ve shipped, the last thing Harley and I wanted to do was go back over the process and document it. But I know from past experience, some people (not all) are genuinely interested in how we got there — Facebook/Twitter comments backs that general idea up.

      On your last point: I guess if there’s one thing we know, is you can never truly go back. I’ve been here since 2000 and we’ve been changing all through that time. Personally, I think we’ve lacked some focus at times in the last few years, but right now there are some pretty cool things going on here.

      Hopefully you’ll enjoy them.

  • I love it!

  • Basically I like your new logo, but I think the shadow is unnecessary. A good logo doesn’t need one. Furthermore it always makes smaller versions of the logo look a bit blurry (like at the top left corner of your site).

    Besides that I really love the version of the logo where the tittle is replaced with the picture mark. Would have been my favorite one.

    • Agreed about the shadow. Be rid of it for maximum impact. But otherwise, I think it’s great.

    • KLM

      Agreed, lose the drop shadow and the border. Keep it clean and it will work.

    • kevotheclone

      Couldn’t agree more! Loose the shadow on the smaller, lo-rez versions of the logo; too fuzzy.

    • Matthew P

      I would definitely agree about the shadow, not sure if I would remove it completely but at the very least the one in the site header is way overdone – the shadow distance is just too far, almost to the point of affecting readability but it certainly looks muddy around the angle brackets at any rate.

      My initial impression when seeing the logo in the site header was that I didn’t like it at all, then I saw the final version in this article which appears at a larger size with a much more reasonable drop shadow and thought it looked quite spiffy. At any rate the way it appears in the header just doesn’t do it justice whatever the reason, I definitely think your designers owe it to themselves and the Sitepoint brand to tweak the header and get it right because as-is it just isn’t doing the new design justice IMO.

    • Daniel Davidson

      I agree, and also think it looks better with flat colours. The pointless gradients and drop-shadows are not needed and make the logo much worse.

  • Looks great, so are all my books collectors items now ?

    • Alex Walker

      They always were, John! ;)

  • Loving the idea of the logo refresh but in my opinion this version has less power than the previous one.

  • LOVE the new logo! Congrats to the team. I’ve been reading SitePoint since the beginning and think the new logo is fresh and yet keeps it traditional.

  • Helen Natasha Moore

    I think the mark to the right of the menu looks really attractive on the grey background, which would likely be because the shadow isn’t there. I enjoyed looking at the iterations. Thanks.

  • cydewaze

    I like the new version, but it will of course require another t-shirt design competition. ;)

  • I like the new logo. I enjoyed seeing the process. Your new logo is a lot cleaner and I think the idea of the coding brackets is much stronger than it was before.

    I think you did keep the character of the brand.

    I am not a big fan of the drop shadows. I think it is pretty strong without them.

    Great work guys.

  • Davis

    Just a bit of history (or trivia!), but wasn’t the old logo able to be rendered with just markup and CSS? I know that type of design consideration is not important anymore, but at the time, I *think* it was a main driver for the creative process.

    Congrats on the refresh!

  • I entirely agree with Christian Krammer about the drop-shadow. It’s too strong and doesn’t look natural in the smaller version of the logo. It looks blurry at best! Besides that though, I do like the new logo and the article was interesting reading in terms of logo design.

  • Jake Arkinstall

    I like what you’ve done – apart from that shadow; the shadow seems to date it by about 10 years.

    Now, personally I dont care much for obsessive logo design. For me its about the content and the community. However, you guys have that down to a T, so its good to see what the thought process is once you have the resources to afford to spend time carefully rebuilding something so delicate.

  • I like to read everything sitepoint publishes even this article.
    But the new logo doesn’t really look great or even better then the old one.

    I agree with Ronald Lokers, it’s unnatural to look at.
    Especially when watching the smaller versions.

    I found nice looking logo’s in the different concepts.
    I just don’t understand how you can end up with that (no offence).

    I also don’t understand why you would want a new logo.
    Sitepoint’s old logo was great. It was clean, fresh not to exaggerated in special effects.
    So why don’t stick to it ?

    With all respect, I’m only 16 years old so I’m actually feeling a little to young to comment.
    But I wouldn’t change the logo, it was good as it was.

    Good luck further

  • I find the new logo much more relaxing to look at. Now you just need to update the favicon file. :)

  • I like it but it looks too small for the overall site and I think it should be aligned with the start of the navigation bar.

    Defo should be bigger me thinks!

  • Udo

    I also prefere the old version!

  • The drop shadow is horrible and looks like 1996 web design. Remove it and it will look 100% better.

  • I like the new logo, it’s clean. I like the two arrows (“pointing” in opposite directions) and they can be interpreted as a stylized “S” for Sitepoint. I think it’s an improvement over the former logo and more modern looking.

  • I wish I could love the new logo, but I don’t.

    I can live with the new angle-bracket motif. I’d not realised till now you were going for brackets, which is clever and makes sense. I noticed the ‘S’ in the negative space so that works. It also works well as an icon in your ‘SitePoint Network’ list. So far, so cool.

    But the name is in black and a boring font making it look like regular text on the page rather than a logo. No wonder you wanted to add shadow. In the old logo, the blue colour runs horizontally through the whole design, with the blue motifs matching the height of the main body of the lettering. This helped to visually bind the name to the image. You’ve lost that connection between imagery and text. More than that, I really liked the font of the old logo; it had character. I know it’s too late but I’d love for you to bring back the old font and add a splash of colour.

    Finally there’s another inconsistency in your visual branding: when I look at copy in the body of your site, you refer to SitePoint, so why doesn’t your logo match the capitalisation?

    Is it too late?

  • Liz Wolf

    Sorry, I liked the old logo better. It was bigger, bolder, in your face and actually made you THINK about what SitePoint is/was. This new logo looks like something that gets eliminated on 99designs all the time. It is small, the colors are run of the mill, and to me it is very un-distinguished. You should have left well enough alone. If you present the same service, and you are the same owners, the same team who is just moving forward, adding to your services and goals, no branding change is required, because it is okay for a smaller company to grow under the same logo.
    That’s just my thought. Disappointed is my reaction overall, worried about what it will be that required such a commercialized logo down-scale.

  • Grace

    I like the overall concept of the new logo but I do not think a drop shadow should ever be part of a good/strong logo. It is unnecessary and distracting. Also, the strokes and gradients on the line/corner graphics are unnecessary. I think a solid orange and solid blue would be more effective. In summary, I think the logo could be simplified. It seems a bit over-designed right now.

  • Eddie

    Very funny because your web admins haven’t updated the favicon for your site…

  • I like the new logo, but I would I would have liked to see the logo (as it is an S) replace the S in SitePoint and, because it is generally used upper/lower, I would like to see the text [S]itePoint in small caps.

  • John

    Wow, some people have way too much time on their hands.
    The phrase “rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic” comes to mind. Not that sitepoint is the Titanic, but really, how is all this time and effort on a logo redesign ever going to pay for itself?

  • I enjoyed the discussion of how the new SitePoint logo was presented, but I’m not impressed with the last Starbucks logo. You can see the logo progression, but I think they overly simplified the last one. If they do this going forward, they’re going to end up with just a green circle.

  • Great job on the logo. Definitely a big improvement over the old one.

  • Really don’t like the drop shadow. Nor the outline on the brackets. (Actually only the black stroke on the blue bracket bothers me. The orange one is more subtle, which is good.) I think this, combined with the particular gradient of the orange, makes it look rather amateurish. If you got rid of the stroke, shadow, and made the gradient slightly more subtle, this would be a winner in my book. Other than that, I second the person that said it is reminiscent of WordArt.

  • itmitică

    A 99designs contest would’ve been more interesting, I must agree with Mark.

    Hope you don’t mind, but here’s what I did, just for fun:

  • I love it! It’s a perfect redesign, because it still looks like the Sitepoint we know and love, but clean and fresh. It’s not an in your face, totally different, image changing logo. Thanks for the post! It was great to see the creative process!

  • Mohammed

    Honestly? looks horrible!

  • Can I use the bits you rejected?

  • Pete

    It was all looking great until that drop shadow appeared on the text. You turned something well-considered and sophisticated into something clumsy and childish.

  • I like the progression and the more modern version. I don’t care though, for the treatment of the logo. The gradient and the shadows are unnecessary. The angled brackets are skinnier but now have more details – a border, shadows, gradient and a drop shadow. It looks stock.

    If it were me, I’d keep the new shapes and lose the treatment or simplify to just hints of one treatment.

  • For what its worth:
    1. It does not feel “sitepoint” whatever that means, I don’t know what it would mean but it visuallly does not communicate the feeling of the name.
    2. It does feel like two things that can’t get along with other and are trying to get away from each other. While complementary colors such as blue and orange are supposed to work tocreate a feeling of “wholeness” or “completeness” the forms create a visual tension which is not resolved and it doesn’t feel like a oneness or a wholeness.

  • keith

    Get rid of the shadow please. Thank you. Good job other than that.

  • It’s amazing to read through your process. You really underscore both the nuances and the sheer volume of decisions that go into making something so tiny. BUT!! I’m not terribly keen on the resulting logo. Two different kinds of drop shadows looks overly manipulated, plus I would definitely prefer to see the same light source, degree of darkness and depth of shadow for both the shapes and the text, in order to unify the parts of the logo. The negative-shape S inside the two graphic shapes is much too SS (Nazi) for my liking. If I look at the shapes instead of the negative space, I think they are boomerangs, so would expect you to be an Australian sporting goods company. And I’m really sorry you dropped the logos that emphasized the tittle – I got quite excited by these – because emphasizing the tittle emphasizes the “point” in SitePoint, which personally I think would be ideal.

    My two bits! I know the task is not an easy one.

  • Ahhh I wish you guys did a survey for the choices you already had but anyway, I think it looks good, I just don’t like the shadow effect.

    Ya know… just because you can put a shadow on it, doesn’t means you have to. ;-)

    As for my choices, I really liked “sitepoint” in blue with the orange brackets. (round 2)

    And I also loved the symbol (with those exact colors) you guys used on (round 3). I think it’s the first on the second row (left logo).

    People don’t like change so I know many will refuse it but I think it looks good, just not crazy about that shadow though.


  • i love it. and as long as you keep the angled brackets in it, i don’t care what you do with it, lol. angle brackets to me are essential for coders, and to a certin extent even designers have to contend with them every now and then, lol. thanks for sharing the design process as well, i’m not into graphic design but i try to keep up on how to keep my stuff pleasing to the eye. i hard to look really hard at the last four to see the difs, lolol.

  • Not only am I really digging the new logo (especially the color gradient), but I really dig the explanation of how you came to choose it over the others. Thanks!

  • Very interesting and informative article.

    I think the new logo is great – except I agree that the text shading is not necessary. It makes it look out-of-focus. I much prefer the crisp and clean text look of the B&W sample.

    I think of shadowed text as being out-of-date. When TrueType came out, it enabled total hacks to start using fancy fonts, and shadowed fonts were very popular among publishing amateurs. As the novelty of decorative and shadowed fonts declined, so has their popularity. Nowadays, font embellishments for the sake of embellishing (ie, not related to the message) seem like a throwback to the early days of TrueType.

  • Michelle

    Like the article. I deal with one to many people doing the lets save $10 in the wrong area. This shows some hows and whys the team choose the approach they did. Really like the testing ideas.

  • A. Marin

    Excellent work! Looks great. Thanks for share the process!

  • Amy

    Don’t know if it is just a caching thing, but your favicon is still the old icon.

  • I really like the new logo. Great job documenting the process behind it!

  • Thanks for sharing your process. I usually have to come up with logos on my own with little or no brainstorming help from others – I envy the fact that you had a group to do it together. Next time I’ll try to rally some help.

    Like others in these comments, I too admit that I like the old Sitepoint logo better – more distinctive, especially when the mark appears on its own without the name. And using blue for the name instead of black seems to fit with the mark better. But I had to chuckle at myself – until I saw the new mark, I had never noticed that the old one was a pair of angled brackets! (color me clueless…)

  • Adam

    Sorry, this new logo is completely unimaginative and could represent practically any company on the planet. You guys were too quick to ditch the old one, which for me always had a certain quirky charm and I’ve long associated with great content. The new one is quite forgettable.

  • Phil D

    I always think about how a logo is going to look when it is received via black and white FAX that’s why I don’t care too much for logo’s with a bunch of colours.

    After looking at the logo’s evolution I think you got it right.


  • Good job, but how does the logo match the website’s when when it uses a red-orange color, and not orange, like in the logo?

    • Good job, but how does the logo match the website’s color when when it uses a red-orange color, and not orange, like in the logo?

  • ralph.m

    I like the final design. Looks very professional.

  • Alex Walker

    Thanks so much for the feedback, everyone. It’s been overwhelmingly positive.

    On the shadows, Harley and i have been tossing that issue around. I’m leaning towards the shadowless version.

    • Shadowless will be awesome Alex!


      PS. I wrote a longer comment before this one, maybe it went to spam… :(

  • Ricki

    Can’t say I’m a fan, sorry. If I’d been involved in the decision making process I would’ve argued against changing the logo at all – I think the old logo was strong branding and still looked modern. Maybe the “feel” of it was a little towards the corporate side, but I still thought it had legs.

    In my opinion the new logo is actually a bit babyish. Someone hit the nail on the head with “Wordart”. Especially with the drop shadow – just terrible! To me it looks pretty similar to the sort of thing one of those discount $300-for-logo-and-letterhead-and-business-cards places might come up with.

    The article is interesting to me but I’m honestly flabberghasted that so much careful thought could end up with this result . . .

  • Paul

    The symbol part of the new logo looks lame.

    Many of them in the Round 3 look much better than the one currently used.

    If u insist, please take that drop shadow or the 3d thing out.

  • Just one thing I think you have missed. Have you forgotten to put the little R above the end of Sitepoint or are you leaving it off?

  • Great to see the sitepoint logo evolution! Thanks

  • Why you had 3 rounds and 26 versions – that’s madness.
    Quality no quantity that’s what matters.

    I don’t want to be mean but i can’t produce 26 good versions of a logo.

  • Hi guys,

    Great job on the new logo, and the article behind the design process. But I notice that the favicon is still the old logo?

    Anyone who visits my website will notice that my favicon is unrelated to the site layout. I’ll say this now to prevent accusations of hypocrisy :-D

  • Nicely done logo. It very nicely ties into your old logo so that most people will not immediately notice the difference, yet it provides an up-to-date image of your rapidly evolving organization.

    Just an aside, are you aware that your main site’s address bar icon is still using the old logo?

    Hope the new logo is an indicator of growth and prosperity for Site Point!

  • Jurgen

    Hm… I think the new logo is a light improvement, not a big one. But please get rid of the shadows and gradients. Keep it flat. That’s far more powerful and less prone to fashion. Gradients and shadows are somewhat out of fashion already.

  • Tim

    Your old logo was better. The icon was better. The drop shadow in the new one needs to go. The only thing that needed reworking was the font choice. And now that still needs reworking, because it is boring. Unfortunately, now the entire logo is boring because you’ve got an unoriginal icon with plain text. I image the drop shadow was actually added to try to make it more exciting, but it fails to do so and just makes it look cheesy.
    Go back to your old logo.

  • Rob B.

    As well as the negative space between graphics forming and ‘S’, no one has pointed out the obvious but the shapes also look like boomerangs! Perfect for an Australian company. I love it when a logo works on several levels – brillant and well done!

  • Jim

    Like it, but it’s too similar to Zoomerang’s logo (

  • My first reaction when I saw the new logo was that I wasn’t sure I liked it. Seeing the process with the samples made me understand a little more about it and allowed me to visually pick out the “S” between the brackets. I do like the larger version at the end of the article with less shadow in relation to the angles better than the one at the top of the page. However, the weight of the shadow on Sitepoint is inconsistant larger version with the weight on the angles. This causes a distraction and makes the shadow on Sitepoint look harsher.

  • I like the resulting logo overall. But I think the previous font or a thicker font would have been better. The old type face, or a thicker one, would be more reminiscent with the current and old logo shape and form, which would keep it more unified all together. The new typeface has a generic feel to it, somewhat conflicting with the contemporary style of the logo.

    Also the shadow on the web logo is too big and/or sharp and doesn’t match that of the logo shadows, making the whole logo look quite unnatural on the site. What bother me most is the white space between the letter and the shadow. The shadows should be softened there.

    I would also do a slightly thicker outline or a slightly bigger font size. That way you wouldn’t have to apply so much shadow on it to balance with the thickness of the logo. Or perhaps just a bigger logo would do it… I also see a lack of consistency between the top logo and some of your icons. You want to be careful about that.

    Those are my thoughts.

  • Curt Tweedle

    I really like the new design.
    Even some of the ones in the work process are very interesting. Thank you for sharing.
    Only two things. The bigger one you already hit on. The drop shadow on the text, especially when smaller makes it look blurry. I thought it was my eyes. The larger version is not so bad since it is clear it is a drop shadow.

    The other thing, a minor thing, I am not sure about changing the font colour to black. I feel that blue ties it into the logo better. To me, it feels like “sitepoint” is floating separately of the logo.

    But overall, excellent work and a great improvement

  • I love watching the whole design process of your logo, thank you for sharing this with the whole internet!

  • I like the new logo. Don’t forget the favicon too :-)

  • Prefer the old logo, there was nothing wrong with it. Despite your explanation and enthusiasm for this new version I would say you wasted a pile of time and money. Rebranding for the sake of it and thought we’d got over re-branding in the 90’s !!

    But still love your sites, books and articles. I hav ebeed on baord with Sitepoint for the whole 10 years (more than any other tech site I know of). Thanks for that.

  • I’m not sure why you applied an outline stroke and a drop shadow at the final stage.

  • I am not big on new logos as a rule. But this was definitely an improvement. I don’t know if I ever really liked your old logo, but I know I really like your new logo. It struck me immediately when I came out to your site today. It is very nice: clean and appealing. I liked the article, because it gave me a better understanding of what you are trying to communicate with your logo. It was also informative: helping me better understand the logo/brand design process. Thanks so much.

  • Great job! =)

    I would like the logo even more without the shadow!

  • Zero For Me

    I love it! So much better than the old one.
    Thanks for sharing the creation process.

  • Tim

    Nice. Web 2.0ish. More general, the former one seems to represent books/publishing, but you’ve got your fingers in so many pies….

  • Todd

    I don’t understand how such a big deal can be made out of something so mundane. I mean the new solution isn’t necessarily bad but it isn’t great either. I don’t find it be any better or worst than the old mark.

  • Thanks, I enjoyed ready the process you went through.

    Don’t forget to update the Favicon on too

  • I like the new logo. It’s more refined and modern than the old one. Thanks for the insight into your process. Most people don’t realize the amount of work and thought that goes into a “simple” logo mark. I agree with the comments about the drop shadow, though. I think it’s stronger without it, and I’m curious as to why there’s no explanation for it, when the rest of the process was so well detailed. Nice job.

  • Leo

    A lot of progressive elaboration went into this process. My belief is to be careful when redesigning the logo like you did here. Keep it simple enough so others still identify with the brand, and yet keep the opportunity to elaborate on it in the future, so that you don’t end up redoing what you started. I am thinking that was the intent. And…please reply and let me know if this was the case. I’d appreciate it.
    Starbucks, Coca-Cola, all realize this technique as people find attachment in their brands. It’s really a marketing thing. I like the new design! It looks clean and modern looking. Thanks!

  • S Burrows

    There’s absolutely no need or benefit in adding gradients, borders, or especially drop shadows to this. It makes for an untidy appearance when reduced to small sizes, as on this website.

    The typography is.. safe, but an improvement on the previous version.

  • To put in my 2 cents, I really love the new logo and the story behind its development. And there should be more articles like this… not a lot of people appreciate the amount of thought and work that goes into designing a quality logo!

  • Alex Walker

    Hey everyone,

    Awesome feedback all round. The consistent message has been ‘use the flat-color, shadowless version’. Agreed. You should be seeing a clean, flat color version in the header now. Favicons have been updated but as browsers do tend to cache them heavily, they should update themselves shortly.

    Thanks all!

  • Jason

    Looks like someone was listening to the feedback in this post. The shading and shadows are gone, and I think it was a good decision.

    • Alex

      Yep, that idea was a recurring theme throughout the feedback and was certainly taken on board, Jason. Thanks everyone.

  • I love the logo. It looks like a great evolution of the brand. Thank you for a peek into your process on how you settled on your new choice.

    As a side note, I noticed today when downloading a tool from that their logo looks very similar, just more rounded than the angular SitePoint look along with a different color scheme.

    • Alex

      Good find, Mike!

      We only really used our original logo as inspiration, but I guess it goes to show that there are only so many ways you can place simple shapes on a page.

      • Actually, I was implying the other way around thinking drew inspiration from SitePoint. Nevertheless, the article was a great example breaking down the process. Thanks Alex!

Get the latest in Front-end, once a week, for free.