Chiff and Fipple Forums

Six years here and I'd never really thought about it before!

Now, about the way Dale used to talk about 'six-hole theory' ...

Peter searches for 'six-hole theory'. But it's not exactly crowded in there...

Edit: here?

Peter Duggan wrote:

Six years here and I'd never really thought about it before!

Seriously???!!?!

Can't 100% swear to it, but I think so! I've always thought the header way too small and the whole look too undesigned (meaning I'd like to see the forum themed to take it away from 1,000,001 other stock phpBB etc. installations), but was looking at the header tonight and suddenly thought 'oh!' Still think it's way too small (especially with that understated retro typewriter-style font) when a larger one could be made to shrink for smaller viewports with modern responsive design, but like it better than I did now those 'underlining' dots have acquired new meaning. So, yes, think I've only just got it, but who knows? Perhaps I did before and it just didn't register, but I doubt it when I actually found myself reaching for a whistle to check!

Aw, man...... I twigged that as soon as I realised this forum is mainly 'keyless'.

(Likely, it would be more obvious if it had a surround to it.)

fatmac wrote:realised this forum is mainly 'keyless'.

But you're thinking flutes whereas I consciously posted this to the whistle forum. And most whistles are (keyless)!

(Likely, it would be more obvious if it had a surround to it.)

Which would spoil it when its charm is (note why I missed it!) its relative subtlety. It's not an in-your-face complete whistle drawing, but mistakable for some kind of random, almost 'kinetic' underlining. And note how it sits with hole 2 splitting the 'f's, holes 3 and 4 between words and hole 6 splitting the 'p's. You'd lose all that if you 'framed' it. But it's still underachieving by being way too small where increasing its size as a whole would increase its impact without disturbing its relative proportions or subtle (yes, subtle!) integration...

Peter Duggan wrote:

fatmac wrote:realised this forum is mainly 'keyless'.

But you're thinking flutes whereas I consciously posted this to the whistle forum. And most whistles are (keyless)!

Also, as an aside, I don't think the flute forum is "mainly 'keyless'". Lots of folks play flutes with keys.

Agreed, Ben. But perhaps fatmac, having arrived talking of Gemeinhardts etc., really meant non-Boehm? Because keyed simple flutes still have the same hole pattern as keyless and whistles, though not the fipple and perhaps not the chiff of 'Chiff & Fipple' (hence why I posted here).

Peter Duggan wrote:It's not an in-your-face complete whistle drawing, but mistakable for some kind of random, almost 'kinetic' underlining.

Not mistakable at all; that's exactly how the form functions here. The form, being the representation of the holes of a whistle, is supremely appropriate to this site, and since dots can be used as an underscoring, why not here then, too? Putting aside the rightness of having depicted whistle hole layout accurately, the slight asymmetry of the array is no detriment, I think, but presents a playful and somewhat roughhewn quirkiness that also hints at the spirit of this place. The legend's austere and rather retro font (but note that you won't find such an ampersand on any normal typewriter), plus this particular expression of dots, give this site a logo not to be found elsewhere, I daresay.

Peter Duggan wrote:But it's still underachieving by being way too small where increasing its size as a whole would increase its impact without disturbing its relative proportions or subtle (yes, subtle!) integration...

For me the overall proportions of the whole are just right. A matter of taste, I suppose.

But I will allow that the proportions strike me differently at the top of the page, compared to sitting in your post field.

Nanohedron wrote:

Peter Duggan wrote:It's not an in-your-face complete whistle drawing, but mistakable for some kind of random, almost 'kinetic' underlining.

Not mistakable at all; that's exactly how the form functions here.

Hmmm, have you actually understood me at all here, Nano? For sure it's mistakable if it's taken me six years to 'get' it!

The form, being the representation of the holes of a whistle, is supremely appropriate to this site, and since dots can be used as an underscoring, why not here then, too?

But I was actually praising that now that I have...

Putting aside the rightness of having depicted whistle hole layout accurately, the slight asymmetry of the array is no detriment, I think, but presents a playful and somewhat roughhewn quirkiness that also hints at the spirit of this place.

And defending said array against a more 'defined' whistle graphic with 'tubing'/edges...

The legend's austere and rather retro font (but note that you won't find such an ampersand on any normal typewriter)

And, yes, I know you won't, but used 'understated retro typewriter-style' as shorthand in lieu of even longer, more obscure description!

Peter Duggan wrote:But it's still underachieving by being way too small where increasing its size as a whole would increase its impact without disturbing its relative proportions or subtle (yes, subtle!) integration...

For me the overall proportions of the whole are just right. A matter of taste, I suppose.

And meant increasing the size of the logo as a whole and not messing with its constituent parts. So think we're agreed on its relative proportions as well, unless you really meant proportions of logo to whole forum in countless user-selected browser windows you can't see?



Edit (since you've edited while I was typing):

But I will allow that the proportions strike me differently at the top of the page, compared to sitting in your post field.

Strangely enough, I keep thinking the logo looks bigger there than the top of the page, but it's not!

Nanohedron wrote:The form.. ... is supremely appropriate to this site... ...playful and somewhat roughhewn quirkiness that also hints at the spirit of this place

I think those aspects were more obvious in the context of the Dale's now defunct 'main website', the layout of which was "of it's time" in terms of web page layout. A time when using a retro font and basic graphics was cool and new - and quirky.

Peter Duggan wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:

Peter Duggan wrote:It's not an in-your-face complete whistle drawing, but mistakable for some kind of random, almost 'kinetic' underlining.

Not mistakable at all; that's exactly how the form functions here.

Hmmm, have you actually understood me at all here, Nano? For sure it's mistakable if it's taken me six years to 'get' it!

Ah, now I see.

As to the rest, I was simply relaying my own aesthetic observations, not sparring with you.

Peter Duggan wrote:And meant increasing the size of the logo as a whole and not messing with its constituent parts. So think we're agreed on its relative proportions as well, unless you really meant proportions of logo to whole forum in countless user-selected browser windows you can't see?

Ah, now I see again. I thought you were referring solely to those crazy dots.

No, I only meant the logo's relative proportions whatever its actual size.

david_h wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:The form.. ... is supremely appropriate to this site... ...playful and somewhat roughhewn quirkiness that also hints at the spirit of this place

I think those aspects were more obvious in the context of the Dale's now defunct 'main website', the layout of which was "of it's time" in terms of web page layout. A time when using a retro font and basic graphics was cool and new - and quirky.

But all the same I find that the layout still works in communicating those things; it seems to have kept its edge rather well, which by definition arguably makes it a classic. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't change it.

Nanohedron wrote:As to the rest, I was simply relaying my own aesthetic observations, not sparring with you.

Understood when I can't ever remember either of us 'sparring' for the sake of it (or at least not 'in anger'). On which note, I was likewise just clarifying in the face of your baffling (to me) response when we actually seemed to agree on most of our observations, so absolutely not picking a fight!