-
The logo (lightbulb and SGMEDIA elements) right now doesn't read like a logo to me. In the first iteration, it didn't make much sense for the light to be casting a darkening gray cone on the SGMEDIA word, but the elements were connected.. In this new iteration, the two elements seem just like... two elements.
The top gray bar, with diagonal stripes, has a fade on it that suggests a light source coming from the top of the page. There is no sense that light is radiating from the logo-lamp. I don't suppose it's necessary to play up/emphasize the literal light source from the lamp, but it seems that the fade on the gray stripes plays AGAINST the lamp.
Huh. Reading other comments, I see that another reviewer also wanted to see the light from the lamp making a bigger effect on the overall page. I can see that being a problem if you want that logo to be reusable in many formats/circumstances. Maybe the issue is that the lighbulb has a glow, and is fairly realistic. If it was more stylized, more drawn/line-art, we might not have such expectations for it to light up its surroundings.
Orange bar: tabs on both the image window and the home/aboutus/portfolio are clear and clean, and I know what to do with them immediately.
The "We are pioneers" quote. I think the bubbles behind the text are kindof cool, but also somewhat... unmotivated? Maybe I'm missing how they tie in or communicate, but I imagine the answer to "why?" is a shrug and the comment, "...they just looked cool?" I dunno. Maybe that's enough of an answer, but if a design element is too unmotivated, unpurposed, it starts to run into clipart territory. And one more gripe (sorry), the fact that you end your phrase with the word "programming," and then DON'T CLOSE YOUR QUOTE WITH QUOTATION MARKS, or even a period... freaks me out.
The bottom bar. Clear and easy on the eyes. If one of your clients really is BBC, you might find some way to play it up more.
