Well, based on those two links alone, I guess 'traditional' means a nice HTML layout and simple navigation while 'modern' means an annoying full screen web site with fluffy flash.

;o)

(To be serious, though, I find 'modern' and 'traditional' best used as adjectives rather than actual definable styles)

The with-it terms for "traditional" are "classic" or "retro." No one wants to be thought of as traditional. And "modern?" Does anyone really want to be associated with the here-and-now? How about "futuristic" or "bleeding edge?"

But seriously, the Fili designs do latch onto a more historical influenced style, but I don't know if I'd describe that as traditional. What tradition does the word refer to? And the word modern just has too much baggage attached to it.

Ok, ok. So the terms are not perfect. But you can see the difference between the two sites, right?

-Traditional could mean "classic", I don't know about "retro" that would be it's own adjective or category for a logo.

-Modern, what is modern anyway? last year's logo is not modern anymore.

So, yes, traditional and modern might not be the best words.

There's a fine line between "traditional" and "retro". I'd offer a better term might be "timeless".

To me, retro is a pure apeing of an older style. (What passes as retro would oftentimes never have actually been done 'back in the day'...) Timeless work often hearkens back to older styles, but survives fads and trends. Look at old Duffy Design work from the 80s - VERY retro, but not timeless. Fili's work stands the test of time better.

There's even a finer line between "modern" and "contemporary", I'd like to add.

As modern design is something completely different than contemporary design.

D.

>modern design is something completely different than contemporary design.

Totally true.

So many definitions, so little time.