Good Sites - who's got some examples?

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

Liz wrote:

In any case, not every food is marketed to every consumer.

Indeed. Try selling porkchops in Saudi Arabia. No website, no matter how
well designed, will do the trick.

 

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

So we should all strive for that "May not look incredibly fancy" effect?

Nope, certainly not, but the site has indeed a sparse yet well conceived
entry page.

 

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

It is nice to see a tasteful layout - provided it loads very quickly -
but at the end of the day, it is the value of the information that counts.

You bet.

 

[Greg Schmidt]

Tell that to a corporate CEO looking to hire you to build a site for him and
you'll soon be outside looking in. All that matters to *me* is what the
client wants. If he wants a flash splash page I can give him the reasons why
this isn't a good idea, but if he's hell bent on a flash splash page then
that's what he shall have. His money is entirely "relevant" to me ;-)

There are entirely too many designers out there who take "the customer
is always right" to ridiculous extremes. The customer is, in fact,
often wrong, and if you explain to them why they are wrong and the
damage that may be done (lost sales, etc.) many of them will come around
and adapt their thinking. Of course some still won't get it, but my
impression is that most of the designers who build just what the
customer asks for really don't understand why it is bad *for the
customer*. Unable to see the big picture themselves, they can't explain
it adequately, and it's the customer who ends up losing out. I believe
it's bad for business to assume that corporations will indefinitely
continue to exhibit the level of ignorance they have shown up to this
point, and I intend to be prepared for the ever-increasing percentage
who are web-savvy.

I'm working on a site for a photographer friend of mine, who wanted a
fancy flash site that would use a shutter effect for switching between
sample photos. I explained that he would end up paying more and
increasing download times, while decreasing the number of people who can
use the site and hurting his search engine results. He quickly decided
that none of this was in his best interest, and he would be better off
doing away with that particular bit of eye candy.

The visual design of a site certainly is important, but far less so than
the content. The main thing stopping designers from building attractive
sites which are highly usable and provide easy access to good content
appears to be willful ignorance. I'm quite happy to compete against
people who not only refuse to take off their blinders, but actually
insist that they are beneficial.

 

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

The visual design of a site certainly is important, but far less so than
the content. The main thing stopping designers from building attractive
sites which are highly usable and provide easy access to good content
appears to be willful ignorance.

Good, now we're cookin'. That's what this thread should actually be
about. Got some sites with great visual design but which are actually
highly usable and provide easy access to content? You know, what you
consider the pick of the litter?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Mark Jones pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:

The answer is simple. Don't cripple your browser.

I think you missed the there. There's nothing wrong with my browser.

 

[Kris]

The visual design of a site certainly is important, but far less so than
the content. The main thing stopping designers from building attractive
sites which are highly usable and provide easy access to good content
appears to be willful ignorance.

Good, now we're cookin'. That's what this thread should actually be
about. Got some sites with great visual design but which are actually
highly usable and provide easy access to content? You know, what you
consider the pick of the litter?[/QUOTE]

If I may add:
<http://www.adaptivepath.com/>
(Though the important looking link at the top leads off the site to
Amazon; that puts me off)

 

[Mark Jones]

Seems like you believe they know more about the web than you do. Ah well, in
the land of the blind, the guide dog is king.

You really are full of it. I wouldn't take any pointers from you
as you have nothing worth giving.

 

[Mark Jones]

Anyone ever tell you that you are quite a presumptuous fellow? Ah, yes,
that's right, I did.

He has been this way for quite some time. He presumes
to believe that his way is the only way and that anyone
who does not agree with him does not know what they
are doing.

I just do not agree with the idea that all web sites
have to be fully accessible to all people. If I design a
web site that depends heavily on JavaScript and Flash,
there may not be a no scripts and no Flash version
due to time and money constraints.

Isofarro thinks that these types of sites should not be
built and I do not agree at all. He is not the final arbiter
of what type of web sites are acceptable for a given
individual or corporation.

He expects a web site to work on all browsing devices
regardless of the pixel dimensions or even if they are
not a viewing device at all. This is just not what many
people are wanting at this time, but this could change.

To make a page work on all devices requires that the
page be kept very simple or some browser or device
somewhere will have a problem with it.

Web design is about drawing a line as to how far you
want a given page to degrade gracefully. For some pages,
this is easy. For other pages, you would have to go
against the wishes of the owner of the site if you made the
page accessible on all devices. It is up to the client and
designer to set the requirements of the site and what
conditions must be present for the site to work properly.

I understand what Isofarro is talking about, I just do
not agree that it is something that I want to do.

 

[Mark Jones]

Now you've identified yourself as part of the problem - that be progress.

I do not consider it to be a problem to provide people
with what they have hired me build. Sometimes it is
a matter of being told that certain things on a site are
not open for discussion. Sometimes this can be Flash
files that the owner just has to have on the site and
you are wasting your time arguing about it.

 

[Paul Goodwin]

There are entirely too many designers out there who take "the customer
is always right" to ridiculous extremes. The customer is, in fact,
often wrong, and if you explain to them why they are wrong and the
damage that may be done (lost sales, etc.) many of them will come around
and adapt their thinking. Of course some still won't get it, but my
impression is that most of the designers who build just what the
customer asks for really don't understand why it is bad *for the
customer*. Unable to see the big picture themselves, they can't explain
it adequately, and it's the customer who ends up losing out.

I can explain it to them *just fine*, and have done so successfully many
times. But there's always going to be bullheaded owners of business that
have a certain concept, wrong as it may be, in their own minds and won't be
swayed no matter how much time you spend explaining it to them. How many of
us have had CEO's or whatever bring up a competitors site & say "I want
something like THAT"-- and it's horrific? So you chip away & propose
alternatives & do what you can to make the client understand that your
reticence to pepper a site with superfluous gifs & 1 MB flash splash pages
is in *his* best interests and the interests of his business, not yours
(although of course it's the designers rep on the line as well.)
So you have a choice to make. You either stick to your guns that the site
you build should be fully compliant in as many browsers as possible without
all the bells & whistles that the owner is insisting on and pass on the job,
or you do the very best you can to give the client as near as possible to
what he wants, right or wrong, and pay the rent. It's not solely about
money, if it were I'd accept the periodic offers to do porn sites that come
in. I do not. Nor will I build a site where music begins blaring when the
page loads. But if he wants that flash splash page so badly & won't budge,
I'll do it & continue to chip away at his resolve every time he requests an
update. Some will eventually see the light, & some won't.
That's just the way it is, being a design "snob" (FLASH?? NEVER!!) doesn't
keep the wolves away.


BTW, to lighten the mood I have a large single panel cartoon on my wall that
says it all, it shows a guy sitting at a computer with a sign above him that
reads:
"Web Design-- $50 an hour
If You Watch-- $100 an hour
If You Help-- $150 an hour"

;-)

 

[Whitecrest]

I don't believe in extorting money from people by delivering something that
obviously does not work. I prefer quality solutions at a fair price, not
this gouging crap you guys seem to prefer.

And the crap millions and millions of viewers prefer. You keep
forgetting about them. There is HUGE sector out there that want this
kind of stuff. And I am happy to provide the service.

It makes no difference that you don't like a web site that is like that.
They don't care, they are presenting their content in the format they
have decided will work the best for their product. By the simple fact
that many tell you what you need to view the site, they are aware that
you may not turn that something on.

They are well aware that there will be a small percentage that either
can not or will not turn these features on. And they dont care.
Because that is not how they want to present their content.

If you think this is wrong, then more power to you, invest in their
competition. We disagree, Yippie.

 

[Whitecrest]

I'm working on a site for a photographer friend of mine, who wanted a
fancy flash site that would use a shutter effect for switching between
sample photos. I explained that he would end up paying more and
increasing download times, while decreasing the number of people who can
use the site and hurting his search engine results....

And that advice was the BEST you could have given him, I would have
given him the exact same advice. It is absolutely imperative that this
person's site works for every visitor. It is the only way he will get
something out of his site.

But Can you sell that idea to Coke? Probably not.

I'm quite happy to compete against
people who not only refuse to take off their blinders, but actually
insist that they are beneficial.

And at your friends level, you are right. For many corporations, you
are probably wrong.

 

[Nick Theodorakis]

Then you are out of touch with how most web sites are
being done for corporations. The appearance of the
site is the very first thing that is settled and then the
content is added within this design context.

I think you overestimate the degree to which a website influences the
buying decisions of the public, and the degree to which the upper
management pays attention to website usability. Companies that
actually have to make a living selling on the web, and pay attention
to usabilty, such as Staples (a US ofice supply company that does a
lot of catalog, phone, and web sales), don't seem to value flash or
flashy animations; see:

<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,16651,00.asp>

and related article:

<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,71305,00.asp>

The Staples site uses no flash, and doesn't even require javascript.

Nick

 

[Nick Theodorakis]

[...]

But Can you sell that idea to Coke? Probably not.

The only useful thing the internet ever did for soft drink sales was
that famous Coke machine at some university (was it Carnegie-Mellon?)
that you could finger to see how many cans were left.

Nick

 

[Nick Theodorakis]

About as legitimate as to what their favourite HTTP response code is.

Why, 200, of course! ;-)

Nick

 

[William Tasso]

... But if he wants that flash
splash page so badly & won't budge, I'll do it & continue to chip
away at his resolve every time he requests an update. Some will
eventually see the light, & some won't. That's just the way it is,
being a design "snob" (FLASH?? NEVER!!) doesn't keep the wolves away.

It has been useful in such (and similar) circumstances to establish the
browsing environment used by the paymaster. Very often it is ie5.5
maximised on 800x600 - in any event it is possible to build your flexible,
scalable, accessible pages whilst ensuring they match the pixel perfection
required in that situation, but you know you have not compromised the site
for other visitors.

Is that a little sneaky? perhaps, I see it merely as yet another
constraint - just part of the requirements.

BTW, to lighten the mood I have a large single panel cartoon on my
wall that says it all, it shows a guy sitting at a computer with a
sign above him that reads:
"Web Design-- $50 an hour
If You Watch-- $100 an hour
If You Help-- $150 an hour"

;-)

I hope you include a copy with your proposals ;o)

 

[Whitecrest]

The only useful thing the internet ever did for soft drink sales was
that famous Coke machine at some university (was it Carnegie-Mellon?)
that you could finger to see how many cans were left.

That is the piece that some people don't seem to understand. Their site
is not meant to be useful. It is there for advertising only. (Sure if
you dig deep enough you can buy a cap that says coke, but it is not the
primary reason for the site). No one will ever search google for "brown
carbonated beverage".

And the people that go there are expecting to see cool thinks. This is
coke, and coke is cool. Or insert the name of any other company that
uses their site primarily as a means of advertisement.

 

[Chris Morris]

So we should all strive for that "May not look incredibly fancy" effect?

Well, depends. Do you want your sites to visually impress me, or not?

Seriously, most sites I look at I don't really care about the design
as long as it doesn't take an age to load and doesn't get in the way
of the content.

And the technique used to get that effect is certainly more widely
usable to get quick diagonal borders on elements.

 

[Zak McGregor]

So what you are saying is that even though I have found that my web site
will make more money if I use flash. The fact that someone may not see
it, over rides my right to make a bigger profit.

Proving your first statement is the hard bit though. Exactly *why* would
your site make more money using Flash? And of course, prove it. Only then
do your next points have any value whatsoever.

Yea, that works for me....

I somehow don't think so.

Ciao

Zak