Sunday, August 16, 2009

Maybe he was really talking about (name withheld)'s web site

I think our web site is pretty good.

You can learn something about us, see some of the work we do, get a glimpse of our thinking, see what we look like, find a link to our blog and even get directions to the office.

I also think it's pretty representative of the kind of work we'll do for a client. I mean, shouldn't it be?

But something that absolutely knocks me out again and again and again is how many times we run across a prospect or client who is devoting most or all of their budget to their web site and when we look up the company that did the site (and it seems like the worst ones feel the need to sign the work they got paid to do), their own site is what one might kindly call a "abomination."

Tracy saw one this week that she said made her "dizzy".

And more often that not, these terrible hacks claim to offer everything from branding to public relations to print design and tantric massage. But their own site - presumably a product of their core competency - looks like a steaming pile of dog-doo.

There are some terrific web people out there. Like the hot shots in New York (in addition to the big interactive agencies, Brooklyn's Orange You Glad comes to mind) and some wonderful local ones like Sumo and Radium Interactive. This is not intended to be a blanket condemnation of people who specialize in or do a lot of web design. So if you think this a crack on web design firms, you're mistaken. It's a crack on people who sell web design but can't seem to even do one of their own worth looking at.

I just wonder whether people who hire these klutzes with horrible web sites for web site design, don't care, don't know or don't bother to look and see what kind of shoes the cobbler's kids are wearing.


michael said...

Of the three I like the Orange site the best. I am seeing a real trend growing with these "magazine" style layouts. What I like best is that they are image-rich and easy to navigate... you do not have to dig around to find information (and they are fairly straightforward to build).

Here's another example:

michael said...

My take on the N+H site:

The Good Stuff:

-Easy to navigate.
-Copy is informative and concise, and expresses the personality of the agency.
-Good demonstration of the creative work/design.

OK, I Can Live With It:

-Flash "intro" at the beginning. It's short, which is good. But I generally think that those intros are more for the people who created them rather than those of us viewing the site (who want to go directly to the good stuff).

-No mobile or non-flash versions. This impresses the increasing number of us who use iPhones.


-Should be kept updated at all times. I see no mention of the new (cough) Art Director!