2advanced.com

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

07-18-2003, 02:23 PM
Sybersnake

Quote:

Originally posted by avwebmedia
Also, for the record...2Advanced is the first site I know of to take this approach when designing the size (height and width) of their site. Now they hold the crown as the first to do this. In three years, when it is standard to have sites 1000 pixels wide, 2Advanced will have already done this. Was it a bad decision to do this early? Well, for those with small monitors and low resolution settings, sure. But for their client base, I think it's just fine. This is what 2A does...they innovate. And they sure have done some more of that with this version.

my site is 900x480
07-18-2003, 02:28 PM
kony2003

Quote:

Originally posted by Olli_Budworth
Also, on the old V3 site - even when you were waiting for the flash to load, you'd see an animation of some sort, now I get this (see attached) for over a minute, whilst I wait for the site to load up! Doesn't look too good!

Well i think you could tell that Ver. 3 was done by EJ, but Ver. 4 alot of parts(including the begin animation) looked like others helped out, including andru pheonix...well thats what i think. n thats why ver.3 was really well put together and neat.
07-18-2003, 03:28 PM
sirhoff

In case anyone was wondering like me, it is an "armored media vehicle."

Evidently for heavy combat in your media created world. Or as support for your media infantry. Or maybe light armor for battling media crime in the streets (skies and seas too) of your media city.;)
07-18-2003, 03:33 PM
Nionicle

Quote:

Originally posted by tinonetic
Flashlevel,

did u really do those sites in 2wks, 6 days...etc?

yes he does =)
07-18-2003, 03:38 PM
CNL83

Man, if that red site is 2As web site, then they down graded instead of upgraded. . . . weak..
07-18-2003, 03:46 PM
Metalguy211

Quote:

villain2

Oh now we're bashing the techno-future look? That's the main drive of 2A, that's their thing. It's been done to death because it is the future of things. Look at your new cell phones and tv's and DVD players, they ALL have that look. Hell, even cars are going in that direction.

Sometimes I think people pick things apart just to pick at them.

Oh yeah, and the whole thing someone wrote about site resolution and speed etc. I think with less people trying to access it (or maybe they did some backend tweaks) the site is running fine now as far as load times and site animation. I looked at it over a dial up today and it's fine. As far as site resolution and "it's not a DVD" stuff ... 2A has repeatedly said they're designing for high end people (cable, dsl modems) with good eyesite (the 8point text) in their 20's - early 40's (future orientation). They're NOT designing a site for Joe Schmoe public, it's for 2 audiences: 1) Multi-million dollar companies that can afford their design fees (therefore, they have DSL, cable and T1 lines to view websites on) and 2) US, the other designers out there who will sit through a minute long loading screen to see the eyecandy.

2A did not do V4 for Joe Schmoe public. Their portfolio is mostly for large businesses who spend lots of cash and have high end systems with CLIENTS who spend lots of cash and have high end systems. As much as a website should cater to the lowest common system, certain niche's require a bit more.

Are you kidding me dude? The purpose of these sites are to appeal to the public. Companies like Ford pay 2Advanced design sites to promote their products.

I'm not a business major, but I would imagine companies like Ford aren't targeting people with a lot of money to buy their products, they are targeting joe schmoe public, and their site is an advertisemnt.

Joe schmoe public's not going to want to veiw Fords site on his 56k dial up waiting for the site to load, etc.

In web design you should have a target audiance, no doubt.... but it is also your responsibility to bring the site to as many people as you can.

</2cents>
07-18-2003, 03:47 PM
Sybersnake

Quote:

Originally posted by tinonetic
Flashlevel,

did u really do those sites in 2wks, 6 days...etc?

well, lets say a day of work is like 8 hours right.. if it says 6 days, then the project took a total of 48 hours.. not necessarily 6 days straight, but still could be done in 6 days straight, but everybody would go crazy if they did that.

he may only work 4 hours a day for 12 days.. but its still only 6 days of work.

get the idea..

this is essentially what everybody does when counting hours and placing a timeline on a project.

neverless.. 12 days is still a very good turn around.
07-18-2003, 03:49 PM
k2f

Quote:

Originally posted by avwebmedia
Also, for the record...2Advanced is the first site I know of to take this approach when designing the size (height and width) of their site. Now they hold the crown as the first to do this.

There's sites all different sizes, man. Fixed size under 800 upto fluid sites that can fill a 2000+ plasma.

For the record I think Gmunk's early stuff I'm sure was 1600x1200, though this is a different subject.
07-18-2003, 03:53 PM
sirhoff

I know. The "Phiberglass Armored Media Vehicle" is like the "Urban Assault Vehicle" from Stripes for all of the ninja dudes to fight for the future.
07-18-2003, 04:06 PM
avwebmedia

Quote:

Originally posted by ClydeTheGlyde
Wow, some truly sick people posting here.

Now we are calling 2Adv. innovators for simply setting their .swf size to 1000 pixels. Can we be more ridiculous.

For your info, there are many sites which target 1024 x 768 res. and use 1000 pixels for their width ( actually it's more like 970-990 which is what 2a uses) Even there they are behind at least a year.
Personally I think it's stupid because most of the clients and visitors still use 800 x 600

Gmunk had his sites set at 1200 wide 4 years ago.

Anyway, like most their sites it doesn't look bad, but it's more of the same Gmunk, Virl, Designers Republic rip-off which has been around since mid-late nineties. This v.4 looks like Gmunk of 2 versions ago, they probably though we forgot about it. Fonts look amateurish.
They should just hire Gmunk , pay him a lot of money and then they could officialy call it their style.

I have to comment on their copy, which is something I noticed a long time ago. This guy ( or guys ) have the stupidest and most pretenteous copy ever seen on the web. Sounds like they are mentally impaired. What was the video reel all about? Dumb and dull.
You'd think that with 20 designers one could come up with something creative.

Obviously, I was referring to their successful use of the entire workable area guy...relax. 2A IS the first to do that. Post links to others that have done so. The remainder of your post clearly illustrates your initial bias against 2A, so bleh. In fact, post a link to any site with as much content as 2A has that is all in Flash and designed for people using the 1024 setting. You can't because there are none.
07-18-2003, 04:14 PM
88tons

I have changed my mind about 2a V.4

Guys I have to say.

All that hype that night made us all crazy.

I viewed the V.4 on a pentium I 233 mhz blah blah...

Tonight I viewed V.4 on a P4 2.66 512 mb 7200rpm and a syncmaster 17 inch flat.
res 1280x1024

V.4 is not for the processing impaired.

If you have the engine. The details show.

V.4 is nice!

I appreciate their attention to details. True their was a few mistakes but just considering he flow of it, I liked it.

The bar may not have jumped but 2a still has the sh*t as someone put it.

thats my II new pennys
07-18-2003, 04:26 PM
avwebmedia

Amen, I have the same view. I didn't like it at first, but now I think it's great. Not completely my taste, but very cool nonetheless.
07-18-2003, 05:43 PM
kasracer

Re: I have changed my mind about 2a V.4

Quote:

Originally posted by 88tons
I appreciate their attention to details.

I haven't had time to read form page 13 and on, so I'll just comment to this.

May I ask what details did they pay attention to?

It's clear that the 2 ships on the front page were chopped in, the flames look very amatuerish, the ships stop but the flames still move, the water in the beginning looks like someone went hpapy with the add noise filter in photoshop, all ship models (except on the front, those ships looked not bad except for the fact that the 2 were obviously put in later due to the jaggies) they looked un-detailed with no textures and colors.

It does NOT seems like they paid attention to the details AT ALL within the website.

I personally love version 3 way more than this version. This 1 looks amatuerish like someone from the flashkit learned how to use a 3d rendering program and threw it all into flash. (no offence :p )
07-18-2003, 06:04 PM
tpnovak

Ok... It's time for to chime in... I love all the thoughtful critiques that everyone has offered, but I think this is a good one for me to throw a few alternative thoughts on. My apologizes in advance Olli, your response just prompted a few of my hot buttons...

Quote:

Originally posted by Olli_Budworth
It's odd really, i've sat here, reading this thread over the last few days and have been thinking..........

Most people in this thread have been really critical of the new site, and i've thought "God, most people on here couldn't have done something anywhere near as good"

BUT

Then I think down to the fact that 2A PROCLAIM to be:

"The Future", "The Best", "The most advanced" etc etc.......

Well, as far as i'm concerned, if you proclaim things like that, then you are be open to critisicm and acclaim from all levels.

I am astounded time and again when professionals in the design community completely forget their role as marketeers and lose connection with time-tested princples such as using "hype" as an ice breaker to sell a message. Gratuitous qualifiers such as those above have LONG SINCE played an important role in selling a product. Should we have instead indicated, "Prophecy will be just another run-of-the-mill website". That sure doesn't sound very impactful or motivating, now does it? What makes statements on verbiage (like your statement above) so very distressing is that we as professionals in or studying this business should FUNDAMENTALLY understand the merits of marketing and selling - Afterall, this is what we do for a living! My god, please don't tell me you recommend to your clients NOT to describe their products or services as "The Best" or "The Most Advanced"

Quote:

In my eyes, the coolest site is one that is FAST, works perfectly on MY pc, provides ME with the best experience, engages ME in it, makes ME want to explore, doesn't confuse or baffle ME........ are you seeing where i'm going?

The new site kills my pc at home, the animations run so slowly that it makes it look crap - That's on a 900mhz P3 with 128mb ram - not the fastest pc, but perfectly adequate for WEB browsing - I think that element has been forgotten about with this new site - that it is 'JUST A WEBSITE' - not a game interface or a dvd.

Apart from the fact that I can't understand how you give rise to the superiority of a game interface or a DVD OVER a website... My first suggestion to anyone seeking success, who loves to design and who takes pride in their personal work: It should NEVER BE 'JUST A WEBSITE'. Once you submit to mindless, lackluster statements such as this, you might as well then also come to the conclusion that your work is 'JUST A JOB'.

However, for those who fall to the other side of the coin, and believe that their work is NOT 'JUST A WEBSITE'... You will be the ones to achieve the greatest personal satisfaction at the end of the day. I believe K10K recently echoed this very quote as well, on a newsfeed item about the Neverrain Press Release... Well, I may take somewhat of a thrashing here myself, but how truely sad is that? To be engaged in this business, but not understand the use of Hype in a Press Release, and then to suggest that your job is mediocre at best...

Quote:

It's a shame, it also is too large to fit into 1024 x 768 resolution - WHAT? Web stats show that still, about 40% of all web users are STILL running at 800 x 600, then a large percentage of the rest are running only at 1024 x 768, so this site only caters properly for about 5% of the web market. Massive oversite in my opinion.

Absolutely not an Oversight. Prophecy fits perfectly in a 1024 width (maximized) browser, so that you won't get the horizontal scroll bars. So someone enlighten me on the correct number of pixels to allocate for height to ensure 100% of the browsers out there do not ever see a vertical scroll bar. Think about it... Which IE Toolbars do you have turned on? Standard Buttons? Address Bar? Links? Does the visitor have any CUSTOM toolbars? Should sites NOT scroll up and down on the Home Page? (And if so, who is going to tell Flashkit, Yahoo, MSN, EBay, Amazon and the MILLIONS of other sites that scroll up and down?).

If we made one MAJOR oversight, it was to suggest the countdown timer (which was great for Hype, but falls down by indirectly sending EVERYONE to the server at the exact same time). We already have a ton of traffic daily at 2Advanced and an extremely fat pipe (gig fiber). The problem was that our poor little server wasn't ready for the processor crunch it has been experiencing these past 38 hours. During this period, we have seen 4 million hits come through and have sustained 50Mb/sec upstream and 50Mb/sec down stream since launch. My mistake was to pass on the installation of an LB and a couple more servers into production for the first week of the launch.

As for this business regarding 10x7... First off, you may want to start by considering my (2Advanced's) business demographics a little more carefully - pretend I'm a client. Do you believe that 2Advanced is designing and targeting EVERYONE on the Internet? Is it always best policy to only build sites that target the largest number of people? I agree that for those who don't understand precisely who their customer is, the best policy is to target everyone. As a going business concern, I can assure you that I know exactly who we are targeting, why we are targeting them and what our goals for achievement are. I appreciate anyone who is concerned about 10x7, but based upon the demographic that we have been collecting since V.3's launch, our choice of resolution is VERY calculated.

Speed of a site is absolutely an issue, and currently performance is very sad. But, this will soon pass. Unfortunately, with us currently a mere 1.5 days past our official release (and in light of the traffic paterns I detailed above), Server response is just going to be on the slow side while as the smoke clears a bit. I do apologize and hope that we don't put anyone off too much, but the concept of getting an LB and/or extra servers in place at this juncture would be a bad investment.

Finaly, for those who don't like the site due to personal taste, or for aesthetic reasons, or for usability reasons of your own... I completely respect this and your opinion. For those who feel the need to bash, thrash, slander, libel, etc... Just remember, this is 'JUST A JOB' and it is 'JUST A WEBSITE' :)
07-18-2003, 06:34 PM
kasracer

tpnovak, Did you even read any of my replies?

The most important thing is validation, which none of your websites do. This is 1 of the major things I hate about almost all webdesign companies. They think they know how to use flash or html, ect... and then they DON'T code it correctly. This really just pisses me off.

I seriously wish your coders at 2advanced would go to www.w3c.org and RE-LEARN how to code in HTML (or better yet, XHTML).
07-18-2003, 06:38 PM
avwebmedia

Quote:

Originally posted by tpnovak
Prophecy fits perfectly in a 1024 width (maximized) browser, so that you won't get the horizontal scroll bars. So someone enlighten me on the correct number of pixels to allocate for height to ensure 100% of the browsers out there do not ever see a vertical scroll bar.

Hey Tony, thanks for the comments and great job with Prophecy!

I was viewing the new site today at work on a standard 1024 screen and there was some bleed off the right edge. Maybe 10-15 pixels, I don't have an exact number. Perhaps others can vouch for this, or maybe, my settings are incorrect or altered in some way.

Again, excellent site!
07-18-2003, 06:40 PM
avwebmedia

Quote:

Originally posted by kasracer
tpnovak, Did you even read any of my replies?

The most important thing is validation, which none of your websites do. This is 1 of the major things I hate about almost all webdesign companies. They think they know how to use flash or html, ect... and then they DON'T code it correctly. This really just pisses me off.

I seriously wish your coders at 2advanced would go to www.w3c.org and RE-LEARN how to code in HTML (or better yet, XHTML).

I think you may be out of your league here. I don't see where you are going with this. What about 2Advanced's coding upsets you exactly?
07-18-2003, 06:42 PM
tpnovak

Quote:

Originally posted by avwebmedia
Hey Tony, thanks for the comments and great job with Prophecy!

I was viewing the new site today at work on a standard 1024 screen and there was some bleed off the right edge. Maybe 10-15 pixels, I don't have an exact number. Perhaps others can vouch for this, or maybe, my settings are incorrect or altered in some way.

Again, excellent site!

Interesting... IE? or Netscape? PC or Mac? Please let me know any pertinent details. Width wise, we do not intend to pop the scrollbars.
07-18-2003, 06:44 PM
random_fool

Quote:

Originally posted by kasracer
tpnovak, Did you even read any of my replies?

The most important thing is validation, which none of your websites do. This is 1 of the major things I hate about almost all webdesign companies. They think they know how to use flash or html, ect... and then they DON'T code it correctly. This really just pisses me off.

I seriously wish your coders at 2advanced would go to www.w3c.org and RE-LEARN how to code in HTML (or better yet, XHTML).

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...Fwww.yahoo.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...%2Fwww.aol.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...%2Fwww.msn.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...2Fwww.ebay.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...w.slashdot.org

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...w.flashkit.com

It's not webdesign companies, it's the fact that tweeking a website to make it validate usually brings the designers and developers nothing of true value. Yes, w3.org will say it validates. Big deal. How does that pay for the extra few hours of labor? Where's the cost-benefit analysis? It's invisible, and the web is a very visible medium.
07-18-2003, 06:54 PM
ThePretender101

I can respect the amount of work that has been put into this design, BUT what I can't respect is the complete arrogance of EJ and the company.
For them to say they are raising the bar, they really must have their heads in the clouds or something.
And all this talk about the "Prophecy" and "Fight for the Future" is nothing more then a rip from Matrix movies.

I know it's hard to satisfy everyone when you are trying to come up with a new version to a website when your previous versions all surpassed each other, and everyone has high expectations of you. But with so much hype about the "Prophecy", everyone expected a whole lot more.
If you ask me they should have just released the design like they did with V3 and let everyone make their own decision whether it has "raised the bar".

Like I said I can respect the time & effort that goes into their Flash work, but I can't respect outright arrogance from EJ & his company.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page