my website effort

[villain2]

Well, that's like saying "I didn't want to use the web to design a website for web-sake". Flash is to web design what oil is to painting. It's one tool of many. If you're going to do an oil painting, then you do it because you want to make an oil painting. If you want to do a Flash site, then do a site in flash and use it the best way you can.

whats 2A? i found something but it didn't seem to be the thing you mean. My personal opinion is that the futuristic style has been over done and never really had much design skill anyway.

You're on this site and don't know who 2A is? http://www.2advanced.com

Your personal opinion is yours, and it seems to come off a bit snobbish in my personal opinion. If you're saying that futuristic sites are overdone; I agree. If you're saying they don't have much design skill, I totally disagree. Look at FlashLevel's stuff for example ... I'd dare say some of their work is better than yours or mine both in design and typography.

You seem to have some prejudice against the futurists style. Yeah, it's great to see someone doing something else but for crying out loud, the futurist style does have it's place and it does have design merits son!

[Stephen Wake]

i understand what your saying but do you not think that some websites just use flash for the sake of showing off what they know in flash which actually overrides the design process? The 2A site isn't really that special in my veiw, their work on the other hand is it has a lot of really nice stuff and they deserve a lot of respect for what they do i and i like a lot of it. One site that i mean as going too far would be one i saw in the cool sites section www.kigot.com where i just thought skill to make it is really impressive but they should have spent some time on the design of it, most probably wouldn't agree though. sites that i prefer at the minute are one like www.wefail.com have a look at their design philosophy and see what you think. then theres always the www.designersrepublic.com which do really cool looking work with concepts and have a respect for design issues.

[villain2]

Okay, I looked at both those sites ...

So you're basically saying that because kigot.com is uber slick and spent hours and hours on their fabulous animation that it's not good. There was nothing really wrong with that site that I'd say it was bad design. The animation was fantastic and the layout was clear. What else do you want? Use less of their animation skills as to not make it look so grand????

The wefail.com site was, from a layout perspective, horrendous. It had a section about Flash sucking, which as a flash designer I find to be more whining from people who can't do the same work and are mad that people think it's better than the stuff they do. The text was hard to read. I like the concept, but the execution wasn't all that great that I'd want to look at it for too long. I don't get off on people being "anti" just to be anti for anti's sake

As far as the 2nd site having respect for design issues ... they have respect for it in a print sense, but not in a digital sense. It took too long to figure out how to see examples and the layout is much chaos.

Is that the thing here? Chaos over order? I don't see where any of these sites are better than any others. They "artsy" but they're not better.

.

i understand what your saying but do you not think that some websites just use flash for the sake of showing off what they know in flash which actually overrides the design process?

If we're going there, then don't you think some designers make incoherent, "artsy" stuff for the sake of showing how punk and artsy they can be?

It's not about showing off, it's about using your skills to the best of their ability. Does Pixar do the job they did on Finding Nemo to show off their cgi skills? No, they did the best job they could do with the tools they had and the style they liked.


What if Peter Jackson said "well, I don't want to use all those fancy cgi effects, let's do that Balrog as a stop animation puppet!" ... come on dude. There's a place for everything, and a use for everything, and some things are big and complex and detailed and slick and ... THAT'S A GOOD THING. Others are artsy and ... THAT'S A GOOD THING TOO. Don't down the tech/future look because of some punk-design mentality

[Ten Percenter]

As far as the 2nd site having respect for design issues ... they have respect for it in a print sense, but not in a digital sense.

You are just making excuses for bad design. It is a joke to think that print and digital design are so different. Good design is good design. Futuristic can be good. Anything can be good if done well and in the right context. I can't believe that web designers are still holding onto this belief that just because it is digital it allows you to forget the basic rules of design. This way of thinking is just lazy, sloppy and self-indulgent.

Originally posted by villain2

It took too long to figure out how to see examples and the layout is much chaos.

It took you too long to figure out that you had to click on the button that said WORK to see examples of their work?

[junkathon]

I like it!

I like simplicity in Flash design. I like fast loading sites - anything longer than 15-20 seconds (on a broadband connection) I can't be bothered with....

However.

I think the nav is a bit unclear for the average user. I also think the "croissant" quote at the start is......naff?

On the whole, though, well done. Let 'em have their chrome buttons.....let's have diversity and quirkiness.

Good on ya!

[Stephen Wake]

cheers junkathon for the comments as for the croissants quote i know what you mean about the naffness but i couldn't decide what else to put and that was the strangest thing one of my flat mates said that day...........and we havn't seen that toaster for a bout a year not but thats another story.

quote: here's a place for everything, and a use for everything,

i agree but do you not feel that if any one sat down long enough with a program that they could get to that point and make things slick? i prefer seeing people design with skills that you can't teach, instinct, style, and if they have an appreciation of the past in terms of design so much the better.
A healthy respect for things that have been done and things around at present are how designers should work, with their aquired knowledge they then put something personal into their work, not just chrome buttons and a laser noise that i can copy by buying a toy gun from poundland.

quote: you're on this site and don't know who 2A is? http://www.2advanced.com - villan2

fair dues you know about one type of design you have failed so far to mention sites that arn't refered to on here.

quote:You are just making excuses for bad design. It is a joke to think that print and digital design are so different. Good design is good design. Futuristic can be good. Anything can be good if done well and in the right context. I can't believe that web designers are still holding onto this belief that just because it is digital it allows you to forget the basic rules of design. This way of thinking is just lazy, sloppy and self-indulgent. - tenpercenter

Good design is good design eaxactly i think villan2 that you should find some good design then relate it to the site you mention - Bauhaus, Henry.C Beck,
Jan Tischold, Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Piet Zwart, Paul Rand, Neville Brody, David Carson, Peter Saville........how many of these designers have you heard of? then you may understand why things are "arty/punk" as you so dismissively class them as.

[Towknee]

Really bizzare, you can tell your a student. I like the simple bizzaro style and oversized icons. everythings great, id suggest upping the frame rate to about 15 or 20.

[villain2]

You are just making excuses for bad design. It is a joke to think that print and digital design are so different. Good design is good design. Futuristic can be good. Anything can be good if done well and in the right context. I can't believe that web designers are still holding onto this belief that just because it is digital it allows you to forget the basic rules of design. This way of thinking is just lazy, sloppy and self-indulgent.

from Ten Percent (of a brain)

The basic rules for designing a website are different than designing in print. Jesus Christ, if you don't understand that you shouldn't be doing them.

Try using that style for a business website, or for that matter, any website that is for the general public. For showing your creative style, those sites are great ... for web FUNCTIONALITY they suck. Hell, I have a hard enough time adding ANY art to websites at my job because it confuses MOST people, not those of us who like art, but MOST people. There is a world outside of the web geek and the art fag.

Example, most people look at a website at the top first for headers and navigation, then look for content. They tend to read from top to bottom as opposed to left to right as in print. That's just a basic thing, not to mention people look at the web for content flow/navigation and people look at print as an all-in-one show. There are no considerations for links and web structure in print. It is also common nature for people to view websites as organized and structured information and entertainment ... if they get a sense of "it's all over the place" then it's not doing it's job. You can clutter your pages with as many deep and complex images as you want, but here's the catch:

designing for the web, you're designing for usability AND artistic style.

And since someone wanted me to list other WEB designers of different styles (since this is a forum about WEBsite design), here are some of my favorites besides 2A:

http://tomato.co.uk (currently under redesign but there's a preview)
http://www.flashlevel.com
http://www.douglasarthur.com
http://www.fastspot.com
http://www.fantasyinterfaces.com (oh, you'll hate that one)
http://www.hi-res.net (they do what you suggest, but it also FUNCTIONALLY works)
http://www.neostream.com
http://www.kurtnoble.com

In the end, I think we're talking about two different things. You seem to be focused entirely on the artistic design and I seem to be focused ALSO on whether or not the average joe can read it. Afterall, a majority of websites are for PUBLIC consumption. We may get the artistic impression made in the work you've shown (I don't think I've questioned the artistic nature of the work, if I did or came off that way let me correct that) ... but for the WEB you're dealing with a lot of other issues.

Also, there are a lot of sci-fi geeks who make websites which is probably why most of them look like Star Trek control pannels. And yes, I agree, too much chrome is bad ... but chrome in itself is not.

[A1A2]

I second what villain2 had to say. People have dif reading habbits/expectations when it comes to web vs. print. Furthermore, web design is non-linear.

About the whole flash for the sake of flash discussion, I wonder why you didn't use just html for this site. It will allow more audience for your site, and most likely downloads faster

I'm just a student as well, so take what I say for what it's worth...

Al

[Stephen Wake]

Also, there are a lot of sci-fi geeks who make websites which is probably why most of them look like Star Trek control pannels. And yes, I agree, too much chrome is bad ... but chrome in itself is not. [/B][/QUOTE]

i suppose i'd agree with this i reckon the majority do just want star wars interfaces, as for chrome i just don't really like it probably some child hood experience put me off.......
I'm familier with hi-res, tomato and neostream, and i quite liked fastspots work and kurt noble's (try www.mook.co.uk)
there are a lot of other issues in web design but i kind of think that a lot of web designers should have more respect for print than they do and not just slap text andimages here and there.
I've tried html in the past and just find it quite restrictive for my needs as flash for flashes sake i mean elaborate intros and buttons that serve no purpose in helping the average joe to navigate they are more or less there to jump about the screen and show off what they can do.
My navigation i thought was fairly simple but wanted it checked thats why i'm on here because i don't know flash as well as i'd like too i'm not just on here to bad mouth furutristic sites althought a healthy debate is good that how you learn a lot of things

[villain2]

Yeah, healthy debate is good. This was a good topic to voice the pros and cons of Flash design and it's common styles to styles that are common in print.

You don't see too much chrome or sci fi stuff in print (at least I don't) because it usually doesn't translate that well. On a computer screen, it's a bit different.

Anyway, I like your site, as I said before. I just took offense to the futurist/chrome stuff since I do like and use it

As far as showing off, that's what flash is about, it's even implied in the name. It's about making more "flashy" imagery that can move and shine and have sounds. It's the "cg" of the web design world. And like in the movie industry where some people don't like cg, some people in the web world don't like Flash. It's a matter of taste, really.

[Ten Percenter]

from Ten Percent (of a brain)

Come on, play nice.

hehe. Thanks Villain. I guess I just didn't make myself clear enough (to be understood by average joe. ).

I agree with with most of what you have said here. All I meant is that the two disciplines are not so different as people make out (graphically speaking) - I personally feel that many lazy web designers use this argument as an excuse for the lack of imagination and effort needed to come up with creative and functional solutions. To me one of the great things about flash is that people can make something that looks as good as the printed page and then make it come alive.

Not all sites are targeted at average joe. Most websites have a much more specific target user. It makes no sense to design for average joe when your site is aimed at internet-ready joe.

Anyway, like I said. I tend to agree with a lot of what you've said. There are less points that we disagree on than you think (I think).

[villain2]

Most websites have a much more specific target user. It makes no sense to design for average joe when your site is aimed at internet-ready joe.

by Ten Percenter

Okay, well you must not work for a design firm OR you work for an EXTREMELY lucky one. Every single client I have freelance and every exec at my job wants their sites to be understood by even the novice web user. Personal sites usually are targeted at certain people, like clan sites.

I'm talking in the broader perspective of the web, the sites that are usually designed for others. I have as yet had someone say "do what you want to" and really mean it.

[Ten Percenter]

Villain, I don't disagree with you on this point

It makes no sense to design for average joe when your site is aimed at internet-ready joe.

This was meant in relation to this site which is a personal portfolio.

[Onionboy]

both print and web share a lot of the same principles to the way they
are designed.

firstly the way the content is layed out, read, point of focus etc is
very similar. to say print is read left to right and web is up and
down is totally unfounded.

both are primarily left to right... as its the way we read our
language. and in both cases where you read on the page depends upon
the page designs point of focus.

and its point of focus which makes so many designs special... being
able to direct a person around a website, or a book, or a magazine,
or a web advert.

navigation is of course different, you dont click on a magazine and a
new pages loads into it... but the way navigation works is similar.
the contants page for example gives page references where to find
particular material in the same way that buttons on a site would
dirrect the user to the particular page of interest.

the same applies with a site map compared to a book index page.

therefore in my opinion the way the two are designed is very similar.
where it all changes is (on the web) navigation and interactivity.
once you have mastered the way to communicate the content effectivly
(as its fundamentaly about communication) how do you make the site
interactive.

well some sites such as corporate interests may want just simple
navigation, plain text, corporate imagery and nothing more... straight to the point.

but would this way of design be appropriate for a school tv programme
advertising on the web... of course not! they would require an
interactive site which brought the pages to life. adding more
excitment to make people want to watch the show.

what im getting at there, is that every design has its place.
chrome, sci-fi, natural, urban... all these styles (and more) have a
time and a place on the web. a person addicted to sci-fi wouldnt want
to see the new star trek site designed in a surf style. that to me is
bad design.

one of the biggest problems that new designers face, or regulars of
design forums. is that they may see 20 sites all use a particular
style. then when another comes along they comment how that style is
over used.

a prime example of this is the 2A site.. many people cry about how
the futuristic style has been done to the death... but has it really?
out of the several billion websites, my money is on plain corporate
html sites being the most used style.

flash has brought a breath of frsh air to the online design community
and i think this is only the beggining.
using flash for flash's sake is in my opinion wrong.
im a flash designer, and yet most of my clients have ended up with a
html site. simply because flash wasnt needed. sadly there are a lot
of people that use flash for 30 days then think they are flash
masters. designing everysite they can in flash and generally filling
the web up with very bad design.

a very good example of flash abuse was in its early days in flash 5.
remember that just about every other website built index.html as a
splash/flash intro annimations. everyone was making them no matter
how crap.

and today people still make these useless intro animations with text
sliding from side to side outlining the companies products and
services. that to me is flash abuse.

i think a lot of people on flashkit and other forums seriously need
to learn about design. there is a huge difference between design and
asthetics. making something look good and flashy doesnt make it good
design. without a good concept/idea then the site simply becomes all
asthetics.

watch films, play music, read books, go for a drive, look at other
design, watch commercials, and when it comes to designing your own
work really think about why you are using that image... or why you
have chosen that font. think about where that typography will sit on
the page, what weight, size... think about everything.

just my, erm, 2 cents worth? lol

[villain2]

Okay, I didn't read all that but no sir ...

People look at websites from top to bottom, they look at print left to right. People's eyes go to the left in print work and scan to the right. On a website, people look at the top first for navigation and then scan downward for content, much the same way they do newspaper (I know newspaper is print but you get my point). They're two different styles of design.

To use the newspaper, people read it from top to bottom, that's the way it's set up ... much like a website. People read books, printed ads etc. more left to right.

that's web design 101. Sorry, but I've heard it, seen it and used it 10000000 times.

[Onionboy]

i still disagree.

ok a page is read from left to right.
if a page was read up and down it would be written in chinese lettering.

its simple as that.
the focus points are up and down... ie where you tell the eye to go.
but thats not always the case.

ok, say you have a page with about 50 new clips, a bunch of links, etc etc then yes i agree they would scan the page.

but if you have a page just full of text, like a book, then the eye goes left to right.

you say its left to right in print, but i could take your eyes all over the page, not just left to right.


yopu say the eye looks for navigation at the top then looks down the page, but if the nav is on the left leading to info across the page then that puts your theory wrong.

[Stephen Wake]

Well i'm afraid i have to agree with onion boy on this one, the two obviously have different goals in mind in terms of design but it is merely a different end product and should not be treated as two separate types of design, what would be the point? why lose all the knowledge gained from years of print design to simply make the same mistakes again but this time on the internet. Villan2, you should definately read the long comment from onion boy he is making a lot of sense. People navigate a website how the designer wants them to navigate it (providing they are good enought), if its complicated most people are inclined to figure out how to do it. Artist have learnt how to control the senses by drawing the veiwers eye in to a certain point and then lead you round a painting telling you a story on the way, why should website be any different? To simply standardise the internet in this way woud probably be one the biggest design mistakes ever. The internet is an open forum to creative outlets and should be treated as such it is a chance for people to experiment why be just another standard website when you can draw the veiwer into to the site and keep them engrossed in it. I a site is artistically different it means you'll remember, it if it works well for what you needed it for you'll robably go back to it, they all have uses and each use needs to be designed to their fullest ability if you want to standardise things we mite as well make one big template with one address and have all our work on it..........then all that would bve left would be to decide what colour to have the chrome buttons.

[villain2]

Well, I suggest we take a poll of designers and surfers as to how websites are viewed.

[Onionboy]

mate there is no need... because your wrong.
you dont seem to grasp the basics of the human written language.

words are read from left to right, from top to bottom.
left - right, down one line, repeat.
its as simple as that.

yes people look down a webpage, but they read from the left of the page to the right...