Entablature Web Site Awards This is an architecture web site that gives awards for web sites. For those interested in web design there are some nice ones in there.... also some that are overly cool to the point the content is lost in the self referential complexity (syndrome for architects), which drives me nuts. Anyway, enjoy.
Thanks for posting these. Architecects notoriously have some of the most over-indulgent and complex websites. I'm not sure why exactly, but they can be even more over the top than graphic or web design firms. What is interesting is that so often they are incredibly impractical. As a developer, if you decide to build something like that, it is always for a very, VERY specific industry like entertainment. 95 percent of all good websites are much more simplistic and the vast majority of businesses either don't want something that complex or aren't willing to pay for it. Always fun to look at, though. Thanks!
I think a lot of Architecture Firms do the web sites in-house and are assigned to an intern. As a result they often become a venting device of design for the opressed individuals who are talented but a little out-of-control. The results are often beautiful, but impractical and self indulgent. Several years of bottled creativity exploding onto one tiny little pallette.
Designers frequently forget an important aspect of web design: usability. The goal of a site is not to have a creative design - it's to deliver the site's content in a creative and efficient way. I could preach about this for hours, but to suffice to say that, in my many years of web design, I have ALWAYS made usability a higher priority than creativity. -- droxford
Agreed, but it is a balance. It's a balance between design, technology and usability. The site has to look good, work well and be usable for the visitor. There are raging debates about each area and, generally, you'll hear designers say how a site looks is most important, programmers say how it works is most important and usability experts say how easy it is to manage and navigate is most important. Nevermind the SEO guys who just want it to list well with search eninges. It's finding that right balance that is important. And where the scales tip can vary widely depending on the industry. I mean, you wouldn't want a utilitarian site for promoting a movie, but Amazon.com would never happen as a predominantly Flash site.
I try not to favor any camp. The design must conform to effectively deliver content. The functionality must do the same. The goal is to deliver content, and this can be done better with a good design, and with good functionality. But it's important not to let either get out of hand - if that happens, then the content may not be delivered well, and the goal will not be achieved. I design sites with these abilities: scalable fonts for the visually-impaired and users with different screen res navigtation on left and/or top (for American audience) as low on images as possible (many people still use modems) use of css for design and color, rather than images Flash is used only where html/javascript don't cut it color scheme has contrast (some people are colorblind) use of alt-tags for visually impaired. scaleable tables for resizing of browser windows simplified urls for easy bookmarking and navigation top tier browser compatibility (I don't do complete compatibility any more - it's just not worth the extra design time) -- droxford
