[traxor]

headcoat, on Dec 18 2008, 12:49, said:

Eskymo's site looks good and adheres to standards / accessibility etc...it's a good one no doubt.

I loved your site Raoul - (though did find it akward to use with new tabs opening in the browser etc.)

It's my opinion many votes on WDF site of the month tend to be very 'safe' and 'conformist'...people are easily swayed by those they consider established opinion formers / leaders within the WDF community...not that said folk don't talk a lot of sense i should add.

A good (even very good) site always wins, but originality or stretching the boundaries appears to be low down on the list of criteria for most when voting.

Very brave of you all to put your sites up for votes, and don't forget if you don't win it doesn't mean your sites necessarily worse (or better for that matter).

I know what you mean, people tend to follow a social trends. When studying Psychology, me and several others went to a local high school and did a study that involved deception (unethical I know, but it was necessary; we did a cost/benefit analysis to make sure it was all okay and debriefed every participant). Basically, we had a jar filled with sweets, and people had to write down on a piece of paper what they believed was in there. We had two different situations, where one piece of paper had pre-written answers, that were clearly incorrect and another sheet that was blank. Participants were not allowed to speak to each other and were kept in a controlled environment.

It turned out that people copied everybody elses answer so not to appear 'stupid', even though it was a clearly anonymous experiment, they were still more likely to conform to other people.

I'm agreeing with headcoat 100% on this matter, it doesn't matter if you don't win, just put your site up next month.

Perhaps that's an idea for Ben: stick the monthly competition threads to the main page so people don't forget to vote, but make it a closed vote, where people cannot comment or view comments until they've voted. That way you'd avoid any conforming and it'd be much more fair compared to this at the moment. That's not to say the way you do it is bad, it's just an idea.

Headcoat: I think people will go with the safer option most of the time, people are used to a certain way websites work and are more likely to pick something that doesn't cause disequilibrium/unease.

Does my post deserve a ?

[headcoat]

traxor, on Dec 18 2008, 15:31, said:

Does my post deserve a ?

Aye indeed, interesting experiment you describe indeed.

So a big

[Raoul de Boer]

Yeah if you ask me. I see allot of basic websites! What is nice but basic.
But i'm a little bit crazy and if you go right i go left =)

But people really need to think out of the box if you ask me. In this world you gotta stand out if you want to get noticed.

Greets

[Raoul de Boer]

Quote

Perhaps that's an idea for Ben: stick the monthly competition threads to the main page so people don't forget to vote, but make it a closed vote, where people cannot comment or view comments until they've voted

Verry good idea!

[Dizi]

The thing is that each site is different because each site has a different purpose. For example Raoul de Boer site could only work as an experimental portfolio while it couldn't work for a site that sells bread, as not every site can be like that as some need to be streight forward and more user friendly. But for its purpose it does work. The site eskymo has entered is a clean canvas, the design is there to help the content as that most important aspect of that, and as such her design works, as it is a good layout that is easy to navigate and it shows off the content well.

They are both good site, as are the others that are entered...yes they may not all be as experimental and to some could be seen as basic, but it is a lot harder to design a simple site that looks good as you don't have as much to work with and people notice the little details more. While with over the top experimental sites you can get away with things not being done as well as they could be.


Anyway my point is that every site needs to be done so that what it is about shines through. After all it is about displaying the content, as unless it is an experimental site, it needs to be easy to navigate and usable. So I think that each site should be looked at and seen for what it is, rather than saying well Raoul de Boer is better than Eskymo's and is better than Jakes...ect as these site all serve different purposes and their designs cannot be compared in such ways. So maybe it is better to look at it as which one best displays what they are showing and reflects what they are about, rather than is such and such design better than such and such even though the sites are not on the same subject.

So its not about thinking outside the box, its about designing a site that is practical for the people who will be using it.

I think it is up to a person if they say who they vote for, and also up to others if they read that before they look and decide, as you can't actually see who has what votes until after you have voted, and when you can you can't change your vote....but it could be an idea, if people feel that the current way of voting make people vote in a certain way, rather than voting for which one they think works best.

[Boyles Web Design]

If I would not have voted for mine, (Because I didn't want to have zero lol) I would have voted for eskymos, her site has a great color scheme, its basic, sure, but it does what its intended to do, why go complicated when the products doesn't call for it?

PS. Helen Very good points ^^ its just a friendly competition anyway!

[Raoul de Boer]

Dizi, on Dec 18 2008, 21:03, said:

The thing is that each site is different because each site has a different purpose.

You got a point

But.

with out of the box i mean. Basic websites are good in use but will not get noticed.

Look at this sites:
Porsche
Lois jeans
Hyundai
audi
ETF's
red issue

etc. etc.
these sites are far away from basic websites. But they all wanna sell something or inform people about something like the sites on this forum.

greets

[traxor]

Raoul I don't think it's a dig or anything at your site so don't get the wrong idea, I think people are merely saying that they're voting for usability.

[Raoul de Boer]

traxor, on Dec 18 2008, 22:09, said:

Raoul I don't think it's a dig or anything at your site so don't get the wrong idea, I think people are merely saying that they're voting for usability.

yeah think so
but only trying to help!

[Dizi]

traxor, on Dec 18 2008, 21:09, said:

Raoul I don't think it's a dig or anything at your site so don't get the wrong idea, I think people are merely saying that they're voting for usability.

yup, don't get offended, some people will like your site others won't as it is a very targeted site. Some vote on how it looks, other on how a site works as a whole, others on how user friendly it is and other on how accessible to a wide market it is.


As for out of the box, I think out of the box is good, however I don't think that a site needs to be made in flash to be 'out of the box' in fact I think some of the sites that you have shown there are "in a box", as they are how you would expect a site of that genre to look. So maybe you need to look out of the flash box, as I think there are some really good "out of the box" designs that don't rely on flash, you just have to think out of the box of the genre they are in, rather than thinking out of the box means movement and flash and over the top design...sometimes simplicity can work more effectively than ott can. But then again that is my opinion

[LYKC]

I like websites that are different and not afraid of pushing away from the norm so voted accordingly. That's enough clues for you... But well done all!

[Raoul de Boer]

Dizi i understand what you mean!
But out of the box isnt only flash! These times you can use everything 2 built your website! After effects, indesign, 3dmax, maya, lightwear etccc
thats what i mean with out of the box! html & css is so basic..( but good in use & navigation, i'm only suggesting)

greets

[wizely]

Thing is with WDF is we're not potential customers for most sites that appear in the competition and, being designers, there is a heavy bias toward good design principles - as there should be. Out in the real world the best sites are the ones that make their owners the most money - whether they be complex or simple. In the real world visitors don't care about 'design' (as in the behind the scenes stuff).
I like the comp as you get to see what you guys are coming up with - the only thing missing for me is a little 'bio' about how folks came up with designs, what was the thinking behind the choices, who it's targeting, why things are the way they are etc. It would help see which design fulfils its aims (helping us decide between equally good sites but in very different styles), help folks learn more of the 'whys' of design, and get to know you a bit better!
Just thoughts, it's just for fun anyway!

[stevebrown]

One thing I would like to add.

Before I would like to start I would like to point out that although it was an error my 'Perius Media' website was put up, I would love to see this as an opportunity to see how my design compares and perhaps get some constructive feedback at the same time.

Helen makes some good points (she usually does, listen to her), and I totally agree with wizely (except for him saying the sites have no 'bio' on the design of websites, mine has loads of that!) .

We have two major differnt types of websites on display here, corporate and personal . The designs reflect the two at different extremes.

When making a website that represents a company it is usually the 'norm' to make a site that is void of 'personality'. We see rather clean cut designs from Traxor, Eskymo and Anth (digital?) Winter (why has no one mentioned him yet?). Look around you. Look at apples site. Look at Mirosofts site. Google. Look at some of the more popular web design firms (i would link you but my mac has all my bookmarks and its in the repair shop)

Websites that showcase a company that do not exhibit an art style are effective . If a company i.e a web design firm exhibits a certain art style, then that, in my opinion is detrimental for the sole reason that a corporate design appeals to a wider range of people. If you have a certain 'style' some people are going to love it, some others arent and that opinion alone divides your potential audience. A company has to convey a message and the more open the transmission of the message the higher its effectiveness.

I wonder what people think about what I have just said. I can see that my website isnt do very well at all, but do bear in mind that (reiterating what Wizely said) this is a web design forum . You are not the potential customers, and because of that I think these votes are biased and people are voting design over effectiveness.

So I implore all web designers here to look at the lack of design as a reasonable design decision before voting the most 'out of the box' website(s). Remember you are voting between Personal Web Design sites and Company Sites.

[Guezala]

Well I voted for Boyles

[Cabbage]

I voted for Traxor, but I had a hard time choosing between that and Eskymo's offering. I've got a 'thing' for websites like Traxor's at the minute though, that's the main reason it won for me.

[headcoat]

All good points, but for me voting is an opportunity to get away from 'corporate'...a chance to give a nod to something that is 'out of the box', original, refreshing, yes personal even.

Careful what you wish for...to suggest that it's not a good idea for a company to have a 'certain' style is to move towards everything being the same - logical conclusion - bland, on message, to sell only, devoid of individualism and personality etc. That'd be a horrible world, maybe it is already.

When I grew up we had a great record shop locally on the High Street called Beggars Banquet - good stock of music (not just the top 50 CD's), individual name of shop, original shop facade, 'cool' staff with the latest hair cuts and clothes and good taste in music...hanging out there gave one a sense of self and well it just felt darn good.

Compare that to today - A chain on the High Street, top 50 CD's only, unhappy staff who are underpaid, not allowed to drink coffee or smoke behind the counter, likely not allowed to select the music being played, bland cororate/on message/branded design and layout of the shop...we've lost our personality for the £'sss I'm sorry to say.

Can you see the parallel with websites? After all the net is todays High Street right?

To make sales the only focus plays to the lowest common denominator, and yes sure that can be a financial reality.

There's another story about a piece of art designed by committee and user testing - the artists built it based on everyone's tastes and preferences...the result everyone hated it!!

There's two sides to every story - communication, clarity, usability on the one hand and originality and individuality on the other - they aren't mutually exclusive, but we need be aware of this and ensure they don't become so.

stevebrown, on Dec 19 2008, 04:17, said:

One thing I would like to add.

Before I would like to start I would like to point out that although it was an error my 'Perius Media' website was put up, I would love to see this as an opportunity to see how my design compares and perhaps get some constructive feedback at the same time.

Helen makes some good points (she usually does, listen to her), and I totally agree with wizely (except for him saying the sites have no 'bio' on the design of websites, mine has loads of that!) .

We have two major differnt types of websites on display here, corporate and personal . The designs reflect the two at different extremes.

When making a website that represents a company it is usually the 'norm' to make a site that is void of 'personality'. We see rather clean cut designs from Traxor, Eskymo and Anth (digital?) Winter (why has no one mentioned him yet?). Look around you. Look at apples site. Look at Mirosofts site. Google. Look at some of the more popular web design firms (i would link you but my mac has all my bookmarks and its in the repair shop)

Websites that showcase a company that do not exhibit an art style are effective . If a company i.e a web design firm exhibits a certain art style, then that, in my opinion is detrimental for the sole reason that a corporate design appeals to a wider range of people. If you have a certain 'style' some people are going to love it, some others arent and that opinion alone divides your potential audience. A company has to convey a message and the more open the transmission of the message the higher its effectiveness.

I wonder what people think about what I have just said. I can see that my website isnt do very well at all, but do bear in mind that (reiterating what Wizely said) this is a web design forum . You are not the potential customers, and because of that I think these votes are biased and people are voting design over effectiveness.

So I implore all web designers here to look at the lack of design as a reasonable design decision before voting the most 'out of the box' website(s). Remember you are voting between Personal Web Design sites and Company Sites.

[Raoul de Boer]

Hard disscusions here with good feedback! I like that .

Hope i put some people thinking..

Great to see so many people post in this topic!

[Helen]

I would just like to say (hopefully I'm not regurgitating what someone has already said) ............We're a mix bag here.....designers, coders, programmers, copywriters...etc So the first thing we tend to look at, is the thing that makes us tick.

I'm a Designer at heart, so the first thing I look at is the overall design of the site, if there is a outstanding design....it wins in my eyes and gets my vote.
If there is more than one that shines, then I take a look at the words, then what's under the hood.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.............I have styles I like and dislike. Everyone does. If we all liked the same thing, the world would be a boring and conformist place, with no-one pushing the boundaries looking for something new. That's what design is all about.

[headcoat]

Some links;

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Jamie_Reid
http://www.artnet.co...jamie-reid.html

http://recollectionb...s/BB/cliche.jpg
http://www.notbored.org/safety-pin.gif

http://www.art-for-a-change.com/blog/2006/...-to-future.html

http://www.naomiklein.org/no-logo
http://www.neurocybe...ng_backlash.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb52...s_/ai_n28968041

[traxor]

I think I've came 2nd then

[Normo]

traxor got my vote

[Rob]

I've voted. Seeing as I haven't done one of these for 3 months can my vote count 3 times?

[Raoul de Boer]

Rob, on Dec 21 2008, 16:49, said:

I've voted. Seeing as I haven't done one of these for 3 months can my vote count 3 times?

ofcourse if you voted for me