Ok, in the review section we often get people commenting that a site looks like a template. So what in your opinion makes a site look like a template?

 

Is it the over use of stock photography or flash? A site that is far too polished and with that has lost its personality?

 

I just feel that we all have different opinions on this so it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on it

• Random and generic Flash banners
  
• Generic stock photography, especially:
  • Photos of "business people" posing at random angles
    
  • Pictures/3d Illustrations of servers – Really, who cares what a server looks like?
    

  [*]Absolutely nothing in the design relates to the company

  [*]Obviously generic logo for the "professional company"

  [*]Over-use of Photoshop layer styles and filters – bevel/emboss and drop shadows being main culprits

  [*]Strong "Web 2.0" gradients, buttons and fonts

There is so much more I could add

'Template provided by ...' in the footer.

 

OK, I'm just kidding. I honestly never notice these things. I know plenty of people who use the cheesy stock photography in their designs without actually using templates so it's not really a given.

 

Unless I've seen the design in numerous other places I don't consider whether or not its a template.

Humm.. not too sure really.. may be it is a taste thing, don't like it, it is a template??

They usually look they've been designed by a graphic designer who's not got a clue about usability and accessibility

They usually look they've been designed by a graphic designer who's not got a clue about usability and accessibility

You hit the nail on the head tbh

No concept, or a generic one.

 

Stands to reason, really. Concepting is about 60-80% of design. Someone knocking out templates is unlikely to want the spend the time when they rely on volume sales- and even if they wanted to, they can't do a decent one 'cos they don't know the company that'll buy it.

A site looks like a template if it looks like a generic blog theme... this usually involves a generic layout without much attention to fine details. Details are what really separate your average site from a great site.

From a different angle (from a copy point of view funnily enough!):

• It's the way copy is blatantly just stuck in as an afterthought and has no relationship whatsoever with the images, colours, textures etc. used
  
• There's no cohesive concept (just as bumfluff said - I'm just reminding folks that copy is part of that)
  
• There's no strong message
  
• The copy is subservient to the graphics
  
• There's zero personality or anything to differentiate the site
  
• Nothing engages, flows or leads you anywhere
  
• Design elements fit the graphical theme but not the actual content that uses them
  

It's like buying a beautiful gift box and then forgetting to put the present inside - all 'oooh' and then all 'oh'.

If you could change the name on the site and have the site realistically look like another site (just by changing the name), then it's too "template-y" for my liking.

Interesting question. I always assumed I should aim towards building a type of "template" feel for a website.

 

Do "users" of websites not prefer a more generic look? Like a consistence throughout the site. Would a site that is not a "template" be inconsistent and more random?

 

I personally find it easier to navigate through sites that appear to have conformed to a template layout. A sort of a hybrid between template and creative is what I try to aim for.

 

I'm still new to design though, so I haven't gone beyond the realms of everyday design.

 

On a random note, Dreamweaver has a template function, where you sort of freeze elements that you cannot edit and then you just chuck in text or images in the frozen elements. I don't use this function much. I like to just code everything, I rarely use the Drag and Drop functions.

 

(overworked) Cari.

I think the most important point is the stock photography (previously mentioned). It's something about those semi-fit women with a headset on, peering over their monitor with a clean-white smile, which doesn't work when the website's about a chicken farm.

Hi overworked Cari

 

I didn't mean it in a sense of a uniformed site where it bits are always in the same place on each page. I mean like the template sites that you can buy from places like template monster, that give the site that look about them that you can tell it was made using a template from such a site. Sort of a no personality, not related to the site look.

Dizi is talking about this sort of templates.

Do "users" of websites not prefer a more generic look? Like a consistence throughout the site. Would a site that is not a "template" be inconsistent and more random?

 

Pages within a certain site should all match, yes. But, not all websites should match each other. Eg - all the pages on my site should look like they belong on my site, and all the pages on your site should look like they belong on your site. It's when the pages start to be interchangeable (ie - your pages would look right on my site, and my pages would fit in on your site) that there starts to be a problem.

Hi overworked Cari

 

I didn't mean it in a sense of a uniformed site where it bits are always in the same place on each page. I mean like the template sites that you can buy from places like template monster, that give the site that look about them that you can tell it was made using a template from such a site. Sort of a no personality, not related to the site look.

 

Lol! OMW, blonde moment on my part. That does actually make A LOT more sense if I reread everything... I've been reading on a different frequency...

A banner which blatantly says / looks like ' company name here '.

• Random and generic Flash banners
  
• Generic stock photography, especially:
  • Photos of "business people" posing at random angles
    
  • Pictures/3d Illustrations of servers – Really, who cares what a server looks like?
    

  [*]Absolutely nothing in the design relates to the company

  [*]Obviously generic logo for the "professional company"

  [*]Over-use of Photoshop layer styles and filters – bevel/emboss and drop shadows being main culprits

  [*]Strong "Web 2.0" gradients, buttons and fonts

There is so much more I could add

 

You hit it the nail on the head Rob.

• Random and generic Flash banners
  
• Generic stock photography, especially:
  • Photos of "business people" posing at random angles
    
  • Pictures/3d Illustrations of servers – Really, who cares what a server looks like?
    

  [*]Absolutely nothing in the design relates to the company

  [*]Obviously generic logo for the "professional company"

  [*]Over-use of Photoshop layer styles and filters – bevel/emboss and drop shadows being main culprits

  [*]Strong "Web 2.0" gradients, buttons and fonts

There is so much more I could add

 

Absolutely Correct Rob. He has said all that was on my mind and a bit more too. What could i say now.

They usually look they've been designed by a graphic designer who's not got a clue about usability and accessibility

 

That is Oxford dictionary material!!

The absence of unique personal design features everything you see in a template you have most likely seen before.

I think the most important point is the stock photography (previously mentioned). It's something about those semi-fit women with a headset on, peering over their monitor with a clean-white smile, which doesn't work when the website's about a chicken farm.

This made me laugh out loud. It's so true.

I think the most important point is the stock photography (previously mentioned). It's something about those semi-fit women with a headset on, peering over their monitor with a clean-white smile, which doesn't work when the website's about a chicken farm.

 

9 things I learned about the world according to anonymous stock photo models.

 

::edit::

probably best not viewed at work, by the way

Haha that was a good read, that last bit made me laugh quite a lot

That page (re: bumfluff) is absolutely awesome! I really loved it, and everything they say is true. The "Enthusiasm Vs Asshole" graph was especially nice

 

As for what makes a site look like a template? For me it's simple:

 

When I go to a website and feel bored by its look, despite having never visited the website before.