survey: ugly official websites
L
Yet, they put forth ugly official websites that millions of people can
see.
Why does this happen? Are they blind?
Just wondering.
Linda
Christian Volk
> see.
Chris
David Zack
I think it's just that so few people know how to design a web site. If you're
publishing a site as a hobby ('look at these pictures of my baby, my cats, my
Hummel collectible figurines') than do it however you like. It's a personal
expression. But a performer's website is a business tool and ought to be
designed with the same care and precision that one would dedicate to his or her
resume. Even if it means hiring someone. A business site should have
intuitive and CONSISTENT navigation, a logical sitemap, and be reasonably
cross-browser compatible. Most people should be able to accomplish that much
by investing in some mid-range software and a couple of web design books.
Matthew Winn
It's because most people don't have a clue about designing web pages:
they don't realise that they don't have absolute control over how a
page will appear on the vast number of combinations of software and
hardware out there. The pages they design may look great on their own
particular browser and the colour depth, size, resolution, brightness
and contrast of their display, but the same pages may look ugly or
even be completely unreadable for many others.
Or perhaps they're just idiots.
Matthew
L
I should be clearer in my original question. It wasn't why someone
can't design a website.
Rather, the question is: why doesn't the performer himself/herself
*see* that the website that was designed is not very well done?
Or is that the problem? The performer can't be bothered?
Michael Callery
could give an example of what you consider a not-ugly site.)
Sites for performers are often created by fans then might "morph" into
an official site. The sites are not job tools (as are headshots and
resumes) but a means of connecting with fans. Pretty may not be as
important as quality and currentness of information. I think "can't be
bothered" is too strong, probably more like "good enough for now."
Mike
Marinus
news:3ca85a2...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
Last year there has been a study about this. Not specifically about websites,
but in general.
People who don't have the talent to design websites also don't have the ability
to judge their own work or that from other's. That is why there is so much junk
on the internet.
It's also why creative family members give you the most horrible presents for
your birthday.
Marinus
PS People who CAN design websites are usually too critical on their own work but
they have the ability to recognize good stuff from others.
L
Websites may not be "job" tools but isn't it a representation of the
performer? In other words, if they wouldn't go out in public without
make up (for women) and hair uncombed, why would they put a website
out there that is "ugly"?
Betty Buckley's official website is very well done as is Patti
LuPone's official website.
The new official Christine Ebersole website is the opposite.
Linda
Michael Callery
information you might want as you stare at incomprehensible scribbles
and try to find the next navigation link to the area you want. (Hint to
her web designer ... look up target= ) Patti LuPone's site is much
better faster, cleaner, easy. Of course, this is all IMHO, but I have a
pretty good idea of what grades I'd give the designers were they in my
web design class.
Christine Ebersole's site is pretty bad, actually I'd be more inclined
to say uninteresting, but it's obviously also not finished yet. (As if
any web site is ever finished.) It may not be, in two months, what it is
today. Send the webmaster some feedback.
Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, the kind of people who visit these
sites don't care about pretty or fancy, they want a schedule of
performance dates, a list of new recordings, upcoming TV appearances,
stuff like that. There are a lot of very attractive sites out there that
are totally useless. So maybe what you need to define is "ugly." I worry
about ugly after I consider the usefulness and navigability of the site.
Were I asked to design such a site, I'd want to spend a lot of time with
the performer, getting to know what he or she was really like. I'd also
want to know who they expected would visit the site and what he or she
hoped the surfer would come away with. Then design the site from that perspective.
Mike
Stephen Farrow
> Patti LuPone's site is much better faster, cleaner, easy.
Indeed. Her web site, actually, is often easier to understand than she
is!
Stephen
--
"First of all, you're going to need a live chicken and a working
knowledge of Latin..."
L
I had no trouble finding the links on Betty Buckley's site.
Anyhow, one must read website for all wannabe-webmasters
Michael Callery
Mike
L
Why the hostility?
Linda
Craig Brockman
matter..I will say upfront that I am not deeming myself an expert in ANY
way... but these are my thoughts...
- Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Meaning, just
because you can do fancy flash animations, scrolling text, blinking
graphics, frames, ebmedded audio, etc doesn't mean you should. I would take
a simple clean site over an amazing display of technology any day.
- A performers website should be their "home" -- it should represent them
both in style and content. An off-beat, quirky site is not going to work
for a performer who is straight laced and dramatic. Conversely, someone who
is considered quirky, fun-loving, etc really shouldn't have a website that
looks like it's a mortuary. Also, the purpose of the site is important to
define. Is it a professional site, a marketing venue, a dedication to
fans -- what is the goal?
- You should really never be more than 2-3 clicks away from the information
the audience wants/needs. The web is still a short attention span medium
(yes we can all surf for hours..and if it's a great site, even more so) --
but generally...people go to a site and want to get their information asap.
- Actual architecture of a site should be browser friendly -- a good
designer will ensure this. Meaning that all pages and functions of the
website appear the same in all browsers. Many times, this is easier said
than done.. those who don't know the differences between netscape and IE and
their quirks would be surprised at how tricky this can be.
- Load time -- even though we are in the age of high speed, pages should
still be designed with the slowest connection in mind (and also the lowest
screen resolution). This can sometimes be impossible, based on the content
needed to be displayed... but in short -- graphics, etc should be optimized
as best they can.
- Uniformity in design. A site should have consistancy. Same colors, fonts
(and not dozens of them), etc. Exceptions apply of course. For example, a
site I designed has a "main" site, which is the professional side of a
performer, and then a whole other breakout section devoted to the fans.
But, each section is uniform unto itself.
I could go on, and if anyone is interested, feel free to email me. I think
it's important for the performer to be involved in the creation and content
of their own site. Many official sites were/are fan sites that the
performer just said "sure... it can be official". It makes a world of
difference when the performer is actually involved continuously in the
project.
-Craig
Karen Horn
: Most performers would not dream of putting out an "ugly" headshot.
NO concept of "just because you CAN do it....doesn't mean you
SHOULD DO IT!" Pet hates:
1) Uglier than mortal sin color combinations. Trust me, light lavender
on green is a pain in the ass to read. You'd think they'd look at their
own websites and get eyestrain inside of 2 nanoseconds.
2) "websites" that are one long ass page that takes 5 minutes to load
the fucker. If you have photos, I REALLY don't need to see every one
of them the size of the entire screen, and then some, all on the same
damn page.
3) ANY "Flash page." WHY?!
4) Websites that inflict their idea of "muzak"
on you. Barry Manilow's LOLA played by a kazoo band should be NO ONE'S
idea of "good taste." Also these sites are particularly prone to
having no way to click the muzak off. Especially annoying as you go to
another page and come back to the first one. Genealogy websites in
particular seem infested with this "feature."
5) Frames. Particularly frame laden pages which have a huge ass banner
with ZERO content taking up 2/3rds of the page, which in addition
to two inches at the left side of the page, leave a small two inch
frame for actually content, which you will undoubtedly have to scroll
back and forth to actually read.
6) Novel fonts. I'm not crazy about looking at a page of lettering
which looks like a kidnapping note.
It's too bad the mafia doesn't have a special arrangement to allow you
to hire them to send some dead fish 'round to the offending webmasters.
Karen
Matthew Murray
> NO concept of "just because you CAN do it....doesn't mean you
> SHOULD DO IT!" Pet hates:
>
> 1) Uglier than mortal sin color combinations.
> 2) "websites" that are one long ass page that takes 5 minutes to load
> 3) ANY "Flash page." WHY?!
> 4) Websites that inflict their idea of "muzak" on you.
> 5) Frames.
> 6) Novel fonts.
Words to LIVE by. I am outraged at most of the garbage that
passes for websites today. I spent over five years of my college
education learning how to design sites correctly, and it hurts me when I
see about 95% of the pages out there on the World Wide Web. Terrible
design. Just terrible. CONTENT FIRST, THEN LOOKS. It's that simple. If
you don't understand that simple fact, then I think you should pack up and
never even touch a website again.
I could add a number of items to your list, including some about
keeping content updated and not using stupid freaking generators that mess
with HTML so much the pages are impossible to maintain, but those are
good, basic lessons in web design. Anyone who doesn't get those doesn't
get it, if you ask me.
> It's too bad the mafia doesn't have a special arrangement to allow you
> to hire them to send some dead fish 'round to the offending webmasters.
Amen! But that'd be an 80-hour-a-week job, probably.
----------------------------
Matthew A. Murray
matthe...@mindspring.com
http://www.matthewmurray.net
----------------------------
Michael Callery
the web site is there to support and update his book, not to override
it. There is a lot more information in the book. Which, incidentally,
was required reading for my students. There are a lot of other good
references out there too, but that's not the issue you raised. You
wanted to know why some performers had "ugly" web sites. There's no way
we can answer this question, some do, and that's it.
Mike
PS Web design issues, etc. probably belong in another newsgroup. But.
The problem with Buckley's site is that the main navigation buttons are
in a frame at the bottom of the page. They lead you to a sub-section
where a line drawing (I'm assuming they are Betty's) is shown with the
sub-section's navigation buttons in the upper left side of the screen.
Text buttons. The "feel" of the subsections is totally different from
the "feel" of the opening page. So, in the subsections, you have two
menus -- those on the bottom (to go to the major sections of the site)
and the ones in the upper left. You had to learn to use this, it is not
instinctive. And the relevance of the line drawings is questionable.
Further, the entire page is reloaded when you move around the site. Not
necessary and damned distracting. You had no problem with this design,
glad for you, I did. I don't think a designer should design something
you have to learn to use when all you want to know is if she's giving a
concert near you. That's the beauty of, for example, Google vs. Yahoo.
You have to learn how to Yahoo; with Google, you just type in what you
want to find.
RKras77064
discussion to me.
I'm not a professional designer by ANY stretch of the imagination, but I do
take the responsibility of the site VERY seriously, though I feel like there
are others out there who do not. Sometimes, it seems like people think it's
"cool" to do a website, and they are into it for maybe a few months, and then
they lose interest, and the site is outdated and left to die a slow death.
I chose to do the Ahrens & Flaherty website b/c I knew that I cared enough to
do them justice. I also hate sites that are "official" but have no content! To
me, the content and a genuine interest in the subject are as important as the
design. I can often tell when the site is done by someone who has little
interest in the subject.
Lastly, I just want to say that I ALWAYS respond when someone sends me e-mail
about the site, either positive or negative. So, if you feel strongly about a
site, let the webmaster know.
Ronni
http://www.AhrensandFlaherty.com
The Ahrens & Flaherty website