Critique Please

[Tron]

I have been struggleing for 2 weeks now with a redesign of my business site. Tried many different options and ended up beating my head on the desk more than once. But I think I have finnaly come up with a winner and I would like some opinions.

Keep in mind this is a business site and not one I would use to showcase my personal stuff.

The site is not published quite yet as I still have a few pages to create, however the pages all have the same look, only different content.

Would like to know what you think - good or bad.

.

 

[MsOz]

Interesting start...

Since this is intended as a business site, here are some visual keypoints to consider.

1. The banner image is trite and ho-hum. People sitting around a conference table, which then blur-fades into a high rise skyscraper does convey business, but is ubiquitous and boring. Since the name includes "graphics and design," with the somewhat over-ambitious motto: "Web design with a new approach," you're already behind the times by presenting a duotone, mediocre photo manipulation that does absolutely NOTHING to connote anything "new," "graphic," or "design" oriented. You could just as easily substitute the words "consulting," "services," "communications," or "groups" into the name and it would be just as ineffective. If you are promoting design, then you should show design...preferably yours.

2. The color scheme of browns, oranges, and reds with grayscale backgrounds is also nondescript and dull. The buttons do not smoothly integrate with the underlying bar with the search function. They look like a cut and paste that is not well aligned, and the whole thing almost screams FrontPage Template for the page layout. Again, this is NOT "new design", nor "design" at all, really...

3. The stock photography is neither effective nor complementary to the copy, again, because of its "generic" feel. How does the smiley couple convey "A New Approach," and how does the serious gaze into the distance of the second couple convey "Service is our Keyword?" Short of your service consisting of smiling at the customer like a couple 7-11 clerks and then staring off into space to give some impression of concern, these images don't show your potential customers any reason to consider your business different or better than others out there.

4. POOR content. Your "totally new approach to the business of Web-site design and maintenance" is not only pretentious, as if no one EVER thought of that before, it is untrue and deceptive. A simple web search for "Manitoba website design and hosting" turned up the following:
www.all-net.ca/design.asp
www.manitoba-web-development.com
www.majesticpro.com
www.webworkscreations.com
All of which offer "1-Stop" custom design, hosting and maintenance. Some offer monthly rates as low as $12, Canadian, hosted. Your "amazingly low" price should be posted up front if you can compete with that.

You should do a search for "web graphics and design business," and check out what other people are doing, and how they are doing it...you will see good and bad, and a lot of plain in the middle. Just a few examples that stand out:
www.leveltendesign.com
www.mediasauce.com
www.spartaninternet.com
www.omni-visions.com
These will show you a few sites that break out of the standard WYSIGYG web-design mold.

Another site you really should visit and explore is
www.webpagesthatsuck.com
It not only shows, but explains why standard "newsletter-style" template websites don't work, along with flash-happy intros, bad color choices and canned promo blurbs.

Your site is certainly not as horrible as many others out there, but neither is it enticing or visually dynamic enough to back up the claims it is making.

Good luck on your site. It needs work, but when you make the pages fit what you are trying to promote, it should be quite interesting. Just like Photoshop, site design and creation is not as easy to master as many think...

 

[Tron]

Thanks for your comments MsOz some I agree with some not either way you have given me a lot to think about.

I looked at the links you posted (thanks for taking the time) some of them use an excessive amount of Flash, I like to stay away from Flash on a business type of site because in my area (rural) many people still use dialup connections and Flash overpowers their computers.

The stock pictures you noted are just that - stock pictures and are due to be replaced in the final product.

As for my claim of a new approach - this is not particularly true thoughout the business - of course - it's not new in LA or New York or London, but in rural Manitoba it is. I have done a fairly detailed market survey to back up this claim. Most of the web site designers in my market area have never heard of Flash, let alone PHP or MySQL. Therefore for my area it is a New Approach.

I will keep you comments in mind, and thank you again for your review and your time


Rick

 

[kiwi]

I can also add Rick take your own photos that way you are not infringing on anyones copyright with any images you may use



How about saying Web design with a new approach for Manitoba?,that way you define what you mean by new approach Rick.



Stu.

 

[Josh]

Since this is intended as a business site, here are some visual keypoints to consider.

1. The banner image is trite and ho-hum. People sitting around a conference table, which then blur-fades into a high rise skyscraper does convey business, but is ubiquitous and boring.

I agree, the conference table and skyscraper have to go.

Since the name includes "graphics and design," with the somewhat over-ambitious motto: "Web design with a new approach," you're already behind the times by presenting a duotone, mediocre photo manipulation that does absolutely NOTHING to connote anything "new," "graphic," or "design" oriented.

I don't agree with that. You can do "graphics and design" and still use duotone, there is nothing wrong with that. The color ?blue? reflects "cold", but that doesn't mean that we can't use it on a site that sells vacations to sunny destinations. What you are talking about are guidelines, but that doesn't mean that you always have to follow them!

You could just as easily substitute the words "consulting," "services," "communications," or "groups" into the name and it would be just as ineffective. If you are promoting design, then you should show design...preferably yours

I see no problem when Rick uses stock photos. Lots and lots of companies do this. It's not a written rule to avoid this.

2. The color scheme of browns, oranges, and reds with grayscale backgrounds is also nondescript and dull. The buttons do not smoothly integrate with the underlying bar with the search function. They look like a cut and paste that is not well aligned, and the whole thing almost screams FrontPage Template for the page layout. Again, this is NOT "new design", nor "design" at all, really...

That's your personal opinion. Rick has chosen a business look and there is nothing wrong with it. That Rick didn?t use any bright colors with a lot of contrast doesn?t make his site dull. I?ve seen some great designs that were done only in shades of brown or black/gray!

You know, there are customers who really don't need a flashy site to be impressed. Trust me, there are lots of companies who had bad experiences with graphic design studios and who start to ignore the colorful facades that can hide the people behind it who can?t deliver what they promise.

Also, there is nothing really substantially wrong with the buttons or colors that Rick used.

3. The stock photography is neither effective nor complementary to the copy, again, because of its "generic" feel. How does the smiley couple convey "A New Approach," and how does the serious gaze into the distance of the second couple convey "Service is our Keyword?" Short of your service consisting of smiling at the customer like a couple 7-11 clerks and then staring off into space to give some impression of concern, these images don't show your potential customers any reason to consider your business different or better than others out there.

Like I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with using stock photography, but I have to agree here, the stock photography being used doesn?t complement the site and it should.

4. POOR content. Your "totally new approach to the business of Web-site design and maintenance" is not only pretentious, as if no one EVER thought of that before, it is untrue and deceptive.

A lot of businesses prefer the eye-to-eye approach and I can imagine that a lot of his competitors don?t have their business in his area. And about being pretentious, untrue and deceptive? don?t you think that you make assumptions based on some little bits of information?

I read on Rick?s site: ?We are here to offer a totally new approach to the business of web-site design and maintenance?.
Now let?s assume that others offer the same, does that mean that his words are a lie? See, it would be a lie if he writes ?we are the only ones in Manitoba who??. There is NOTHING wrong with Rick?s words. Doing business is not like 50 years ago, the competition is strong. You have to come up with things that attract people. ?Totally new approach?? is good? there is nothing wrong with that. You can?t call it deceptive? I find that a bit harsh.

And about the web site sites you posted:

www.omni-visions.com (nice background picture, but what?s so special about this site in your opinion. It contradicts with what you said about Rick?s site)
www.spartaninternet.com (looks like a Flash version of Rick?s site, again, contradicts with what you said about Rick?s site)
www.leveltendesign.com (?Stand out from the crowd? is the slogan? inside a fish tank? sorry, that site doesn?t cut it)

http://www.mediasauce.com/ (looks good)

And about Vincent Flanders (http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/); you shouldn?t believe everything he says. Trust me, I?ve read enough articles that mentioned Flanders that convinced me that most design studios don't take him very seriously.
I give you an example. He writes on his web site: ?Web Pages That Suck -- Examples of Bad Web Design? He underlines it.
A definite no no! It?s left over from typewriter days. It used to be a code to the publisher that you would italicize that word. That?s only one thing of the list of things that is wrong on his first page in the areas of typography, graphics and design.

 

[lindaw]

Rick,

I like where you are going with this. Yes there are a million and one sites out there that all look the same with Flash and 10 graphics per page. But you have to ask yourself how many people do they actually reach? I have a T1 line and it takes time to load some of the sites out there. Also if your area/market area is mostly dialup or cable then make your site clean and make sure it loads quickly... you know the 10 second or less rule. Also not everyone has the Flash plug in and with all the bugs running around out there they don't want to download something just so they can view your entire site.

Base your site on the research you have. Yes you may pick up customers from far, far away but chances are all your business is going to come from 600 miles or less. :}