I can't think of any I'm afraid, other than my own, and it's poorly designed (I think I did the front page in word at one point) and it's got little of anything to do with architecture, though I am a student of architecture...

http://andri.haflidason.com/ - photography

oh but I like what you're saying, flash really is annoying sometimes, it also never feels like you're browsing something 'solid', or the links are tiny, or keep FLYING AROUND the bloody screen lol

good luck!

You can insert flash movies in your html website so it is easy to navigate, yet still have the coolness of flash:
http://www.hok.com

(some peple do like flash, me included)

is an html site i did for a firm a few years ago

Our website is html: http://www.piquearchitecture.com/

By using animated gif’s we were able to make the website feel a little more interactive.
We are currently setting up another site in flash though…and you are right, having a clear navigation system is key and a bit more challenging in Flash because it isn’t built with the linear process inherent in HTML.

Just a couple others to look at though:

http://www.degrezero.com/dz20/IE_NS6.html

good java script stuff

http://www.paulderuiter.nl/
mostly html with a few small flash inserts

http://www.ten-arquitectos.com/

http://www.unstudio.com/

flash does not = bad navigation. i have done a number of flash sites with very clear navigation. i wouldn't let that be the reason not to use flash.

Signal, just looked in my favourites and you are right the navigation is horrible on almost every architects' website.
Let's start with the worst one, even though Miralles is my favourite architect the website is just impossible

Lucien Kroll has no flash, the site looks like it was made before flash was even there, but it works and I like it... Lucien Kroll

Simple flash, or non-flashy-flash can be good, like onix

But well designed xhtml-based architects' websites?? I have never seen one, so it's up to you...good luck!

in my opinion one of the best architecture sites, flash or non flash

MVRDV

thanks for all your replies so far. I have nothing against flash per se, and have used it for a number of sites I've worked on. THis project, though, I want to keep it simple, as it will use a CMS and should be easily updateable by non-webgeek people.
And I feel that architects should strive to make accesible websites, it just seems a natural extension of good architectural practices.

Hate flash. Sure, I know how to download the plug-ins, etc., but a lot of people don't, and it drives people away from websites. That's just not good for business. Sometimes I think architects (and some architecture schools) design their sites so other architects will stop and look at them and think "How cool!" but you know, other architects aren't going to be your next client.

If I'm at home, and I want to buy something online, I have to use a modem still. If I go to a site that requires me to sit and wait for some flash thing to load, I leave and go somewhere I can spend my money immediately.

If I'm at work and I'm wasting someone else's time...well, that's a different story....

snjr, your argument is no different than ppl saying that modernism is bad.

flash, when executed properly, does not cause the problems you speak of. do people design poor flash sites that hit on all of your points? you bet, but just like modernism or any other genre of architecture, when it is done well, it can be very nice.

browsers today come with flash plugins as part of the app. programmers can create pages that direct users to a page that check whether your systerm has the proper version of flash without you doing a thing. if the programmer/designer is smart, they will save the file down to a lower version of flash. programmers/designers can also develop a similar page as the software detection page mentioned above that directs you to a flash page if the user has flash and if you don't, it directs you to a html page. this also does not require the user to do anything. they usually don't even know it is happening. waiting too long for a flash file to download? programming problem again. flash utilizes vectors which makes downloads extremely fast. if the download is taking to long, the programmer probably should have broken the file up into smaller files so that the download time meets similar expectation as an html page download.

e,

Nice work on the Suyama site.

nice patrick.

thx daver.

Whoa. There's a huge difference between Modernism and Flash. How can you compare an entire century of theoretical discourse and design to the implementation of a single web tool? My argument stands, I think. After working in IT in a university and corporate environment for many years, I think I can safely say that a lot of people (and I include IT people in this) overestimate the computer literacy of the majority of the world's computer users. If your goal is to be as accessible as possible to as many people as possible--and I would think any money-making enterprise would want something like that as a base goal--they need to dial back that complexity of their website.

Plus, flash designs are usually not very friendly to people who need to be able to adjust fonts and colors easily for disability reasons. And don't get me started about how flash-based websites assume everyone in every country is flash-ready.

I'm not really arguing against flash as a tool, I play a lot of flash-based games in my free time, in fact. I just think it's not the best tool for commerce-based industries like architecture.

p.s. you said "browsers today come with flash plugins as part of the app. programmers can create pages that direct users to a page that check whether your systerm has the proper version of flash without you doing a thing," but that assumes people are using the newest versions of Netscape and IE. I use Mozilla Firefox, and sometimes I hit pages that demand plug-ins that Mozilla can't seem to produce. Admittedly, these are usually non-American sites, but still, assuming everyone is operating under the same technologies is a mistake.

snjr, you missed my point. my comment was about ppl who make blanket statements as it seemed you were. as patrick said, "Worrying that some people won't have the plug-in is just nonsense—by now Flash Player is a VERY standard component to web browsers."

i fully understand your point that flash has it's place. i'm just suggesting that their are appropriate solutions to your issues such as download times and those who may not have the plug-in.

snjr=jakob nielsen?

I totally disagree with you on this one. Most architecture websites are for marketing purposes/to show your work to your potential audience. This is mostly current and future clients.

We can argue whether or not it should be this way, but most of the people hiring architects are not Joe Smith surfing your site at the public library, but wealthy individuals, companies, and corporations. To hold the interest of these people you need a visually rich, interesting website. Assuming your visitors have a certain level of web literacy or visual sophistication, is a reasonable risk depending on the type of work you produce. I think most clients want to think they're having work done by a creative, organized, and interesting firm. If flash is the best way to get this message across, use flash. If css/xhtml, works better use that.

No...I didn't miss your point. I'm sorry, but Patrick isn't correct. Case in point--I just went to look at the site he designed, and my browser, a brand new install of Firefox *did not* have the flash plug-in. I had to ask Firefox to go get it. I don't know...we spent at lot of time at the university designing universally accessible websites for the library, etc., and the first thing we had to learn was...well, everything I said above. I guess this is how I choose to design--I'm all about universal access, in buildings and on the web.

And really--don't you think there's a reason signal asked for "no flash" in the first place?

Okay, I'm off for the weekend. Play nice!

obviously, you did miss my point because i was not saying this "How can you compare an entire century of theoretical discourse and design to the implementation of a single web tool?"

I'm going to get crazy here and suggest that the reason that Architects websites have bad navigation is because, by in large, they are designed by architects, not trained graphic designers. Would you let an architect design your moment frame?

I think that is very possible that there will one day be a convergence between information traditionally displayed 2 dimensionally, and spatial experience. And certainly graphic designers expertise in conveying information will be nicely complemented by architects (I would say occasional) command of the third dimension. But that said, we are in the unfortunate moment at the beginning of any technology when people are so dazzled by the potential of a device or program that the emphasis in its use becomes on the big things that distinguish it from the old technology (motion in flash), and not on its more nuanced potentials for integrating motion and more gradated effects.

An intevitable part of the maturation of knowlege, I guess, but it would be satisfying if architects took the same consideration in the design of their websites as they profess to in the design of other peoples spaces.

Incidentally - my web browser is flash enabled, and since I have decided to cautiously embrace the 21st century, my computer accepts neither 3 1/2 nor 5 1/4" disks. For a library I can easily accept that universality trumps the will to use all the tools at ones command to convey information in the most efficient manner, but for architecture, a profession for which the clientel is almost always more sophisticated than the average member of the public, I really don't think that this sacrifice is justified.

This idea that flash is bad is simply wrong. Like any design, bad design is bad design, regardless of the medium.

Personally, I don't like HTML (although my site, that I designed, is all html - never again). HTML is slow, inconsistent (images load randomly, leaving voids all over the place - yes, I have cable/T3), and simply looks less professional than a superb flash design. Keep in mind, I am talking about great Flash sites, not flash in general.

HTML is like designing everything to fit a box. It's all preconceived, and while it's 'safe' to do (mostly because you can't get too crazy), it's also generally very boring.

We are past the spinning logos and over animated rollovers. There are still those that do it, mostly because they suck and it's easy to do (tweening it's easy to move something, actionscripting not as easy), just like there are still those that put ionic columns and arches in their designs.

I agree that most architect's sites suck. I was at Hadid's site a few days ago and just could not get it! I mean, she's probably got people lined up with talent and skills that would do it for free! Shit, I'd do one for one of her paintings ;-) !

For good flash sites (and yes, there will be some over designed ones, but in general, a great resource):

http://www.favoritewebsiteawards.com

My fav firms:

http://www.group94.com - just Flash masters
http://www.periscope.com/flash/main.asp


Good HTML site:

http://www.boora.com

Oh, the reasons most architects sites suck:

1. The won't pay a penny for it, simply cheap, and get some intern that says he knows how to 'make' a website to do it in an afternoon

2. Most architects suck

patrick, about 5 years ago i was working at frog, an industrial design and digital media firm. we often pitched ideas like you speak of to our clients. everytime the client balked at the idea of a more rich environment even for non-web based apps. while i hope such idea are in the future, i still think it will be a while before they happen.

if this were to happen, while architects may be better at this type of more spatial organization of information, i just don't see more architects doing it. i would say that all aspects of web design, in the future, will become richer. just to look at one of those points, this probably will include greater choices of fonts, and most architects i know don't have much knowledge of typography

the sites that i tend to appreciate the most, outside of discussing the content on the site, are sites with simple and clear navigation [this includes not having to go back to a previous page to move forward], clear organization of information, and sites with pages that load quickly [this includes no silly little animations that i'll have to look at for the zillionith time before i get to see the content i really want to see.

patrick, love to seem some of the stuff when it wraps. sounds exciting. i fully understand your point of target market. most important.

Flash is not searchable and it's not linkable, and these are the basic things that the web is built on. The content of Flash movies isn't read by web crawlers unless the designers add extra tags to them, and it's impossible to link to the middle of a Flash movie if that's the part that has the important stuff. Linking and searching are built into html. There's a lot of cool stuff that can be done in Flash, but your site's not gonna come up very high in searches and no one's gonna see how pretty your animation is. Flash seems better for menus and little embedded movies or games, but using it for content looks like a bad idea.

My biggest anoiance with fLash-sites is...the backbutton, I cannot help using it and then you're out of the site or have to click 20 buttons to go back where you where...AAAAaaarghhhh

is a arch flash site my bf is working on. it isn't ready yet but i think u can figure it out.
tell me what u think about it!
and rutger... you can have a flash site and use the back button (this will work for the arch site too): link .

I just finished a personal website. It has nothing to do with architecture...yet, as it is more of...well a personal website. But it was an excellent exercise. Before I started I had absolutely no idea what html even did exactly. It's got its flaws and limitations but you can tell me what you think.

theJINX.org

By the way some of these sites are first class. I'd love to do a professional website and work on ultra minimalism.

Do most of you have education in webdesign or are some of you self-taught?

765 - searching is not that big of a deal, especially for sites that are based on images. The meta tags will give the search engines all they need. The only advantage to having the entire text searchable is whne you think people will be searching it!

So for news sites, it's important, as someone will be looking for specifics. But for visually driven sites, it's not important. As for search engines, no one coming to this site will have a site the shows up anywhere near the top of an 'architecture' search. You need too many links to your site, too many this or that, just too many things for a small company to have a chance of showing up near the top. Not to mention, you aren't really going to get clients that way.

But I do know that it works. I have a 100% flash site and I just got another job from a client searching (for something more specific than just 'architecture') and it was located in my meta tags.


Imo, comparing flash to html is like comparing a beautiful, full color, glossy book to a newspaper. Sure, the newspaper will have the information, but it's messy, falls apart easily, just doens't look that good. The book, on the other hand, is rich and full featured, but sometimes (and this is just sometimes) it's more sophisticated/complicated in it's layout (graphic design is/can be about a nice presentation, not the simplest/dumbest way, a la newspaper, to present the information).

For me, I only buy books, but there is a place for newspapars ;-)

I thought meta tags weren't used by search engines much anymore. Are you talking meta description tags or something else?

I honestly am never concerned with placement on search engines, simply because it's not going to generate business and the likelyhood that anyone will make it to the top of the search is extremely unlikely, if not impossible. If someone is that concerned, they can pay for the sponsored adds.

I believe Google and others use the link system. Link pools, etc., so again, it's next to impossible to having any rankings unless you have a TON of references from other sites.

guiggster, i believe you are correct. at least about google. they no longer search by meta tags, but will search content on a page.

oana, not sure what you want us to comment on unless your beau did v2 also. if so, it took forever to load, with no preload to let me know what was going on. actually, the whole thing is kinda slow. personally, i'm not a fan of the little animations in between each click. i want information and i want it now when i'm on the web. i'm all for making it look good, but...

trace, agreed about search engines, etc. it gets back to what patrick was saying about knowing your market. personally, i'd be floored it i ever got a job as a result of google. i'm a small town boy. the best way to get work is word of mouth.

anyone have any other good ones to offer?