Cameron - true, but don't count out all modem users yet. I believe (sorry I can't find my supporting evidence..my dog ate it?) that nearly half of internet users are still on some sort of limited modem connection. Most coders still go by the old 56/28.8 rules for webdesign. Not saying that all do, or that we should, just that the programmers I've worked for were very concious of that idea. Untill broadband is ubiquitous around the world it may be good to be aware of the bandwidth issue. (if not for the clients then for your own sake)
Steve - your right, I stand my the second part of my post that smaller images make it easier to mascarade a bad project as a good one.
Perhaps it has to do with flash embedding and general laziness as well? I know embedding even 20K files within a flash movie (which many arch firms sites are becoming) makes the whole thing that much harder to load. Of course, they could just load all images externally but..............
there are lots of big images on my website, and more are available via email if you are interested by our website. pls see our website: www.cq3dstudio.com
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
This is getting ridiculous. My developing disquiet is pacified by the fact that the link by cqstudio doesn’t even work on Firefox. Class.
Ah now I see in explorer. The loading screen with the crosshairs are now playing with my brain. Is that the view from a sniper rifle? I await the appearance of the Principal – then slowly squeeze the trigger and – BANG.
It also gives away the designs. I contacted Paul a long time ago about the tiny images on Pugh + Scarpa's site and he said that they requested them to be small, presumably to keep people from having printable images. Morphosis has absurdly tiny images, too, but I can see why they'd care - eventually it'll be a book.
I agree, though, it's silly and it sucks.
Steve - that 800x600 much not have much color in it, 'cause that's incredibly tiny! My optomized images at 8", something like 568px, are an average of 30-60kbs, about 70-100kbs at 800px. That's an average of my entire portfolio, more or less.
My big pet peeve: Firms' websites that force me to sit there while some elaborate Flash animation loads up and plays, when I'm trying to send out materials on a tight deadline and all I'm looking for is a street address and/or fax number. IMO, that information should be on the very first page and should be something that can be copied and pasted (i.e., not buried within the animation).
It also galls me when firms use some illegible font face on their site in an effort to be trendy and cool. I have 20/20 vision (no fancy architect glasses for me so far) and a large monitor, but I still find it impossible to read the information on some sites.
If I were a potential client, I'd be thinking that if these firms design buildings as badly as they design websites, I'd want to do my business with another firm.
architects want their websites to bring clients to them, in person, so the website should provide just enough visual information to get potential clients wanting more. an optimized website image at 72dpi will never look as good as a hard print image so don't let the website do all the work. an architect's website should be a tool that helps facilitate a personal connection with employees, clients, publications, etc.
some of our clients (architects) have had problems in the past with publications snagging images directly off the website to use in articles. when the images are dropped in size jouranlists are forced to contact the architects for hi-res images.
paul,
isn't that a pretty clear copyright infringment, or do they not have to seek permission but just give credit?
Aug 13, 05 12:46 pm ·
·
I believe using images in conjunction with (writing) a review is considered fair use under copyright law. This is similar to the statue that makes parody a fair use.
is it even a big deal? outside of peaved students wanting big pictures
to swipe for projects/reports. small pics are fine for getting the general project ideas across....and i don't know of anyone who has secured clients from their web page.
The web page is so you can have a tool to weed out clients who don't fit well with your design methods, (the people who call from finding you in the yellow pages/aia website/etc..) we always tell people, 'look at what we've done, and see if that interests you, if not we are not the right firm for you'. saves everyone time/wasted energy.
besides, the web site isn't supposed to be a monograph,
that's what the bookstore is for, right?
Aug 13, 05 1:00 pm ·
·
The reality is that (architecture) websites can be whatever you want them to be.
paul hit the nail on the head. my clients also requested smaller images on their site. big enough to tease them so that they would be intrigued enough to pick up the phone and set up a face to face interview. the power of persuasion can be so much greater when you are sitting across the table from someone.
20k JPG = 50% compression with maximum smoothing in Fireworks, which is typically the best application to save JPGs for the web :)
Full-color, print-ready PDFs with some sample construction documents in AutoCAD to check out their CAD standards and general organization is the least I'd expect as a client ;)
steve - i disagree. most of our client's clients don't even know what CAD is. perhaps you're referring to what a contractor is looking for in an architect's website, which is a valid concern for a password-protected intranet site.
Paul, I was making light of what "should" be on a website, if a client was as informed as some of us that have worked for firms... hence the *wink* or ;) And, I was specifically referring to me being the client.
there is no doubt that the thinking behind the small images are those mentioned above but id say its a mistake. One would assume that the website is there to make an impression. Large images must be the best way to convey generosity, even when the projects arent that great. Architecture doesnt work very well in tiny representation, it just feels mean.
compare:
Playing hard to get isn't really a great strategy. I'd say there should be hi-res images available for download as well. Journalists are lazy and hate calling people for basic info, they will like you if you make their life easy, and so will clients. (oma is really suffering finding clients with those tiny images ;)
regarding modem users. thats what thumbnails are for.
Aug 15, 05 5:39 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
why do architecture firm's websites always have tiny pics of projects?
seems a lot of them have pathetically small thumbnails and not many large pics
Large pics = larger file size
larger file size = eliminating 56k modem users (still a majority)
eliminating 56k users = fewer clients
fewer clients = less money
less money = no website
That and it makes it easier for bad projects to look good. :D
if your prospective client is still on 56K dialup you are in real trouble...
a proper 800x600 jpg at 60% is less than 20k!!!! I agree with Kai!
Cameron - true, but don't count out all modem users yet. I believe (sorry I can't find my supporting evidence..my dog ate it?) that nearly half of internet users are still on some sort of limited modem connection. Most coders still go by the old 56/28.8 rules for webdesign. Not saying that all do, or that we should, just that the programmers I've worked for were very concious of that idea. Untill broadband is ubiquitous around the world it may be good to be aware of the bandwidth issue. (if not for the clients then for your own sake)
Steve - your right, I stand my the second part of my post that smaller images make it easier to mascarade a bad project as a good one.
Perhaps it has to do with flash embedding and general laziness as well? I know embedding even 20K files within a flash movie (which many arch firms sites are becoming) makes the whole thing that much harder to load. Of course, they could just load all images externally but..............
there are lots of big images on my website, and more are available via email if you are interested by our website. pls see our website:
www.cq3dstudio.com
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
This is getting ridiculous. My developing disquiet is pacified by the fact that the link by cqstudio doesn’t even work on Firefox. Class.
Ah now I see in explorer. The loading screen with the crosshairs are now playing with my brain. Is that the view from a sniper rifle? I await the appearance of the Principal – then slowly squeeze the trigger and – BANG.
Small gfx, small text. I guess somebody's bound to say "It's not the size that matters."
And, it genreally isn't file size. It's just plain easier to hide detail when
the pic is tiny. Archts hate criticism.
It also gives away the designs. I contacted Paul a long time ago about the tiny images on Pugh + Scarpa's site and he said that they requested them to be small, presumably to keep people from having printable images. Morphosis has absurdly tiny images, too, but I can see why they'd care - eventually it'll be a book.
I agree, though, it's silly and it sucks.
Steve - that 800x600 much not have much color in it, 'cause that's incredibly tiny! My optomized images at 8", something like 568px, are an average of 30-60kbs, about 70-100kbs at 800px. That's an average of my entire portfolio, more or less.
They don't want to blow their wad before meeting with potential clients.
My big pet peeve: Firms' websites that force me to sit there while some elaborate Flash animation loads up and plays, when I'm trying to send out materials on a tight deadline and all I'm looking for is a street address and/or fax number. IMO, that information should be on the very first page and should be something that can be copied and pasted (i.e., not buried within the animation).
It also galls me when firms use some illegible font face on their site in an effort to be trendy and cool. I have 20/20 vision (no fancy architect glasses for me so far) and a large monitor, but I still find it impossible to read the information on some sites.
If I were a potential client, I'd be thinking that if these firms design buildings as badly as they design websites, I'd want to do my business with another firm.
architects want their websites to bring clients to them, in person, so the website should provide just enough visual information to get potential clients wanting more. an optimized website image at 72dpi will never look as good as a hard print image so don't let the website do all the work. an architect's website should be a tool that helps facilitate a personal connection with employees, clients, publications, etc.
some of our clients (architects) have had problems in the past with publications snagging images directly off the website to use in articles. when the images are dropped in size jouranlists are forced to contact the architects for hi-res images.
paul,
isn't that a pretty clear copyright infringment, or do they not have to seek permission but just give credit?
I believe using images in conjunction with (writing) a review is considered fair use under copyright law. This is similar to the statue that makes parody a fair use.
is it even a big deal? outside of peaved students wanting big pictures
to swipe for projects/reports. small pics are fine for getting the general project ideas across....and i don't know of anyone who has secured clients from their web page.
The web page is so you can have a tool to weed out clients who don't fit well with your design methods, (the people who call from finding you in the yellow pages/aia website/etc..) we always tell people, 'look at what we've done, and see if that interests you, if not we are not the right firm for you'. saves everyone time/wasted energy.
besides, the web site isn't supposed to be a monograph,
that's what the bookstore is for, right?
The reality is that (architecture) websites can be whatever you want them to be.
paul hit the nail on the head. my clients also requested smaller images on their site. big enough to tease them so that they would be intrigued enough to pick up the phone and set up a face to face interview. the power of persuasion can be so much greater when you are sitting across the table from someone.
20k JPG = 50% compression with maximum smoothing in Fireworks, which is typically the best application to save JPGs for the web :)
Full-color, print-ready PDFs with some sample construction documents in AutoCAD to check out their CAD standards and general organization is the least I'd expect as a client ;)
steve - i disagree. most of our client's clients don't even know what CAD is. perhaps you're referring to what a contractor is looking for in an architect's website, which is a valid concern for a password-protected intranet site.
Paul, I was making light of what "should" be on a website, if a client was as informed as some of us that have worked for firms... hence the *wink* or ;) And, I was specifically referring to me being the client.
ahh.. i see. i tend to be emoticon impaired sometimes. congrats on the "emerging professional" select by the way.
Ah, thank you. Just had another baby last Friday, too :) I hope to represent my views at the conference in a way that infuses change.
there is no doubt that the thinking behind the small images are those mentioned above but id say its a mistake. One would assume that the website is there to make an impression. Large images must be the best way to convey generosity, even when the projects arent that great. Architecture doesnt work very well in tiny representation, it just feels mean.
compare:
OMA
holl
satan ;)
Playing hard to get isn't really a great strategy. I'd say there should be hi-res images available for download as well. Journalists are lazy and hate calling people for basic info, they will like you if you make their life easy, and so will clients. (oma is really suffering finding clients with those tiny images ;)
regarding modem users. thats what thumbnails are for.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.