"Architects often want to make their websites experimental and innovative, but this easily ends up as an unnavigable site that just frustrates the visitor. Animated Flash introductions can be tedious when a visitor simply wants the office phone number. Keep it simple — concentrate on clarity of information and ease in finding it."
I really dislike flash websites. You can't bookmark or link to an individual subpage, only the stupid main page. Everything animates slowly and behaves in its own special way. I can't download images. And since Flash on OSX is rubbish the fans on my powerbook crank up.
I enjoy used my print screen button on flash sites...my own way of sticking it to the man, taking/plundering what I want for my own blog or precedent purposes. I even have a tag called flash so I know which sites I don't want to visit too much. They are irritating and the people who have them swear by them in a faux pretentious archi-superiority, they just don't get it.
Architects websites are general 10 years behind the web design curve. I could imagine many firms thinking a gabocorp site would be awesome.
"I really dislike flash websites. You can't bookmark or link to an individual subpage"
^ I am not a huge flash fan but this is about to change as Adobe just made agreements with all the browsers for bokmarking the internals of a flash site.
the flip side of this is that my boss is so worried about having a bad, trendy, or otherwise criticizable website that (so far) he just refuses to have one at all....
Most architects have bad websites because so many insist on designing it themselves. So, like most of our buildings, they are ugly and don't function well.
*I should note that this is not necessarily consistent. Hadid's site is one of the worst, but some more typical firms have great sites (like KPF).
The best websites are simple and easy to navigate. When I go to an architects website the first thing I check out is their projects. If I like what I see I look at the other stuff as well. I really don't care much about fancy animation (unless it's for some unbuilt project). Just going from one project to another on some websites is much more tedious than it should be.
I hate to be a stick in the mud but I'll throw in the Bartlett Unit 22 website. I did it over a three week period after the exhibition and, yes, it is flash.
I agree with others when they say that Flash is not always a good choice for websites. There is a definite tendancy to go too far along the arc between sanity and morphosis. (And those who use music. Bloody background music. Why?!) But it does offer some nice options that aren't available in html/css. I am in no way a flash fanboy, but I think for adding nice navigation it can be good. Clearly though, this is best used sparingly and can't prop up work that otherwise doesn't stand out.
the page turns are a little cumbersome. i think you just gave me carpal tunnel trying to "flip through" a whole issue. after a while i stopped looking at the content and started trying to bend, tear, or deface the "book," but to no avail.
second biggest pet peeve, as illustrated by the Unit 22 website: sites that don't tell you what the heck they are all about. Is it a studio within the Bartlett school? An abroad/off campus/community studio? A publication? If so, is it only for purchase on campus, or is it carried by actual shops? No clue, and the 'Information' page doesn't actually give me any information.
I love the architect websites that have royalty-free images of smiling corporate people with some slogan like: "we are committed to producing high-quality product for our clients."
nothing says you do great design like free images downloaded off the web.
Fair point rationalist, I'll be sure to add that. Really it's target audience is purely people directed to it that already know what it is. But of course this is the internet and I'll make sure it's set up for those not already informed.
People on here need to realize that most websites are not for architect's looking at other architect's work. Not that they can't be user friendly, of course, but different viewers will want different things.
A boring website, for any client, typically equates to a boring impression. You don't need Flash or trendy bs to be visually stimulating, but you do need design.
Packaging sells and describes what the overall message is (think Apple packaging and design - it sells before you've even experienced the product).
A good website should be packaging for the content - a complete presentation that presents the overall message.
web is a very new medium, i saw a few award winning web and none cares about any formal rules mentioned here...
as an old man profession, architects tend to set up rules/theory to certain medium that they dun even know how to write their language (flash for example)...
if u think architecturally, u probably end up a banal web...
one of my favourite websites, importantly that no one has really mentioned is how often the site is updated. There is always new things to find on this site as the use it is a primary communication tool
Lynch Architects takes the guess work out of typical websites. Not perfect but all information is easily accessible, and once you find a project you are interested it navigates for you. Without the use of flash I might add
also there are some architects out there experimenting with blog formats/web 2.0 with some successful outcomes. I fear sometimes architects want to treat websites too much like a design project...
Poczatek: That is the worst website I have ever had the misfortune to visit. Automatic pop up, boasting of awards before the content loads (I'm all for modesty and listing them where appropriate rather than a f*cking huge banner), and a ridiculous navigation system. And - once you're done with that - you have a pretentious, crammed homepage in the original window to annoy you. Euuurgh.
I really like the Unit 22 site though. Very elegant and focussed on content rather than style. And I love the page turning. Very slick without being overwhelming. I think it might actually increase the 'engagement' with the works as you turn the pages.
I'll accept the valid points.
I am however interested in the actual content, how we get there leaves a bit to be desired. The BIG.DK site took me away from the crap I am used to seeing. I minimize the original window, and let he pop up take over - it's a neat way to navigate through a froth of ideas (there are 85 of them) needs work, ut really, the site embodies alot of great ideas.
architect's websites suck!!
recently seen on treehugger
discuss
"Architects often want to make their websites experimental and innovative, but this easily ends up as an unnavigable site that just frustrates the visitor. Animated Flash introductions can be tedious when a visitor simply wants the office phone number. Keep it simple — concentrate on clarity of information and ease in finding it."
ha, I was reading this earlier too. I've hated Morphosis's website for years...
animated flash intros in 2008? brilliant.
I really dislike flash websites. You can't bookmark or link to an individual subpage, only the stupid main page. Everything animates slowly and behaves in its own special way. I can't download images. And since Flash on OSX is rubbish the fans on my powerbook crank up.
I enjoy used my print screen button on flash sites...my own way of sticking it to the man, taking/plundering what I want for my own blog or precedent purposes. I even have a tag called flash so I know which sites I don't want to visit too much. They are irritating and the people who have them swear by them in a faux pretentious archi-superiority, they just don't get it.
Architects websites are general 10 years behind the web design curve. I could imagine many firms thinking a gabocorp site would be awesome.
"I really dislike flash websites. You can't bookmark or link to an individual subpage"
^ I am not a huge flash fan but this is about to change as Adobe just made agreements with all the browsers for bokmarking the internals of a flash site.
the flip side of this is that my boss is so worried about having a bad, trendy, or otherwise criticizable website that (so far) he just refuses to have one at all....
That is a kin to not wearing clothes because you don't want to look fat.
Have your boss email me...I specifically cater to those who want clean and functional websites...I have been coding since 1996.
Most architects have bad websites because so many insist on designing it themselves. So, like most of our buildings, they are ugly and don't function well.
*I should note that this is not necessarily consistent. Hadid's site is one of the worst, but some more typical firms have great sites (like KPF).
HTML FTW
Been reading BD laterly? :)
Rather than all the negativity, do we have examples of websites where the architects have done it particularly well?
I've always liked Studio UN for neatness and ease of browsing their work.
Any other good examples to nosy at?
The best websites are simple and easy to navigate. When I go to an architects website the first thing I check out is their projects. If I like what I see I look at the other stuff as well. I really don't care much about fancy animation (unless it's for some unbuilt project). Just going from one project to another on some websites is much more tedious than it should be.
I hate to be a stick in the mud but I'll throw in the Bartlett Unit 22 website. I did it over a three week period after the exhibition and, yes, it is flash.
I agree with others when they say that Flash is not always a good choice for websites. There is a definite tendancy to go too far along the arc between sanity and morphosis. (And those who use music. Bloody background music. Why?!) But it does offer some nice options that aren't available in html/css. I am in no way a flash fanboy, but I think for adding nice navigation it can be good. Clearly though, this is best used sparingly and can't prop up work that otherwise doesn't stand out.
*awaits flaming for posting a flash website*
the page turns are a little cumbersome. i think you just gave me carpal tunnel trying to "flip through" a whole issue. after a while i stopped looking at the content and started trying to bend, tear, or deface the "book," but to no avail.
nice site and ok navigation but takes too long to load with my high-speed connection.
second biggest pet peeve, as illustrated by the Unit 22 website: sites that don't tell you what the heck they are all about. Is it a studio within the Bartlett school? An abroad/off campus/community studio? A publication? If so, is it only for purchase on campus, or is it carried by actual shops? No clue, and the 'Information' page doesn't actually give me any information.
I love the architect websites that have royalty-free images of smiling corporate people with some slogan like: "we are committed to producing high-quality product for our clients."
nothing says you do great design like free images downloaded off the web.
Fair point rationalist, I'll be sure to add that. Really it's target audience is purely people directed to it that already know what it is. But of course this is the internet and I'll make sure it's set up for those not already informed.
I'm so glad morphosis doesn't run teh intarwebz then.
Enjoy. Not all are great, but I tried to avoid the ugly ones.
HTML:
http://www.boora.com/
http://www.fosterandpartners.com
http://www.hopkins.co.uk/
http://www.klein-dytham.com/
http://www.brpae.com
http://www.stevenholl.com/
http://www.shigerubanarchitects.com/
http://www.oskaarchitects.com/
http://www.patkau.ca/
Flash:
http://www.brianhealyarchitects.com/
http://www.cbtarchitects.com
http://www.destefanoandpartners.com/
http://www.dunwoodie-architectureanddesign.co.uk
http://www.helfandarch.com/
http://www.kliment-halsband.com/
http://www.kollektief.be/
http://www.kondylisdesign.com/
http://www.kpf.com
http://www.manhattanloft.co.uk
http://www.messanaororke.com/
http://www.msafdie.com/
http://www.noxarch.com
http://www.oma.nl/
http://www.pugh-scarpa.com
http://www.shoparc.com/
http://www.charlesrosearchitects.com
http://www.behnisch.com/
http://www.tschumi.com/
http://www.akkree.com/
http://www.b3studio.com
http://www.bokapowell.com
http://rpbw.r.ui-pro.com/
http://www.rgarchitecture.com/rga.html
http://www.robinellis.co.uk
http://www.steinbergarchitects.com/
http://www.waremalcomb.com
http://www.wilkinsoneyre.com
http://www.snoarc.no/#/main/
http://www.ten-arquitectos.com/
http://www.twbta.com/
http://www.calatrava.com/main.htm
http://www.jcba.com.au/
http://www.mjneal.com
People on here need to realize that most websites are not for architect's looking at other architect's work. Not that they can't be user friendly, of course, but different viewers will want different things.
A boring website, for any client, typically equates to a boring impression. You don't need Flash or trendy bs to be visually stimulating, but you do need design.
Packaging sells and describes what the overall message is (think Apple packaging and design - it sells before you've even experienced the product).
A good website should be packaging for the content - a complete presentation that presents the overall message.
i think the same can be said for architecture who think they can format and edit their own books. BIG MISTAKE.
nice list, trace. steven holl architects have a clean layout.
web is a very new medium, i saw a few award winning web and none cares about any formal rules mentioned here...
as an old man profession, architects tend to set up rules/theory to certain medium that they dun even know how to write their language (flash for example)...
if u think architecturally, u probably end up a banal web...
this one for example!
http://www.nagaoka-id.ac.jp/gallery/gallery.html
the award winning one.
one of my favourite websites, importantly that no one has really mentioned is how often the site is updated. There is always new things to find on this site as the use it is a primary communication tool
Lynch Architects takes the guess work out of typical websites. Not perfect but all information is easily accessible, and once you find a project you are interested it navigates for you. Without the use of flash I might add
also there are some architects out there experimenting with blog formats/web 2.0 with some successful outcomes. I fear sometimes architects want to treat websites too much like a design project...
think less on graphic, more on navigation system, afterall is more architectural rite?
This one doesn't suck: BIG.DK
yes it does. it automatically opens a new browser window and then forces it to resize. i hate that.
Poczatek: That is the worst website I have ever had the misfortune to visit. Automatic pop up, boasting of awards before the content loads (I'm all for modesty and listing them where appropriate rather than a f*cking huge banner), and a ridiculous navigation system. And - once you're done with that - you have a pretentious, crammed homepage in the original window to annoy you. Euuurgh.
I really like the Unit 22 site though. Very elegant and focussed on content rather than style. And I love the page turning. Very slick without being overwhelming. I think it might actually increase the 'engagement' with the works as you turn the pages.
I'll accept the valid points.
I am however interested in the actual content, how we get there leaves a bit to be desired. The BIG.DK site took me away from the crap I am used to seeing. I minimize the original window, and let he pop up take over - it's a neat way to navigate through a froth of ideas (there are 85 of them) needs work, ut really, the site embodies alot of great ideas.
I once knew a guy who would break wind into a bottle - does that count?
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.