I could seriously list 15-20 architecture firms - at the very, very least - who we've decided not to cover at the magazine where I work simply because their websites are so unbelievably ridiculous that you cannot find even a single piece of information about anything that resembles an architectural project. You sort of look at the screen for about 10 seconds - and it's doing something or other - maybe it's flashing or something - before you just click away, irritated, looking for other architecture firms to cover.

I don't know whether that says something condemnatory and awful about editorial practices today - I'm sure it does, to be frank - or if it really just goes to show how shit websites can wreck your chances of media exposure. Sometimes I really want to call people up and tell them that they were almost featured in a certain design magazine... but, whoops, your website is so incomprehensible that it seems to challenge the very idea of inter-personal communication, and so we won't be covering your work now or at any given time in the distant future... sorry.

So could you bill your web designers for lost future revenues based on clients who never saw your work - and thus never hired you - because your projects weren't covered by any magazines, because those magazines didn't understand how to use your website? I sense a new class of legal action here.

[edit] where I've decided not apply for a job [edit] simply because their websites are so unbelievably ridiculous that you cannot find even a single piece of information about anything that resembles an architectural project.

There was a point in web design around 1999 when complexity took over. Everything was so goddamn complex, it was like a puzzle—i.e. the Morphosis website. But no one has any patience anymore.

Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity.

wow that jones partners website almost made me angry. call me old fashioned but some of the designers of some of these flash websites need to understand that i'm not looking to be entertained. all i want is just the information.

yeah, I like simple sites. as bossman said, people want information. they want clear navigation. they don't need to be challenged about how to find the content that they seek.

Architects can be some horrible clients, imho, at least in my experience. They will explain how they respect your creative talent and guidance, but in the end insist on complete control.

I'd be much more in favor of blaming architects that #1 design their own sites, in house, by hiring an arch intern that happens to have read a tutorial on Flash or Dreamweaver or #2 that insist on complete control of the creativity/functionality.

I was in a fairly well-known office once. We hired a well-known web design firm. They designed an incredible, intuitive, beautiful site.

The boss rejected it—he said something about wanting it to be work or a puzzle to use the site. They redesigned it. Now it's confusing, difficult to use, and difficult to find images on. Success!