I'm a graphic designer and have been musing on websites for architectural firms. I'd be interested in your input on the following very general questions:
1. Do architectural firm's websites have any real part to play in the process of hiring an architect / how could they do more?
2. What do clients need to get form an architect's site?
3. Really, what do most architects want from their site - and what should they really be doing.
4. Do architectural firms consider their website to be selling a product, a style, a process – or are the sites simply a visual back-catalogue of completed work? What would be / is most beneficial?
What are your thoughts?!
I have my own ideas on this, mostly along the lines that there's a general apathy in terms of user interaction, explanation of process, exemplifying huisstijl throughout the site, and maybe even sales.
The sales part is one area where I'm not sure about the way in which the industry usually works. I'm guessing architectural firms are approached by people who like the portfolio and have a site and a budget in mind. Would the firm benefit from guiding/moderating this kind of initial interaction?
2. Pretty pictures of projects to fantasize about their building.
3. Some want their website design to be what they think is avant garde, but they should really be thinking about usability. (See DSR)
4. I don't think that it's thought of as a product... but I don't think it's necessarily a back catalog either. It's like a digital portfolio, but each firm is different, The websites may differ based on target clients. Your a designer as well, what is the purpose of your website?
5. Archdaily wrote an article about how terrible architecture websites are. I once did a pro bono site for a firm and it was a nightmare. Architects think they're great designers no matter what and so they were trying to force over designing onto the website (they have terrible layout design in general). I'm sticking to doing strictly architecture for firms now.
6. Do I win a free website for filling out this survey?
There are definitely parallels between the way in which a design firm and an architectural firm might approach their website - but they're not all the same of course. There are design studios that are leading the way in new thinking, and doing in depth case studies – and then there are the more standard (yet still valid) here's our portfolio, here's a bit about us.
i hadn't seen that DSR site, we can certainly give them props for being bold! You're bang-on tho, there are major usability sacrifices, and that might be something that could be overlooked or seen as 'forward thinking'/avant garde if that thinking was applied throughout... but in the end it serves you a slideshow and a paragraph of text. Very much standard.
Thanks also for the link to the article - some fine points in there. Architecture is 'user' and environment centered. Architecture websites could at least help convey that the firm is thinking about this or maybe at a higher level hint at their approach to this. I assume that's what DSR were trying to do.
And I totally agree, Pro bono can be dangerous if the benefactors don't value your service. Again from the article - "call in the experts" and let them do their job.
haha no prizes, but i appreciate you sharing your point of view. You can, however, rest easy that you are helping shape the (digital) future ;) haha
May 3, 14 1:25 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.
User / Business requirements for Architect website
Hi there,
I'm a graphic designer and have been musing on websites for architectural firms. I'd be interested in your input on the following very general questions:
1. Do architectural firm's websites have any real part to play in the process of hiring an architect / how could they do more?
2. What do clients need to get form an architect's site?
3. Really, what do most architects want from their site - and what should they really be doing.
4. Do architectural firms consider their website to be selling a product, a style, a process – or are the sites simply a visual back-catalogue of completed work? What would be / is most beneficial?
What are your thoughts?!
I have my own ideas on this, mostly along the lines that there's a general apathy in terms of user interaction, explanation of process, exemplifying huisstijl throughout the site, and maybe even sales.
The sales part is one area where I'm not sure about the way in which the industry usually works. I'm guessing architectural firms are approached by people who like the portfolio and have a site and a budget in mind. Would the firm benefit from guiding/moderating this kind of initial interaction?
Cheers!
1. Yes, and other online sources like Houzz
2. Pretty pictures of projects to fantasize about their building.
3. Some want their website design to be what they think is avant garde, but they should really be thinking about usability. (See DSR)
4. I don't think that it's thought of as a product... but I don't think it's necessarily a back catalog either. It's like a digital portfolio, but each firm is different, The websites may differ based on target clients. Your a designer as well, what is the purpose of your website?
5. Archdaily wrote an article about how terrible architecture websites are. I once did a pro bono site for a firm and it was a nightmare. Architects think they're great designers no matter what and so they were trying to force over designing onto the website (they have terrible layout design in general). I'm sticking to doing strictly architecture for firms now.
6. Do I win a free website for filling out this survey?
There are definitely parallels between the way in which a design firm and an architectural firm might approach their website - but they're not all the same of course. There are design studios that are leading the way in new thinking, and doing in depth case studies – and then there are the more standard (yet still valid) here's our portfolio, here's a bit about us.
i hadn't seen that DSR site, we can certainly give them props for being bold! You're bang-on tho, there are major usability sacrifices, and that might be something that could be overlooked or seen as 'forward thinking'/avant garde if that thinking was applied throughout... but in the end it serves you a slideshow and a paragraph of text. Very much standard.
Thanks also for the link to the article - some fine points in there. Architecture is 'user' and environment centered. Architecture websites could at least help convey that the firm is thinking about this or maybe at a higher level hint at their approach to this. I assume that's what DSR were trying to do.
And I totally agree, Pro bono can be dangerous if the benefactors don't value your service. Again from the article - "call in the experts" and let them do their job.
haha no prizes, but i appreciate you sharing your point of view. You can, however, rest easy that you are helping shape the (digital) future ;) haha
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.