It is an overblown flash site. Not searchable, not internally linkable, and the images aren't repostable. By ignoring these things they're totally cutting themselves off from any larger conversation.
It is fun to play with, though.
Much respect to the work of DS+R and Pentagram, but in 2008, couldn't there be more going on than this?
This is my standard anti-flash rant, but especially given the ambitions of both these firms, it's surprising that they would choose to ignore dialog.
there is a growing number of architecture firms that are very aware of flash's limitations and therefore spend lots of time and love to a thoughtful site architecture and clever scripting (for example, to make every single page linkable with specific page URLs). very good examples are snohetta and foreign office architects.
Maybe this is why some people don't like the DS+R site, but I love how, well, how physical it is - how I can imagine it to be a set of filing cards neatly displayed in front of me. Nothing is hidden.
Snohetta's and FOA's are lovely, but I can't picture, in my head, an organization of all the parts (which is true of virtually every website). My delight in the sort of "dumb" organization of DS+R's relates, I'm sure, to how much I like the construction aspect of architecture: I like mechanical things that clearly reveal themselves.
my comment my comment was also a 'dumb'ish reaction. if something is meant to be perceived as 'physical' representation, like you suggest, and also somewhat seamless and all-available-at-once, then it shouldn't be so plump that it requires constant waits for loading on my high speed office network connection. if it requires patience in that way, it undermines any attempt at immediacy/flow/seamlessness. the truly physical is just there, not ......................ok..........almost.............
there.
in most cases it's not the information about which i'm interested that's loading and keeping me from looking at stuff, it's the information stacked up behind - the stuff that i'm not looking at - that's bogging everything down.
i do think it's fun, and i like it conceptually. but it doesn't work if it stumbles.
Oct 2, 08 8:43 am ·
·
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.
7 Comments
I want to like this site.
it's really lovely and fun to mess with.
but who's it for? it's no more user-friendly than an overblown flash site. but maybe the point it to challenge the user?
It is an overblown flash site. Not searchable, not internally linkable, and the images aren't repostable. By ignoring these things they're totally cutting themselves off from any larger conversation.
It is fun to play with, though.
Much respect to the work of DS+R and Pentagram, but in 2008, couldn't there be more going on than this?
This is my standard anti-flash rant, but especially given the ambitions of both these firms, it's surprising that they would choose to ignore dialog.
I'm onboard with disliking the limitations of Flash, but....
I love the site! It's fun to play with, and easy to waste time on, and explains each project quite well.
It's not staid. And represents DSR's work really well.
there is a growing number of architecture firms that are very aware of flash's limitations and therefore spend lots of time and love to a thoughtful site architecture and clever scripting (for example, to make every single page linkable with specific page URLs). very good examples are snohetta and foreign office architects.
Maybe this is why some people don't like the DS+R site, but I love how, well, how physical it is - how I can imagine it to be a set of filing cards neatly displayed in front of me. Nothing is hidden.
Snohetta's and FOA's are lovely, but I can't picture, in my head, an organization of all the parts (which is true of virtually every website). My delight in the sort of "dumb" organization of DS+R's relates, I'm sure, to how much I like the construction aspect of architecture: I like mechanical things that clearly reveal themselves.
my comment my comment was also a 'dumb'ish reaction. if something is meant to be perceived as 'physical' representation, like you suggest, and also somewhat seamless and all-available-at-once, then it shouldn't be so plump that it requires constant waits for loading on my high speed office network connection. if it requires patience in that way, it undermines any attempt at immediacy/flow/seamlessness. the truly physical is just there, not ......................ok..........almost.............
there.
in most cases it's not the information about which i'm interested that's loading and keeping me from looking at stuff, it's the information stacked up behind - the stuff that i'm not looking at - that's bogging everything down.
i do think it's fun, and i like it conceptually. but it doesn't work if it stumbles.
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.