1 Very sound advice…

I have to agree – any website that does not have a purpose is always going to run into problems, usually as soon as the design is finished and we realise “Damn, we have to put content in this!�. It’s a problem I’ve seen happen again and again, now I have somewhere to direct clients to. :-)

posted at 01:23 am on October 11, 2005 by Blake haswell

2 Untitled

Haha… bet that’s the last time you get invited anywhere ;)

Great advice, though. Happens here all the time as well. There is nothing more difficult than building a site that lacks focus, content, and purpose. The president of our company (in Japan) once asked me to build a website dedicated to his dog. :(

posted at 02:39 am on October 11, 2005 by Adam A

3 Well Said

I work for an internet marketing firm designing and developing e-commerce sites for small businesses. I think just about anyone in the company will agree that the biggest reason that a site will fail (and it does happen) is a tremendous lack of focus on the client’s part. Fortunately, most of our customers are retailers with a built-in purpose for having a site in the first place, but in many instances they require a great deal of guidance from us about how to position themselves and focus the main purpose of the site. And even then, some will fail because they’re simply not prepared for the amount of work required to do business effectively online and keep the site relevant. People need to realize that just having a website isn’t a magic gateway to instant riches.

posted at 08:26 am on October 11, 2005 by Alexander Burr

5 The correct title and author...

FYI, it’s David Siegel, and “Secrets of Successful Websites”.

http://www.secretsites.com/classic/index.html

Don’t worry, Amazon got it wrong, too:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1568303823/102-2859693-3100903?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance&tagActionCode=killersitesco-20

posted at 10:48 am on October 11, 2005 by Buzz Mo

6 Untitled

A very nice article, particularly so because it emphasizes how important it is for designers to be able to write. The nice thing about this approach is that you don’t have to be Fitzgerald to write a strategy; as you explain it, Greg, anyone can do it. But it does drive the point home that a designer who is able to articulate her intent in words has an inherent advantage in realizing a creative vision.

posted at 11:44 am on October 11, 2005 by Khoi Vinh

7 Hmmm...

No offense to the author, but could you have picked a worse example to illustrate your point? What is the point of building a fan site for this bank president dedicated to his cars, you ask? There is none, obviously. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have wanted it, the designers shouldn’t have designed it and that it was an idea so ridiculous that the world would have been better had it never been imagined.

Get over yourself. Frankly it’s kind of embarrassing to read your article and see you taking the whole situation so seriously that you can’t look past your rigid set of practices, rules and preconceived notions of what a project should be to allow for a site that will be:

• fun for the client

• fun for the designers

Where is it written that every site in the internet has to be goals-oriented with some sort of appealing mainstream purpose? Where is it written that a guy with money to burn can’t burn it on a personal site that has significant meaning to him, although maybe not to anyone else? Where is it written that if designers are excited about a project with no “purpose” it must be because they’re interested in the money?

I doubt you’d come here and berate someone who wanted a website to show off the photographs they take around town, but you criticize the client in this piece because he was passionate about something (his cars) and wanted a site devoted to that passion. Was it that, being a middle-aged bank president, he wasn’t cool enough to have his own website in your opinion? Was it because you didn’t share his passion? Do you think you’re a good designer if you’re unable to look past those objections? I don’t.

Frankly I’m surprised you were invited along to that meeting because you seem incapable of looking at a project in its context rather than looking at it in the narrow light your experience (which based on your article comes across as being terribly limited and one-dimensional).

Way to rain on everyone’s parade because YOU don’t get it. Which isn’t to say you should have just kept your mouth shut and not spoken up. But you’re so self-congratulatory about how you saw the imagined farce for what it really was while no one else did.

Honestly, after reading the article I think the joke was on you. Having read the blog at Airbag, I never would have guessed you had so little desire to be involved in anything that was driven by passion rather than logic (or to even allow for such a thing). You must spend all day designing insurance adjustment systems or some sort of horribly bland and market-driven work to be so pessimistic about an offbeat, creative project.

I hope, for all of our sakes, you’re never again privy to the creative discussions of a project that doesn’t fit inside a corporate box.

I’m not saying your opinion is wrong. You wrote an editorial and you’re welcome to do so. Your main point is very valid, but your anecdotal evidence to support your theory is where it falls apart.

posted at 11:51 am on October 11, 2005 by Will Henderson

9 Maybe Tuesday is your Monday

Will:

I’m confused by your rant, which seems to have come out of left field. It seems to me that maybe you awoke this morning just wanting to pick a fight. I mean, yeah, it’s been raining here for the last 4 days and I’m grumpy as hell, but let’s reattach our heads to our necks. Why are you so angry?

The entire point of the article was to set forth a strategy or best practice. You really shouldn’t get caught up on the example given in the beginning, as it was really just used to make a point. Maybe you should reread the article and not focus so much on the beginning, the real meat is further down.

Also, just because there are methods and best practices in place does not mean it lacks passion, spontaneity or imagination. Anyone that has worked in a corporate environment knows that both need to come into play and the trick is in how to strike a balance.

posted at 12:27 pm on October 11, 2005 by Ryan Irelan

10 RE: Hmmm...

I’m not saying your opinion is wrong. You wrote an editorial and you’re welcome to do so.

Actually Will, that’s exactly what it sounds like you are saying, in lengthy, demeaning detail. Please don’t attack Greg for his opinions or insult him directly. Criticize his points and the arguments his article brings up, but don’t make it personal. The only thing you will accomplish is everyone writing off your opinions.

posted at 01:06 pm on October 11, 2005 by Meryl K. Evans

Discussion Closed

New comments are not being accepted, but you are welcome to explore what people said before we closed the door.

Got something to say?

Discuss this article. We reserve the right to delete flames, trolls, and wood nymphs.

Create a new account or sign in below if you’d like to leave a comment.

Forgot your password?

Subscribe to this article's comments: RSS (what’s this?)