Comments on: Incredible Web Design

Incredible Web Design

BlueTrain — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:52:44 -0800

MCCXIII is an excellent club in DC. But the reason I link their site is because I am in absolute awe of their web design.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:53:27 -0800

AAAUGH it made sound!!!

By: bk

bk — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:56:45 -0800

Please be joking. Please?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:00:07 -0800

it made jerky, chopped up, annoying sound, unable to keep up with it's own bandwidth demands, even on my screamingly fast cable modem. so, um, you were in awe of the poor design, right?

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:11:03 -0800

Same here. Irritating graphics, mid-90s design, stuttering sound (old hip hop) and no apparent purpose. Not to mention the groaning "loading", despite my ultra-quick connection. Is there perchance something we're missing?

By: crunchburger

crunchburger — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:12:50 -0800

"background.gif" downloaded in 12 seconds on my DSL. While I was waiting for the audio, I checked out a popup - can't wait to have a drink at Club 1223/Spank, and try the food at the Tequila Lounge or the Sign of the Whale. Are these guys laundering cash receipts through a web design company?

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:17:13 -0800

About 5 minutes ago, the site was fine. Apparently quonsar is correct: they're unable to keep up with their own bandwidth demands. I enjoyed the interactivity, as opposed to the flat screen you see with most web sites. This site seemed to be well-designed considering their audience. Ah well. Perhaps they'll wake up tomorrow and realize to increase their capabilities.

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:27:44 -0800

There's no way I can respond fully without dragging this into MeTa (which I'm not stupid enough to do), really, so let me just add my voice to those that think this is a waste of time.

By: nicwolff

nicwolff — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:43:07 -0800

And you misspelled MCCXXIII. I only wish you'd linked to www.1213.com - now that's an excellent Web page.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:45:39 -0800

Peter Blinkhorn r0x0rz.

By: juv3nal

juv3nal — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:54:20 -0800

from what i can see, the site looks like a bad knockoff of these guys.

By: dg

dg — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:55:24 -0800

*wonders if he has blundered into bizarroMetaFilter* Blue Train, it looks like it could be a killer site if it actually worked, but I guess you killed it by bringing it to MeFi. MetaFilter: killing the web, one site at a time.

By: tbc

tbc — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:57:25 -0800

It sucks.

By: RubberHen

RubberHen — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:16:19 -0800

I was unimpressed, and yet was pleased to read all of the things I had been thinking at the time I tried to look at it...after...when I read the MEFI comments. MeFi works in strange ways. I would not go to that club.

By: badzen

badzen — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:38:19 -0800

sorry crap 2advanced style stuff (probably what they requested) hell, I've even delved into that (at client request) want to see good design, try these hellomuller praystation elixirstudio magnetstudio then again, i'm not technically a webdesigner anymore, so what the fruck do i know

By: dg

dg — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:54:36 -0800

I guess good design is in the eye of the beholder. Besides, if if want my browser to change size, I will fucking well change it myself - is there some technical reason why these flash sites have to un-mazimize the browser to display, or are the designers just being arseholes?

By: skallas

skallas — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:58:43 -0800

Must. Kill. Bad. Flash. Site.

By: phyrewerx

phyrewerx — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:23:50 -0800

On the flip side, I hope we can talk about what's good with flash design. I just had to bow down to my client and made an animated intro movie because they wanted moving pictures. I like to submit to the mefi community some of my favourite and elegantly designed flash sites. phong.com mikworks.com and rad-e8.com (Yes they are mostly desktop customization sites, no I'm not shilling blue pepsi)

By: jontyjago

jontyjago — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:37:15 -0800

People tend to find splash screen sites (skip intro... ) sites frustrating. Yet two of the sites given above have a static intro screen with one image that you have to click on to get to the main site. Why? This type of design is not practical nor well thought out. At least a splash screen movie can contain some information, whereas a 20x20 pixel gif tells me nothing. The sites in question may be well designed but I didn't bother clicking through to see...

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:02:08 -0800

Ryvar: There's no way I can respond fully without dragging this into MeTa (which I'm not stupid enough to do), really, so let me just add my voice to those that think this is a waste of time. Meta.

By: luckyclone

luckyclone — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:18:33 -0800

wednesday is black people night! and on international night they play 'tri pop!'

By: Summer

Summer — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 02:41:24 -0800

"A 20% gratuity will be added to all tables." Fucking hell.

By: sic

sic — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 02:50:39 -0800

Besides, if if want my browser to change size, I will fucking well change it myself You can also use Mozilla, which gives you the option to deny resizing, pop-ups and other javascript silliness as you see fit. It also has an endless variety of open source extensions, including ones that block ads and flash movies for you, or at your whim. It's also very high in fiber. /advertisement

By: dg

dg — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:22:34 -0800

Mozilla/Firebird (I use Firebird) blocks browser resizing except when asked to do so by flash sites, for some reason. Maybe that makes it seem worse, not being used to that sort of behaviour.

By: i_cola

i_cola — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:24:11 -0800

blunt74?

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 05:08:28 -0800

3 cardinal sins right off the top: popup window, noise, slow loading flash thingee. I didn't wait to see the rest of the site: my first reaction was Get me outta here, now. I wouldn't like this even if the bandwidth were adequate. I do question this post, particularly as there are hundreds of sites like this out there... I don't claim to be a web designer, but often less is more, as they say.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 06:16:22 -0800

It's funny how people have different tastes in website design, just like they do in everything else, isn't it? Though they do tend to get a bit more patronizing and intolerant than about most things. Insecurity, innate arrogance, or both? People who browse with their browsers maximized are scary. I love to ridicule them mercilessly.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 06:47:18 -0800

I think my first problem was with the opening line of this post: MCCXIII is an excellent club in DC. I suppose its excellent if you like standing in line for hours to be herded beyond the velvet rope by two beefy swarthy, "turkish mafia" types into a crowded, smokey, overpriced shit hole filled with obnoxious pricks who drone on about how they and their (insert daddy's boy school here) frat buddies banged out some "slut" on their ski trip to Vermont last December and their Bebe clad anorexic sorostitute girlfriends suck down $18 red bull and vodkas, all the while being pound fucked by the most obnoxious "club" shite music. But hey, I guess everybody's got their own opinion of what's "excellent," mine tends to stray far from any of those "velvet rope" crap holes on 18th and Connecticut and more towards a place where I can get a $1.50 Schlitz in a can served by a one armed bull dyke who doesn't even take the cigarette out of her mouth to eat.

By: ashbury

ashbury — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 06:53:53 -0800

I clicked the link and nothing happened. I went away and forgot about it, leaving the window open by accident. I shit you not, 20 minutes later something started making noise. I searched thru the various windows and tabs I had open and voila! MCCXXIII doing something mildly interesting and flash-like. It wasn't worth the wait.

By: cratchit

cratchit — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 06:55:48 -0800

[spits orange juice over keyboard] Geez, thanks a lot, Pollomacho. :)

By: Dagobert

Dagobert — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 07:19:05 -0800

Hate much?

By: Robot Johnny

Robot Johnny — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 07:25:07 -0800

"You have chosen.... poorly." How paradoxical -- it sucks and blows at the same time.

By: NortonDC

NortonDC — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 07:30:18 -0800

dg, I'm using Firebird, and this site loaded into the default window for me.

By: jopreacher

jopreacher — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 07:32:22 -0800

I have to say, hell is other people. More to the point, hell is web design clients. These are the people who want flash, splash pages, and music but care nothing for content or the capabilities of those who visit their pages. And since they pay our bills, we as designers do what they want. Is this an excuse for impossible navigation and complete lack of content? No. But form over function is rampant everywhere. I think one of the best websites for aesthetics, ease of use, and simplicity of design can be found here.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 07:32:32 -0800

All right, all right, to be fair, I just don't much like that sort of establishment, obviously many people do, people that are far more fashionable and popular than I could ever hope to become.

By: Dagobert

Dagobert — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 07:44:21 -0800

Snark much?

By: RubberHen

RubberHen — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 07:55:21 -0800

Very funny Pollomacho. Wow - Schlitz!

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 07:58:36 -0800

I'm serious. Them. Me.

By: Dagobert

Dagobert — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 08:12:05 -0800

In that case, might I recommend The Tune Inn? No idea about the sexuality of the waitresses but damn fine burgers and beer? Them they gots.

By: Summer

Summer — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 08:45:17 -0800

I'm serious. Them. Me. Personally I like clubs that attract a different kind of clientelle altogether.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:00:06 -0800

coffee...monitor...splurt...metaphorically, o'course I can get a $1.50 Schlitz in a can served by a one armed bull dyke who doesn't even take the cigarette out of her mouth to eat. It's unhealthy...beer so cheap. Won't somebody think of the livers?!!?

By: i_cola

i_cola — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:01:52 -0800

Heh...I know one of your performers Summer...

By: i_cola

i_cola — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:15:48 -0800

...in fact I think I know more than a few!

By: Summer

Summer — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:19:42 -0800

One of them might be me i_cola

By: i_cola

i_cola — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:58:21 -0800

You know anyone @ TG? Or any Australians who wander 'round sticking sharp things in themselves?

By: Summer

Summer — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:11:51 -0800

Can't say I do, i_cola. *backs away slowly*

By: SuzySmith

SuzySmith — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:19:27 -0800

Pollomacho, If you ever venture about 65 miles south, I'll take you to a real bar. It's small, it's dark, it has cheap drinks. It's my favorite bar on the planet.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 12:37:01 -0800

ugly stupid boring slow

By: elwoodwiles

elwoodwiles — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:08:52 -0800

A buddy of mine is a flash developer and we have this back and forth about the usefulness of flash on any level. I can't think of any reason a website should use flash for any reason other than amusing cartoons. He insists on using flash as the actual interface. Is there any good reason do use flash at all?

By: fnirt

fnirt — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:54:08 -0800

elwoodwiles: Make the project take longer?

By: dg

dg — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 15:03:28 -0800

I have often wondered about the thinking that leads to people using flash for an entire site and figure it must be one of the following: 1. Paranoia about evil visitors stealing the content and the belief that content cannot be copied from a flash site; 2. Paranoia about making sure that the site displays exactly as the designer intended, without having to do the work to allow for different browsers etc; 3. A deliberate attempt to avoid the site being indexed by search engines. None of the above makes sense to me, but they are the only reasons I could imagine. NortonDC, The site loads into the window I want it to, but it resizes the browser (only if it is maximized) to slightly smaller than full-screen. If it is anything other than maximized, it leaves it alone.

By: dg

dg — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 15:05:22 -0800

Oh and I revisited the site today, when I figured the bandwidth demands would have dropped and it is still pretty slow, even on a 2Mb connection. I like the design (given the intended audience), but the functionality leaves me cold.

By: majick

majick — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 17:31:07 -0800

It's not really "web design" if it's just one big honkin SWF. Big strange binaries over HTTP does not the web make. At that point, you might as well just put up an ftp server with a zip file full of PDFs and call it a "web site."

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:39:44 -0800

Korean designers consistently use flash in appealing and useful ways (and sometimes in jarring and annoying ways, it must be said). Google up some Korean corporate or shopping sites (of which there are a multitude) to see it done right. It's rare to see Flash done well (barring arty stuff) outside of Korean sites. IMHO.

By: NortonDC

NortonDC — Thu, 09 Oct 2003 21:06:58 -0800

Well, dg, here's what I'm running: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030728 Mozilla Firebird/0.6.1 My browser is maximized. If I open it in a new tab, it lands in the new tab, and leaves the window maximized. If I spawn the link in a new window, the new window is maximized. If I just follow the link in the current tab, it opens in that tab and leaves the window maximized. Javascript is enabled, but only "Change Images" is checked in the advanced options.

By: Dreama

Dreama — Fri, 10 Oct 2003 07:03:07 -0800

I just wanna ask if they paid a licensing fee to use that overplayed Dirty Vegas song.