|
|
Posted by John Hosking on 04/27/07 02:07
Jane Jesi wrote:
> Hello gentlemen.
Poor Heidi, Els, Adrienne and Louise :-(
> I am new to web design and I have a question concerning a
> client. He has given me freedom to redesign his website.
He *says*... Wait unitl you show him something. ;-)
> Is it better for a
> website to have a "corporate" feel such as http://www.ea.com/language.jsp
Doesn't look particularly "corporate" to me; _this_ looks corporate:
http://www.ubs.com/ (and BTW, it seems clean and simple to me, too).
> or a more clean feel such as this small site at
> http://globalwarmingawareness2007.org.uk which I think is a clean and very
> simple design.
Google ads and bold-on-black design, all in a 1200px table. Rather ick,
IMHO.
> While EA is definitely tough for a beginner, I feel that writing a
> website like this (minus the JSP/flash part) would look better in
> my portfolio.
If you take out the JS/Flash part, there's nothing left! The entire
content of the page (that which search engines will see and maybe try to
index) is:
"You don't have the latest version of Flash, download _here_."
You could add the *graphics work* to your portfolio, but as a *site* it
stinks, and its designer shouldn't mention it to anyone important.
I wouldn't pay money for either of these sites, so I wouldn't care to
recommend the look of either one.
The real answer to the question "Is it better for a website to have a
"corporate" feel or a more clean feel" is: Ask your client. Or at least,
it depends on the client. You didn't say whether the client is an
investment bank or governmental agency (rather corporate, usually), or a
music distributor targeting young people (friendly, casual, maybe
busier), or maybe an information resource for elderly folks (very clean,
clear, simple, large type, whitespace).
So: whatcha want? Or what does the client want? (Your freedom to
redesign his website includes freedom to ask what he's generally looking
for, how he wants to be seen, what results he hopes for from the site, etc.)
--
John
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|