The best website designs!

Are any websites available which present links to the best possible websites designs?

 

Check this out: http://www.awwwards.com/

 

I would be careful with trying to emulate the "best possible websites designs". Most flamboyant design, while pretty to look at, lack many of the pragmatic qualities more simpler and straightforward designs have. The general point of a website is to distribute some form of content to a viewer(user) and the better designs are those that do this in the most efficient way. Good designers will in fact deliberately include less appealing visuals (the underlining of a link) because these convey information automatically to the user.

 

I have noticed that all websites as "winners" are very simple ones with very attactive photos, at most cases animated images created with flash. I know now that frontpage header image must be very eye catching.
And I think a photo with 3d effect is most welcome to use.

 

Uhm... I think you should achieve a better understanding of web-technology if you think the winners on that site uses Flash.

 

What other technology except flash could give you animated images, mate?

 

Javascript and embedded video. If you're thinking about the page for the car, with the flying dragon, that's javascript, not Flash.

 

Can I see an example?

I never would have used "best" and "flash" in the same sentence.

 

I can agree that webesite with car and animated lights of moving cars in backgroung is done with javascripts because moving lights are generated by random functions and you can not do that with flash but another website with word "BIGGER" can be done by flash easily.

 

Flash has some legitimate uses, but from a usability standpoint - it just sucks.

You only want to use it if you absolutely have to - not just for cosmetic reasons.

 

I am not fan of flash at all and even I would never use it in my website because flash websites are not highly ranked by SEO.

 

The "bigger" one isn't flash either. There is NO REASON to use Flash for simple video-type content - the only legitimate reason for Flash is interactive content (games, for instance) but also that can mostly be done without Flash - so no, there's no reason to use Flash in modern web development. (Okay, some functionality, like uploading multiple files can be made easier with Flash, I admit, but it's still not a good solution)

 

Other than DRM or as a fallback for when the HTML 5 doesn't work, or your magic flavors of codec/containers go unrecognized; There's a REASON Hulu, WWE Network and Netflix range in support for 5 from "It's the fallback" to "Apple users only because Apple treats it's users like plebes" to "wouldn't plow that with your hoe". Hell, HTML 5 video is SO popular amongst paid "content providers" they'd sooner use Silverlight. You also don't see a lot of porn sites lining up to embrace HTML 5. That MAY change with the DRM spec for HTML 5 video starting to see implementation, but there's still just too many browsers that haven't caught up or gotten with the program on it.

Sadly HTML 5 is NOT as game ready as you'd be led to believe -- there's a reason no facebook games use it yet. The AUDIO tag and it's scripting support still has massive latency issues making it unsuited for use in playing game sound effects, and while there are some oddball workarounds (like prebuffering it, inserting half a second of silence at the start of every file, then fast-forwarding to that point leaving it paused until you need it) that alleviate the problem slightly, it's such a pain in the ass a lot of people trying to make games give it the finger.

Canvas and SVG don't have tweening, proper timing and sychronization is still a joke (though making strides in terms of IDEAS, implementation in browsers still lags), and there are still massive input issues that are unlikely to ever be overcome since they would actually compromise browser security.

But even with that said, the ONLY two legitimate reasons for flash on a website is a self contained game or video playback. That's it.

If I could hit like on this over 9000 times, I would. It's a message a lot of the artsy fartsy folks get completely lost on, in that their bloated slow PRESENTATIONAL graphics that have NOTHING to do with the content are more likely to alienate users or shoe-horn you into design concepts that destroy your accessibility.

You want to see GOOD design? Look at Google. Hell, look at Craigslist. Of course, you point the PSD jockeys who have the nerve to call themselves "designers" while knowing jack about user interfaces or accessibility at Craigslist, they're absolutely horrified; and that really illustrates just how unqualified they are to be designing jack **** for anyone.

Take that AWWWcrap site @Matthew Sayle linked to. Most EVERY site there is an accessibility train wreck and laundry list of how NOT to build a website if you know ANYTHING about accessibility, HTML or CSS. Take how they're pimping the bloated slow KFC site right now... REALLY?

Massive bloated images, bizarre slow loading side-scrolling when mouse-wheel crap, broken attempt at being responsive that's utterly useless on mobile, fat bloated slow loading images, little if anything resembling content when it first loads, pixel metric fonts, scripttard menu with ZERO graceful degradation... Anyone who would hold that up as an example of a "good design" has no damned business opening their mouth on the subject!

Sadly such crappy useless broken sites seeming to be taking off as the norm, which is why on the whole the web is a fraction as useful as it was a decade ago... which as I've said more than a few times feels like a repeat of the garbage websites people were vomiting up during the browser wars; stands to reason since HTML 5 itself reeks of being more about satiating the wants and desires of the halfwits who continue to crap out HTML 3.2 and the proprietary interim tags, and slap 4 tranny atop it. Now they wrap 5 lip-service around the same outdated outmoded concepts and get to slap each-other on the back over how "modern" they're being.

Herpafreakingderp.

As I've been saying for years the focus in "design" should be on what people actually come to the website for -- the CONTENT; NOT the window dressing you hang around it much less ghetto bling like some 1970's pimp (see 90%+ of what people are doing with JS right now).

We have rules for using HTML, guidelines for making sites accessible, and there's more to a website than what it happens to look like on the magical combination of screen size and resolution some artsy fartsy "designer" happens to be seated in front of... at the end of the day it doesn't matter how pretty it is; if it takes over 20 seconds to load on a real world connection, gets in the way of the user getting to the actual content, has counterintuitive navigation that frustrates users, scripttardery sucking mobile batteries dry, and accessibility failings that alienates a significant portion of your potential audience, WHAT THE HELL GOOD IS IT!

Sadly, most of the sites you'll find in "showcases" online falling neatly into that category.

Goes back to something I was told in the 1990's by an engineer about human interaction -- the best design is one that the user doesn't notice. USUALLY if they notice something, it's something wrong. You design to the task that needs to be done as efficiently as possible -- anything else is rubbish.

Find the enemy and shoot him down, anything else is rubbish!" -- Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen

 

Relax.

The guy asked for a site - I provided the site.

I never stood behind the quality of said site.

 

Indeed, a bitter pill to swallow if you've come from a graphics/arts background and are trying to gain some legitimacy for your work in the web design sector. Stubbornly, I fell for this trap of thinking better visuals = better site while cutting me teeth. Fortunately that's been and gone. The sooner you learn the better. Unfortunately, some people just don't want to hear it.

While I can understand having huge aesthetically pleasing sites is exciting and inspiring if you're creative (Or your client demands it from ignorance). But just like a lot of modern art, is worthless once it's been viewed once. Other than for circle jerking with art types.

Focusing on the content and the pragmatism of the site first (i.e. the actual purpose of the site) is actually common sense much overlooked.

 

Short answer? No, there are not. Until you can define the purpose and content of the site, you cannot in any shape or form determine the fitness of the design. There is only one criterion that matters for a web design: does the design aid and abet the visitor in finding what he wants to find, learning what he wants to learn and doing what he wants to do. To the extent the design does not aid the visitor, or actually impedes him, it is a bad design.

That's not to say the aesthetics don't matter. A pleasant visual experience is not a bad thing, it simply isn't a critical part of the site design. It is important to creating a psychological response, or establishing a relationship to the company's name and branding. It is not site design. The graphic design is more closely related to choosing the company stationery.

cheers,

gary

 

While that is appreciated by nerds, it is ignored by the rest.

Millennials and laypeople don't frequent websites appreciated by nerds. You don't do fancy decoration, somebody will.

I think website should be built for people, not for machine.

 

I'll let your thinly veiled insult labelling me as a 'nerd' pass by to point out that you've left egg on your face. You say that only 'nerds' frequent websites focusing on content and pragmatism. Yet you yourself are a frequent contributor to this forum, a site focused on content and pragmatism for both it's owners and users. By your own logic you yourself are a 'nerd'.

I would also like to point out that having a website focusing on content and pragmatism does not mean an ugly website. It means that the website has been developed to achieve its goal. It just so happens that a lot of websites do not need large fanciful graphics, theatre and pomp to achieve these. And it is common for such things to instead detract users from the site's content or create other related problems. Sometimes it may be fitting for the website to carry aesthetics to better express the content or give the user a better experience. But that's never an excuse to splash a large oil painting of Pocahontas on there to show how great an artist you are.

 

I guess that explains why craigslist.com and Google.com are such abject failures. Eh?

gary

 

STUNNING example of a post that contradicts itself every other sentence. I literally cannot determine which side of the fence you meant to be on with that.