Like every job I do, if I was commissioned to do the ACA site, I would make sure that I designed and made, or had made, a site that was appropriate for the client, their audience, and what they were trying to communicate. I might even make it viewable for Mac users, for example ...
There's a world of difference between a site for the ACA and a graphic design portfolio. If my showcase site was designed in the same way as an ACA site I would not be communicating to my audience much about my visual skills, especially since I have done and do everything from computer game 3D to corporate ID as well as websites. For example, I also do Flash work. You might just as well complain that the client who wants me to do Flash work could go to my site, find a static xhtml/css site and would therefore conclude I don't "practice what I preach". Or the computer game client finds solid flat colours and concludes I don't do 3D. Etcetera.
Personally, while I'm on this list and now largely make web standards sites with xhtml and css, I still believe there's a place for Flash, and at the moment, my portfolio is one of those places.
As for the nav, when it says 'select an icon', try rolling over an icon. It won't kill you, and you'll only lose a second or two from your day.
So phhhhtttttt! ;)
Peter
PS On my site now the Latest Work feature is the Jands.com.au site, which is pretty bloody web standard.
On 05/05/2004, at 6:50 PM, Andy Budd wrote:
I think more of a problem is that your own website –and many in your portfolio– don't really reflect the qualities that you are trying to sell to this client. If I was a web savvy procurement officer, your email would definitely spark my interest. However going to your site I would see that you don't appear to practice what you preach and would look elsewhere.<x-tad-bigger>
p.s. Your main nav is pretty user-unfriendly. It's not obvious that these are actually nav items. You're forcing people to guess what they do and to roll over them to reveal where they go.
Universal Head wrote:
You're right, but in my defense I didn't actually put a huge amount of thought into it because
a) I doubt any decision-makers would see it
b) since they've just 'redesigned' the site <coff> I don't think they'd be keen to spend more money
c) the job would be a *%^& nightmare ... I wrote it to tell them it doesn't work - the job pitch was just an afterthought!
Miles Tillinger wrote:
Three cheers for Web Standards evangelism! Kudos for making the effort to spread the gospel, but I don't know if I agree with the approach. Fair enough that you'd like to win the job, but the end of the email starts sounding like marketing spam. A political approach might be more effective for getting them to think about it because the last thing any government department wants to think about is more costs and they could be to short-sighted to consider the long-term gains...
E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
W www.universalhead.com
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
</x-tad-bigger>Universal Head
Design That Works.
7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore
NSW 2048 Australia
T (+612) 9517 1466
F (+612) 9565 4747
E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
W www.universalhead.com
