[thelist] RE: Razorfish retaliates - there's a reason for the cost

[Erika Meyer]

>There seems to be a bit of Razorfish / hi-end iBuilder bashing going on

what means "hi-end"?
what means "iBuilder"?

>(below). I'm not here to defend a competitor, but to combat the idea that
>hi-end site and business building is something worth no more than $50 an
>hour. There's more than enough room in this industry for both types of work,
>for freelancers and multi-office web consultancies.

I know that part of the reason a freelancer can work so quickly is 
because we are doing a lot of jobs under "one roof."  No graphic 
designers, no UI designers, no usability specialists... we do all of 
it, or subcontract.

But I have to wonder how a site becomes so expensive. I would be 
interested in knowing the process of developing such a site... maybe 
it would shed some light as to how a site could both cost so much and 
have so many... issues.

mind, some of us may be a wee bit bitter because we are still 
surviving on top ramen.

>To misunderstand why some sites cost $10 million and why some cost $10,000
>is to misunderstand the depth of the technologies that we're all working
>with.

enlighten us, please.  what does it take to screw up a site with DHTML?

>it'd be great to see a more thoughtful discussion of why
>it sucks (or doesn't suck).

Actually, there is so much about the site that doesn't work on my 
browser (Mac IE5) that I wouldn't know where to start.  Some of it, I 
can't tell if it's wrong or that's how it's supposed to be.  Other 
parts are clearly screwed up (text on top of text, like that).

But without getting into detail I have one thought: the intended 
audience appears to be models, musicians, dancers, etc.  This 
demographic... especially not-yet-famous models, musicians, 
dancers... are notoriously poor people.  (Even poorer than certain 
freelance web designers.)  They suffer for their art.

What is the point of creating a "hi-end" site that requires at least 
1024x768 screen resolution, "hi-end" browsers (but still doesn't 
work), and a fairly high amt of navigation/web-savvy-- directed to 
this audience?

I think this site failed at IA step 1: define your audience and goals.

>And just to play devil's advocate to myself: nice colors + beautiful people
>= pleasing to look at.

I can say this for them: they have a DTD.

Erika

<tip type="design" author="erika">

remember simplicity?
it works.
it really really works.

</tip>


erika at seastorm.com
http://www.seastorm.com