BIG 3 Web Design & Development

Sonnenblumen

Who do you consider to be the leaders of the pack?

yop

Good idea of a thread. We are looking at getting some "good quality" website design done up so are looking around.
We have found the pricing differences for the same amount of pages delivered is pretty big. BUT the difference in quality of pages/templates is also big.

Are we naming companies?

fatlog

probably not!

Sonnenblumen

fatlog wrote: »

probably not!

Why not?

tricky D

I can't count today but something like:

WebFactory
X Communications
Strata3
Fusio
Spoilt Child/Alan O'Rourke

Maybes/In the past
WebTrade
Nua
Tibus (NI)

and some xbalts;)

aidan_walsh

I'd like to see how this pans out

But if we're going to do this lets do it right (Film Forum rules) - not as a list thread, but feature reasonings and where possible samples or examples of work. Fair criticism is fair enough, but rants, moans, whines and other blatant stupidity will go away as fast as I see it.

yop

Worked with XComm on a project and they delivered a very good site to the customer.

tricky D

Most of my citations are based on my experience of watching them over many years and also working and dealing with a few of them. Most of them have been in the game since early on and have gained much gained talent and experience. Most of them get the higher end of the client pool and do a good job in retaining them. Some seem to have changed their directions quite a bit.

• WebFactory 'got' the web very early on, especially the community aspect initially, but can get a bit excessively visual these days.
• Xcomms are similar though less so on the community front.
• Fusio's own site is a bit meh imo, but they turn out pretty solid sites.
• Similar for Strata3.
• Spoiltchild, well I've always like their stuff.
• What's left of Nua has gone into UI testing but have pretty much lost their footprint. (I could rant though)
• Tibus established themselves in the NI market early on and have pretty much remained there.
• WebTrade seem to turn out good enough stuff.

Disclaimer: no current affiliations with any.

All comments are IMHO

Sonnenblumen

aidan_walsh wrote: »

I'd like to see how this pans out

But if we're going to do this lets do it right (Film Forum rules) - not as a list thread, but feature reasonings and where possible samples or examples of work. Fair criticism is fair enough, but rants, moans, whines and other blatant stupidity will go away as fast as I see it.

I'm surprised this hasn't been done before? In a world of over regulation, and rules for this that and the other, can we not try to keep it simple?

Dave!

This thread could have been useful when I was whoring myself to companies, trying to get a junior position

BarackPyjama

When you say 'big 3' do you mean in terms of size or quality of creative/technical/strategic output?

Eoin

Ugh, webfactory's entire site is in Flash, and unless I'm mistaken, they've done no SEO work on their mark-up to make up for it. They've just plopped the swf file into the page and that's pretty much it.

Sonnenblumen

BarackPyjama wrote: »

When you say 'big 3' do you mean in terms of size or quality of creative/technical/strategic output?

I mean 'Big' in terms of in-house creative and technical skills(no subbing) which is consistently demonstrated by quality and original output.

Size (eg Turnover, Staffing etc) would probably be a narrow means of measuring BIG.

BarackPyjama

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

I mean 'Big' in terms of in-house creative and technical skills(no subbing) which is consistently demonstrated by quality and original output.

Size (eg Turnover, Staffing etc) would probably be a narrow means of measuring BIG.

There's actually a big difference between the two. The bigger agencies are generally producing average, staid work while the smaller, designer/developer-led companies are by far out-performing them in terms of quality.

tricky D

Eoin wrote: »

Ugh, webfactory's entire site is in Flash, and unless I'm mistaken, they've done no SEO work on their mark-up to make up for it. They've just plopped the swf file into the page and that's pretty much it.

They're probably relying more on word of mouth than drive-by SEO. Can see their reasoning but wouldn't agree with it.

The Flash site is obviously pants. So much swooshing and a swishing is very distracting - short attention span stuff. One of the video's sound is way down and the swooshing stuff in the background is off-putting.

Placebo

BTW flash is full scalable, i.e it re sizes with your browser. Which is not entirely easy to do in flash. I do like the colors however the effects are un-necessary.
Not really pushed on SEO, most of our clients are word of mouth etc etc, we dont pick them up from google etc

Eoin

SEO is just one aspect though; 100% Flash websites are a bad thing.

Sonnenblumen

BarackPyjama wrote: »

There's actually a big difference between the two. The bigger agencies are generally producing average, staid work while the smaller, designer/developer-led companies are by far out-performing them in terms of quality.

What are you arguing about? If you want to make a contribution under your 'BIG' criteria - that's fine, but if not, why bother with cluttering points?

BarackPyjama

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

What are you arguing about? If you want to make a contribution under your 'BIG' criteria - that's fine, but if not, why bother with cluttering points?

Em... okay.

Well for what it's worth, I think the best web/digital agencies in Ireland are X Communications, The Creative District, Contrast, EchoLibre, Metronet, Zoo Digital, Brando and Framework Design.

ocallagh

Placebo wrote: »

most of our clients are word of mouth etc etc, we dont pick them up from google etc

There might be a reason for that!

pixelburp

Is Metronet even still in business? Their site has what appears to be Christmas snow on the homepage hehe.

Useful thread - I've always been curious as to just what firms are around in the city.

Placebo

ocallagh wrote: »

There might be a reason for that!

Vodafone, Pepsi, Unilever, Lyons[all our clients btw] etc etc - i'm sure they go to google searching for 'web design companies'

BarackPyjama

Placebo wrote: »

Vodafone, Pepsi, Unilever, Lyons[all our clients btw] etc etc - i'm sure they go to google searching for 'web design companies'

Is that because you're a large ad agency that invests more heavily in client services and business acquisition than on creative integrity and quality production? Just asking.

ocallagh

Placebo wrote: »

Vodafone, Pepsi, Unilever, Lyons[all our clients btw] etc etc - i'm sure they go to google searching for 'web design companies'

It depends on the type of client you're after.

If you have absolutely no interest in SMB's then perhaps the lack of SEO is not really an issue.

What if a large company was specifically looking for SEO/Accessibility - do you offer those services?

btw your flash doesn't work on Linux Google Chrome v11.0.696.68 with latest flash version. The bottom half flashes non stop (like a strobe effect) and it's impossible to see the lower half of your portfolio/slideshow on the home page.

jmcc

tricky D wrote: »

[*]What's left of Nua has gone into UI testing but have pretty much lost their footprint. (I could rant though)

They were responsible for my favourite DotBomb headline: "Net visionary fails to foresee crash". Still some of them did well after Nua.

[*]Tibus established themselves in the NI market early on and have pretty much remained there.

Taken over by U.TV a few years ago from what I remember.

Regards...jmcc

chakotha

I like the layouts and general design from Digital Crew.

Sonnenblumen

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Em... okay.

Well for what it's worth, I think the best web/digital agencies in Ireland are X Communications, The Creative District, Contrast, EchoLibre, Metronet, Zoo Digital, Brando and Framework Design.

BP
I have to disagree with you regarding some of your nominations. A distinct lack of creativity combined with poor corporate websites :eek: How do they attract new clients?
Some don't even do web design/development and it shows and I noticed on one site which stated if you're not spending > €10k, don't contact us. A crude way of filtering prospective clients?

One or two I suppose are what you call digital agencies (but that could mean anything and it seems to as well)?

X Comms looked very impressive but we knew that.;)
SB

BarackPyjama

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

BP
I have to disagree with you regarding some of your nominations. A distinct lack of creativity combined with poor corporate websites :eek: How do they attract new clients?
Some don't even do web design/development and it shows and I noticed on one site which stated if you're not spending > €10k, don't contact us. A crude way of filtering prospective clients?

One or two I suppose are what you call digital agencies (but that could mean anything and it seems to as well)?

X Comms looked very impressive but we knew that.;)
SB

Em, X Comms are the most corporate of the lot in the list. They are a mix of web, digital and development agencies. They are the best in Ireland. Not really a subjective matter. More a fact.

Eoin

How can that be a fact? Don't know them one way or the other, but that is pretty subjective.

BarackPyjama

Eoin wrote: »

How can that be a fact? Don't know them one way or the other, but that is pretty subjective.

I don't really consider web design to be subjective. There's good design and bad design. Art is subjective.

tricky D

Given the myriad of interpretations, implementations, imperfections and a whole lot more that's involved, subjective is bang on the money.

The debate (not a row) and that 'you think', ie. it's an opinion, serves to prove this.

I'd also disagree with some of your selections. Contrast for one just looks like total fluff. But don't worry about it, it's only an opinion.

BarackPyjama

tricky D wrote: »

Given the myriad of interpretations, implementations, imperfections and a whole lot more that's involved, subjective is bang on the money.

It's not really a black art if you know your stuff. Objective criteria would include:

• User Experience and usability
• Accessibility
• Quality of front end code
• Visual aesthetics, interface design and attention to detail
• Technical execution and best practices

Then of course there's strategy, SEO, etc.

tricky D wrote: »

The debate (not a row) and that 'you think', ie. it's an opinion, serves to prove this.

Well yeah, fair enough. It's just my opinion. A learned one borne of 15 years industry experience. People who matter agree - although I'm pretty sure I've missed an agency or two (Cybercom for example).

tricky D wrote: »

I'd also disagree with some of your selections. Contrast for one just looks like total fluff. But don't worry about it, it's only an opinion.

You should have a read of their blog. They seem to know what they're talking about.

pixelburp

Cybercom are more of a marketing strategy agency, no? Don't think they get involved with your typical eCommerce sites, brochure sites and the kind of thing SMEs might want.

I presumed this thread was more aimed at firms & businesses who specifically provide web design, development and all that's inbetween. So in that respect, companies like WebFactory, xComms, Continuum, WebTrade et al. Some of the sites mentioned previously appear to be more marketing agencies than development studios.

BarackPyjama

pixelburp wrote: »

Cybercom are more of a marketing strategy agency, no? Don't think they get involved with your typical eCommerce sites, brochure sites and the kind of thing SMEs might want.

I presumed this thread was more aimed at firms & businesses who specifically provide web design, development and all that's inbetween. So in that respect, companies like WebFactory, xComms, Continuum, WebTrade et al. Some of the sites mentioned previously appear to be more marketing agencies than development studios.

Cybercom have a reasonably large design/development team as far as I'm aware.

You could (kind of) categorise agencies as being either 'commercial web design/development' and 'digital agency'. The former working on commercial web projects, e-commerce, etc. and the latter working on online marketing campaigns for consumer brands.

There's a lot of crossover between the two though and some agencies do both.

pixelburp

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Cybercom have a reasonably large design/development team as far as I'm aware.

You could (kind of) categorise agencies as being either 'commercial web design/development' and 'digital agency'. The former working on commercial web projects, e-commerce, etc. and the latter working on online marketing campaigns for consumer brands.

There's a lot of crossover between the two though and some agencies do both.

There's overlap in the sense that the digital campaigns might involve a microsite or Facebook app, but from my experience I don't know of many of the digital marketing agencies getting their feet wet in standalone, bespoke web projects for independent clients, and vice versa.

BarackPyjama

pixelburp wrote: »

There's overlap in the sense that the digital campaigns might involve a microsite or Facebook app, but from my experience I don't know of many of the digital marketing agencies getting their feet wet in standalone, bespoke web projects for independent clients, and vice versa.

No you're right, most don't. They do from time to time though. There's crossover in the sense that the production paradigm is more or less the same. The two types of companies just target different markets.

pixelburp

"Production Paradigm"? ... good grief

Well interesting that I went onto Cybercom's site & they distinctly refer to themselves as a Marketing Agency, which to me would rule them out as being a dedicated web design/dev company, of the kind that I think people are thinking of here.

So I guess this thread hasn't really answered the original question hehe. Or else there really are that few in existence.

BarackPyjama

pixelburp wrote: »

"Production Paradigm"? ... good grief

Yeah. Basically the same skill sets are needed to create a campaign microsite as an e-commerce site or commercial site. More or less.

pixelburp wrote: »

Well interesting that I went onto Cybercom's site & they distinctly refer to themselves as a Marketing Agency, which to me would rule them out as being a dedicated web design/dev company, of the kind that I think people are thinking of here.

I don't think anyone thinks that Cybercom are a commercial web design/dev company. They're a digital agency. Ultimately what they produce though is web design/development for consumer brands. No matter what way you wrap it up, digital agencies and commercial web design/development agencies are ultimately the same thing, just producing a slightly different product for a different market.

pixelburp wrote: »

So I guess this thread hasn't really answered the original question hehe. Or else there really are that few in existence.

To answer the question then - commercial web agencies aren't like Dublin universities. There is no 'big 3'. There are large companies producing crap. Small companies producing very good work. And everything in between.

maddragon

www.globalvision.ie are excellent.

BarackPyjama

maddragon wrote: »

www.globalvision.ie are excellent.

No. They're not. Aside from the staid, poor design, many of their client websites are built using nested tables for layout. I'd go as far as to say that they're awful.

maddragon

Not IMO Barack. Very happy with my own site and it was exactly what I asked for. Anyway each to their own I suppose.

pixelburp

Of course it goes without saying that on a thread like this, the temptation is strong for employees & ex-employees of web firms to blatantly shill their company.

maddragon

That's true pixelburp.

BarackPyjama

maddragon wrote: »

Not IMO Barack. Very happy with my own site and it was exactly what I asked for. Anyway each to their own I suppose.

Well if you're happy that's good. I'm purely speaking from a professional/standards/best practice perspective, not a client's perspective. Not that I condone shoddy work but, as I say, if you're happy then you're happy.

tricky D

maddragon wrote: »

www.globalvision.ie are excellent.

A bit shilly and too many basic problems to be considered for the purposes of this list.

Pixelcraft

Agree with BarackPyjama here. Would also add http://www.designbyfront.com/ to the list. Also, Contrast really do know their stuff, I actually laughed when I read that above!

No connection to any of the companies mentioned in post

BarackPyjama

Pixelcraft wrote: »

Agree with BarackPyjama here. Would also add http://www.designbyfront.com/ to the list. Also, Contrast really do know their stuff, I actually laughed when I read that above!

Yeah, definitely. Front are excellent.

Sonnenblumen

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Yeah. Basically the same skill sets are needed to create a campaign microsite as an e-commerce site or commercial site. More or less.



I don't think anyone thinks that Cybercom are a commercial web design/dev company. They're a digital agency. Ultimately what they produce though is web design/development for consumer brands. No matter what way you wrap it up, digital agencies and commercial web design/development agencies are ultimately the same thing, just producing a slightly different product for a different market.

To answer the question then - commercial web agencies aren't like Dublin universities. There is no 'big 3'. There are large companies producing crap. Small companies producing very good work. And everything in between.

Why are you insisting that corporate websites and marketing/advertising promos based around social media campaigns are one and the same? They're not. Criteria will differ and when it comes to the subjective aspects, some of your notions are fluffy? How do you measure aesthetics? By weight, volume or ...?

Perhaps there are no 'big 3', but I would be surprised as it seems esy to identify the top 1 or 2?

BarackPyjama

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Why are you insisting that corporate websites and marketing/advertising promos based around social media campaigns are one and the same? They're not.

Where did I say they were the same? I said that the skill sets and methods used to create them are more or less the same. I think you just put words into my mouth.

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Criteria will differ and when it comes to the subjective aspects, some of your notions are fluffy? How do you measure aesthetics? By weight, volume or ...?

Aesthetics or a small aspect of what constitutes good web design. Usability, accessibility, layout, use of typography, etc, are all important factors.

To be honest, the vast majority of people wouldn't know good web design if it jumped up and hit them in the face.

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Perhaps there are no 'big 3', but I would be surprised as it seems esy to identify the top 1 or 2?

Who are they then?

Goodshape

aidan_walsh wrote: »

I'd like to see how this pans out

Not well.

Sonnenblumen

BarackPyjama wrote: »

To be honest, the vast majority of people wouldn't know good web design if it jumped up and hit them in the face.

Surely that would depend on what might be the qualifying criteria. Visitor experience, ie ease of use, Visual Appeal (Design intelligentsia) or Sales (Business results)?

An earlier point which you raised ie good design v bad design, the perennial dilemma but jaded designerspeak that overlooks or lacks commercial substance. A bit like design awards, which appears to praise greatness in creativity yet ignores the commercial underperformance/failure.