BIG 3 Web Design & Development

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.

Sonnenblumen

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Who are they then?

Sorry BP, I also need to know which is why I started the thread.

BarackPyjama

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Sorry BP, I also need to know which is why I started the thread.

There's no answer to be honest. Unlike law, accountancy, advertising, etc. the web/digital is an industry in its infancy. The 'big players' in each country and globally will only really be apparent in another 10 or 20 years.

pixelburp

Perhaps if the OP is just looking for a compendium of web firms across Ireland, that's what we should simply list really. It wouldn't be that hard either to divine the difference between a dedicated web-shop (eg, Fusio), and a digital marketing agency (eg, Cybercom, Brando). I could list about a dozen off the top of my head.

In fairness, a few posts come through this forum, fairly regularly, looking for that very thing; mostly as they're looking for business. Perhaps a sticky is in order to list all web design/dev firms.

Pixelcraft

Sure, but I gather from the OP they're looking for digital agency recommendations? (or maybe that's just the track the thread has taken!) Most people that come to boards looking for a web site don't have anywhere near the budget for an agency

Sonnenblumen

Pixelcraft wrote: »

Sure, but I gather from the OP they're looking for digital agency recommendations? (or maybe that's just the track the thread has taken!) Most people that come to boards looking for a web site don't have anywhere near the budget for an agency

Maybe reflects a lot of studenty type Boardies? But surely pro designers should be able to filter enquiries?

How about most vendors claiming to provide web design/development aren't that big (capability) ie one man bands or in full time employment (with a high element of nixering going on) or agencies with stale creativity (pumping out too much me-2 stuff/templates).

I don't think budgets are the issue but a problem I did mention was where one site stated don't call us unless you're willing to spend €10k is a bad approach to new business especially if the client might be prepared to exceed the min limit.

BarackPyjama

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

I don't think budgets are the issue but a problem I did mention was where one site stated don't call us unless you're willing to spend €10k is a bad approach to new business especially if the client might be prepared to exceed the min limit.

I disagree. It's an approach which sets expectations and probably stops tire kickers and time wasters from calling. I wouldn't take the approach myself but I can see why some companies would.

You wouldn't believe the number of businesses that call us every week expecting an enterprise level e-commerce site, planned, designed and built, end-to-end, for a grand or two. The fact is that the vast majority of clients, through no fault of their own probably, have no idea how much quality digital media costs.

Sonnenblumen

BarackPyjama wrote: »

The fact is that the vast majority of clients, through no fault of their own probably, have no idea how much quality digital media costs.

That seems to point the finger of fault clearly at the service providers? Why is that? Why is it that there is little or no transparency on costs? Does raise suspicions about client exploitation, ie charge as much as the client can pay rather than levy a charge based on the value of the service input?

BarackPyjama

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

That seems to point the finger of fault clearly at the service providers? Why is that? Why is it that there is little or no transparency on costs? Does raise suspicions about client exploitation, ie charge as much as the client can pay rather than levy a charge based on the value of the service input?

I'm not saying that there aren't con men and sharp practitioners out there in the industry but the reason that agency websites don't have a list of services and price tags is because web/digital project requirements vary wildly. It all depends on scope. You can't give out a cost until you know exactly what your client wants.

We're completely transparent when it comes to costs but we don't just hand out arbitrary estimates to clients unless they can communicate specifically what they want us to do for them. Once we know, we charge a daily rate based on how long it will take us to plan, design and build the site, app, banner or whatever.

You'd be amazed how many phone calls we get - "How much for an e-commerce site?" or "How much for a website?" - without any idea of requirements whatsoever.

mattfinucane

Check out http://www.webdesignire.com for a list of some good websites and the studios behind them.

pixelburp

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

That seems to point the finger of fault clearly at the service providers? Why is that? Why is it that there is little or no transparency on costs? Does raise suspicions about client exploitation, ie charge as much as the client can pay rather than levy a charge based on the value of the service input?

I don't think that's entirely true, strictly speaking. From my experience, most companies are good about detailing a breakdown of costs: what each aspect of the project is, a run-down of what it'll involve, and how much it's worth to the overall total. They're not always great with documentation, or flagging extra costs upfront (a personal bugbear of mine) but generally I find most web-shops do their best to give as much visibility as is reasonable.

Part of the problem is that like most things in life, it takes two to tango. An issue in this country is that a lot of businesses still lack an understanding, patience, or even basic appreciation on what the web is; how it works, or its basic value, both immediate & subsequent. Not to mention the bias that the web is still seen as a hobby, or the domain of children & students: it's not something serious, so why should I be charged serious as a result? That element is still pretty insidious given there are still plenty of bedroom-designers & "a cousin who's very good at that sorta thing".

So all that prejudice can be hard to breakdown, speaking as the service provider, no matter how much visibility you give on the cost. Also, the lack of physicality too in the final product makes it hard to quantify the hours spent programming something whose end-result might only look to be a couple of web-forms.

So so long as the companies are up front & honest about the costs, and why they charge what they charge, we can only hope that the country catches up with the idea of a web-site / application having value.