Critiques appreciated

[jkinz]

Hi all!

Well my friend and I have started a website design and graphic design firm to hopefully pull in some extra moola. We are in the process of "redesigning" our website from our basic website (which no longer exists thanks to a stupid mistake I made). Thats okay we planned on replacing it anyway due to lack of information.

Anyways, long story short, I have come up with a couple of designs. I do like both, although I like the second better than the first. I'd like to get opinions of people other than my partner.

So here they are:

http://www.nuwavewebstudios.com/newdesign1.jpg

http://www.nuwavewebstudios.com/newdesign2.jpg

[PR Design]

Hi, while there's nothing wrong with either, they both look a bit "templatey" and nondescript. Try pushing the boat out and go for something creative, unique and defining.

Welcome aboard!

[D856C]

I like the visual flow of 2. However, the nondescript layout is going to provide a good background for any examples that appear on the page (the content).

Business people don't want 1) The layout to scream "look at me" like a sugared up 4-year-old while their potential customers are trying to read what's in the layout. 2) Sites that sell more copies of PhotoShop and Flash than the product they are hiring you to help them sell.

To that end, the layout isn't important. Content is. That means establishing a unique selling proposition that differentiates you from an army of competitors who invariably try to blow your mind or go corporate "me-too" zombie.

First off "before" and "after." It doesn't do any good to show the after without the before. Show an improvement.

Focus on something more than the layout. I have rarely seen a site that put in good looking graphics that had the slightest relevance to the business. Good looking stock photography cliches of fashion models pretending to be business people notwithstanding.

That means product photos, employee photos, branding, infographics, charts and diagrams and other content. Make the product look good. Demonstrate you can take a photograph of an actual employee -- and use that for branding against the plastic me-too superficial status quo. Show the corporate value chain. Don't just shoehorn a stock photograph of a fictional glass-clad corporate headquarters into a header.

Far too often graphic design firms who call what they do 'Branding' or 'Business Identity' are really creating business camouflage. There is Coke and Pepsi, and fifty million generic wannabe cola websites. Hardly anyone understands the position of the 7UP / UnCola part of branding -- positioning against competition. Blind imitation is not competition.

[El Peligroso]

The second one looks better, but the sub menu needs some more work.
Feels a bit out of place as it is - maybe due to the colours???

[jkinz]

Originally Posted by El Peligroso

The second one looks better, but the sub menu needs some more work.
Feels a bit out of place as it is - maybe due to the colours???

Yah, I'm still working on it. Wasn't quite sure how I wanted to handle it. I slept on it and have more ideas now.

Originally Posted by D856C

I like the visual flow of 2. However, the nondescript layout is going to provide a good background for any examples that appear on the page (the content).

Business people don't want 1) The layout to scream "look at me" like a sugared up 4-year-old while their potential customers are trying to read what's in the layout. 2) Sites that sell more copies of PhotoShop and Flash than the product they are hiring you to help them sell.

To that end, the layout isn't important. Content is. That means establishing a unique selling proposition that differentiates you from an army of competitors who invariably try to blow your mind or go corporate "me-too" zombie.

First off "before" and "after." It doesn't do any good to show the after without the before. Show an improvement.

Focus on something more than the layout. I have rarely seen a site that put in good looking graphics that had the slightest relevance to the business. Good looking stock photography cliches of fashion models pretending to be business people notwithstanding.

That means product photos, employee photos, branding, infographics, charts and diagrams and other content. Make the product look good. Demonstrate you can take a photograph of an actual employee -- and use that for branding against the plastic me-too superficial status quo. Show the corporate value chain. Don't just shoehorn a stock photograph of a fictional glass-clad corporate headquarters into a header.

Far too often graphic design firms who call what they do 'Branding' or 'Business Identity' are really creating business camouflage. There is Coke and Pepsi, and fifty million generic wannabe cola websites. Hardly anyone understands the position of the 7UP / UnCola part of branding -- positioning against competition. Blind imitation is not competition.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Unfortunately the problem with this is: 1) We don't have a store front or office, its a home business, thus no building. 2) Professional photography of ourselves isn't in our budget at this time although I agree and tend to use employees from the actual company of any clients we have.

Originally Posted by PR Design

Hi, while there's nothing wrong with either, they both look a bit "templatey" and nondescript. Try pushing the boat out and go for something creative, unique and defining.

Welcome aboard!

Thank you for the welcome, I'm looking forward to getting many crituques and offering my opinion on designs. We did have another design prior to this that was more unique but lacked information. We reviewed a couple of compitetors websites and tended to like sites of a similar fashion due to their "easy-to-read" nature.

However if you do have any ideas on how to spruce things up and keep that easy-to-readness, I am very open to any ideas!