ASSIGNMENT 2

Step One:

For my example of a website that “works well” would be Peter Callesen‘s website.

He is currently my favourite artist and I am fascinated by his work.

The first page (or I guess it could be a welcome page)  has a picture of one of his pieces, his name and a link that says “Selected Works”. This is so simplistic and easy to understand, it’s mind blowing. The picture gives you an example of the kind of artwork the website contains; you can see who the artist is and the link “selective works” is obvious.

The picture, name and link all bring you to the homepage of his website, on which there are clearly labeled links to bring you elsewhere on the website.

All the links are stationary and there isn’t any flashy text to distract you from the work; all the colours (other than in his artwork) are neutral shades of grey, as well. I feel this is effective because I’m not so interested in the website as much as I am in the artwork itself; I don’t feel it makes the website bland, but that might be biased because I’m easily pleased as far as easy presentation is concerned. It just makes me think he’s saying “This is me. This is my artwork.” and I like how simple that is.

An example of a bad website is Oceanside, California. I literally typed into the Google search engine “bad websites” and there were a lot to choose from. The reason I chose this one, is because it contains of the things I absolutely loathe about websites: moving text. Yeah, it’s so cool that your “enter” link is twirling, but it’s giving me a headache. And the moving advertisement in the middle of the home page? Ugh.

Once you do enter, it’s easy to navigate, but the moving pictures are distracting and it doesn’t look like professional at all. In the website’s defense, it was probably created at the beginning of time… What mostly annoys me about this website is that things are moving; when it’s done tastefully and properly, that’s alright… but this just looks childish.

J