Studio Website Questions

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 30 Responses
  • d_rek

    Ok, I recently had discourse with a colleague about typography on the web (among other things).

    A little background to the arguement:
    My company is currently in the process of redesigning their web presence. Some of the initial comps include copy from fonts that are obviously not websafe.

    My argument was that they could be handled in a number of ways:
    -as an image (The site will have minimal copy)
    -specified in the CSS and defaulting to something similar
    -rendered using sIFR or cufon or the like

    Anyway, he blurted out a bunch of arguements about SEO, using fonts that aren't web safe, usability, translating copy for other countries, etc.

    I mentioned that some studio's use flash-folios and have beautiful typography - but all the type is embedded into the flash file. I also mentioned that they are worthless to SEO (unless of course, you use some external method ie: xml). I gave http://www.checklandkindleysides… as an example.

    He then agued why flash is archaic and that you can do the same things with flash as you can with jscript yadda yadda. I argued again that a studio's website should reflect their stylistic preferences and that even in the given context the quality of the typography should not be sacrificed only because there are only a handful of 'web-safe' fonts available.

    So, considering the audience that this website wold be geared towards (Marketing Officers, Business Professionals, CEOs, organizations with active design/branding programs - potential clients in other words) I pose these questions:

    1) Is SEO something that design studios (outside of web/dev studios) are truly concerned with?

    2) What is the preference on using web-safe typography VS pre-rendered (be it as a jpeg or sIFR / cufon / flash)?

    Feedback and discourse is welcome and appreciated.

  • schjetne0

    I've recently started using cufon and to my knowledge it doesn't affect SEO at all.

    • <airey
    • Agreed, has no impact, even using graphical elements you can plug in some code for SEO to pick up.blackisle
  • FFFFOUND0

    1) Yes. Agency provide marketing service, market your site first. You will be surprised how many companies google to get their agency.

    2) Web safe is always good. Most clients do not have / care for amazing typography. They want to see big names. What you see on your pretty mac will not be the same experience on clients running Pentium III laptop.

    • I have FFFFOUND invites.FFFFOUND
    • We are far from an 'agency'... we are a small studio.d_rek
  • schjetne0

    Oh and to answer your first question: I'm pretty sure all of your business will be generated by referrals and direct contact, so the SEO aspect of your site shouldn't be overestimated.

    • Quite the opposite of what FFFFOUND said, so you choose who you wanna listen to.schjetne
    • I have invitesFFFFOUND
    • I agree with the referrals / direct contact sentiment. Our salesperson is very aggressive at getting clients this wayd_rek
  • d_rek0

    bumppp

  • airey0

    it's horse shit. to SEO you simple use CSS image replacement. as a basic example take a look at my main menu top left of my site ( www.alloystudio.com.au ) it uses an unordered list for nav and simple uses css to form it and use images (gotham font with rollover). this is a solid SEO setup and incredibly common.

    the same out of touch fuckwits that use this argument also still profess to the 'web safe 256 color palette' and build for 800 x 600 resolution.

    SEO is important but it's crackajack assholes like that who seem to 'know something' and then forget to evolve that something. the technology moves fast. SEO doesn't mean to halt design it just means you design need to take it into account.

    • also, i'd still stick with web-safe for any major areas of text. only use this kind of thing for special areas.airey
    • just my 2 cents btw. i'm probably wrong.airey
    • I think you're right airey -> the arguments put fwd are bull. Image replacement, cufon or sifr are all designed to be SEO friendlylukus_W
    • friendly.lukus_W
  • airey0

    also, the translating argument is really odd. does he really believe that a site can be literally translated by apps like babel-fish online and that works?!? that images are the problem there?!? that's out there. engrish anyone.

  • lambsy0

    these SEO guys stick to their guns. no matter how stupid they sound.

    prepare for war. actual knowledge of how CSS works is powerless against their stonewalled craniums.

    • the issue is many SEO experts (self proclaimed) were shit web people who don't understand the options well enough.airey
    • and the flipside is clueless designers who have no idea about SEO at all.airey
  • Rand0

    I could give a shit about SEO... like a suitable client's gonna find a small studio like ours that way anyway... I'm not in the yellow pages, either

    • same. although i'm bound to get steel manufacturers wondering what the fuck i'm on about...airey
    • This is pretty much the response i was looking for.d_rek
  • airey0

    i thought it worth adding that i think SEO is incredible important and offer a high level of it in my clients work. the issue for me is that there's a myth behind so much of it and it's treated like some after-market specialty. if you do web then you should do seo. sites should be built with this in mind full-stop. the level of priority should be on a sliding scale with budget, timeframes and a balance of what the client wants to communicate versus the importance of search visibility.

    the problems is fucking idiots who actually read jacob neilson and buy into his horseshit. if you're selling a product on or offline then visually it needs to be top-notch. web work should not be at a cost of the structure and therefore SEO viability but a complete package. people need to find it but when they do it should also 'sell' itself. if it's the greatest SEO but looks like a bulletin board from 1996 you're going to get a billion hits and a billion immediate bounces. better you get the half a billion hits and the half a billion sales.

    my 2 cents, i'm probably wrong.

    • fuck seo, fuck web, it's like being a fucking plumberRand
    • plumbers stay busy and make good money tooRand
    • I shouldn't have said this--I'm hot and tiredRand
    • I take it all backRand
    • fuck it!Rand
    • let's form a plumbers underground criminal group. we plumb at night and take what we want.airey
    • *plumbsgramme
  • TResudek0

    Using cufon or sifr to replace body copy is a ridiculous waste of resources and bandwidth. People are used to seeing web-safe fonts and a little extra attention to typography goes a long way.

    As for using an image for body copy, that is totally lame. No SE compliance and no way for me to copy and paste. No way to make hover links even... just a silly thought and you should be ashamed to have mentioned it.

    • i don't agree with the first point but agree with the 2nd. at least we're covering multiple views here.airey
  • must_dash0

    Your site doesn't need to look like it has SEO, it just needs to use it. If you're a design studio and your site just looks like an SEO wet dream they'll think thats all you do if it has compromised on design.

  • gramme0

    If you're dealing with potential clients that are agencies and other people with a (supposed) higher aesthetic sense, then I don't see why Flash is bad if typography is a cornerstone of your work. Especially because these days you CAN make Flash at least somewhat SEO friendly by leaving text unembedded (I don't know the technical term, but there is a way to preserve appearance of whatever fonts you want, as well have type that can be selected, copied, etc).

    And according to version3, you can deep-link in Flash now. Believe me, the guy harrassed me about it and found a way to do it. ;)

    Of course, none of the above was done on my site, not because of limitations on skt's part, but because of my budget. Maybe next time. I'm aware my site is not at all SEO friendly.

  • skt0

    we get all our work from google.

  • skt0

    gramme doesn't. he gets none from google.

    • :(gramme
    • perhaps that explains the abundance of monochrome in my work.gramme
  • d_rek0

    Thank you for the validating responses (hehe)!

    @Tresudek
    The site uses minimal, minimal copy. Like an intro P's and that's about it. Outside of that there will be minimal web-safe text (some links and very small amount of copy). The problem I am having is that because of the extremely minimal amount of copy the site begins to feel very sparse using web-safe fonts.

    Unfortunately at the moment I have nothing I can show you. I will try and upload something to my flickr tomorrow for feedback.

    Thanks again!

    • don't forget your copy is vital for SEO as well - ie keyword denstiy etc...ckentish
  • Coffeemaker0

    don't be precise about type on your webs. typography is overrated. most clients don't give a shit about the font. they just want the forms to work and be able to see visitors coming back frequently.

    • that's a wannabe barista right there folds.Amicus
    • folks evenAmicus
  • acrossthesea0

    Have a clean html site and then some sort of "experience" section where you go crazy w/ the flash/motion/whatever. Show that you can do both.

  • Shaney0

    If you wanna use Flash and keep SEO safe for want of a better expression and don't have loads of text use swfobject with yo text in the div that swf object replaces.

    Thats all you need. no sifr cufun or any replacement tricks needed, just keep the div text same content as Flash text and your all set. Google safe etc if thats a concern

    • google reckons it can read flash text/links etc but always fooks it upShaney
  • johndiggity0

    use flash and set up a google business account. most people searching for agencies specify some type of geographical descriptor (advertising+philadelphia). if you set up an account with google you'll show up in the local business results on the map ahead of all the organic results.

  • ahli0

    you have to work with this jerkoff?