createlouisville

1. Jason Clark says:
May 2, 2008 11:21 AM

Alright. No one's commented on this yet.

I can see why it won a Gold Louie. Gorgeous design. The animation is elegant and not distracting. The illustrations are very nice.

My main problem with a site like this would be usability. It seems like there is quite a bit to the site, but the typeface is small and hard to read on the main navigation. I imagine at least some of the target audience is on the older end of the spectrum, and anyone over 40 probably wouldn't take the time squinting to read what's there.

It also seems like there is quite a bit of interesting tidbits of information and video, but it's all hidden behind a "clever" Flash interface. In my experience, you lose more people trying to figure out how to get to stuff than you impress by clever navigation. I'm a super-nerd who will take the time to figure this out, but again I doubt the target audience would be that patient.

All that being said, it's definitely a nice site, and a fun user experience for those with the patience.

2. DoomGuppy says:
May 2, 2008 11:50 AM

Outstanding content and architecture: someone really thought it all through — although the same can't be said of the execution.

I thought the design was pretty average and predictable for this genre. The illustration was inconsistent and looked more like clip-art than anything unique, which it was, apparently.

And what was up with that bizarre Carnival font on the "How It's Made" section? They had a nice type selection going on, but they toss that in. Why?

Doe might want to be influenced by illustrator / designers like Bill Green or Jared Tidwell if they're trying to get a hip-antiquey feel going. This was a stab at something that should have felt either cool or rich — it ended up being neither.

The Flash seemed pretty dirty, too -- very jumpy. The combination of vector and photorealistic art on the opening ice-splashing page, particularly, was amateurish. I liked the page-turning script, though. Nice touch, although there should be either a print or PDF function (echoing Jason Clark's comments above).

What was that load thing? A clock? Wha'? Made no sense. . . .

I was surprised to see this won any sort of award, let a lone a Gold Addy.

B- at best.

3. Jonra says:
May 2, 2008 8:39 PM

well done. informative and somewhat entertaining

4. Loki says:
May 6, 2008 9:57 AM

I agree with what's being said here. I think that when websites are judged by print designers (as they are in the Louies) that things like functionality, connecting to the user, and basic common sense get thrown out.

If anyone with interactive knowledge had judged the Louies, this would not be a Gold.

Its a nice design. Not amazing, but nice. As DoomGuppy stated earlier, I think its exactly what you'd expect from this genre. But something's off.

I like the idea of the bar with the characters and representative icons throughout. But it doesn't flow that well, and gets annoying after a minute.

The "History" link works like poop. I have a pretty rocking computer and it slows it all down. That basically means that the artwork is too large or the Doe Flash guys don't know that timeline animation was so "2 days ago."

Good effort, but being judged particularly hard because of the unmerited Gold Addy.

Loki

5. Jason Clark says:
May 6, 2008 11:31 AM

As a member of the Ad Fed, I'm thinking it might be a good idea to submit a proposal to have them reconsider how they judge interactive work. The LGDA has the same issue with judging interactive work. The shiny Flash pieces win. The well structured sites with good information delivery and usability are left behind.

Here's a couple of the things I would suggest:

1. Interactive work is judged by people who work in the field, or at least can show a decent amount of knowledge in the medium.

2. The agency that is entering the piece should have the opportunity to explain it's design and development decisions.

So many more variables go into building a website or interactive piece than just making it pretty. Optimization for load time and search engines, usability, target audience, etc. will have a profound impact on how a site is built.

6. Deanna says:
May 6, 2008 11:37 AM

I think Loki has hit the nail on the head & actually brought up a point that I've discussed previously with other interactive designers...Print Designers are judging the Louies. Therefore, we see a lot of flash work winning and designs that are well thought out & built for accessibility are greatly ignored b/c that means nothing to a print designer.
I think, if I had been an actual consumer & not a designer that I wouldn't have given that site the time it took to figure it out.
It certainly looks pretty enough. I really liked the sketches & the way the colors subtlety came into the active objects. Nice effort but overall I found it more attractive than functional.

7. Jonra says:
May 6, 2008 9:03 PM

Per Jason Clark's comments, I agree with you, being that interactive is a very integral part of advertising, there should be a rep to judge from that category. But 2 things struck a chord with me. First, usability and functionality should be a given, just as in any other medium. Whether it's a flash site or a pop-up brochure with a sound chip, if it doesn't have a strong concept/message, then the other bells and whistles are meaningless. I would hope that most of the judges are more CD level and can understand the scope of the work whether its print/design/web/tv you name it. The other thing is that I think it is on the agency on how they present their website. If you have a very involved site I suggest creating a video navigation of your site to better show the judges the flow. This is pretty common place for agencies to do if they want to win a creative award. And also, these are creative award shows not best SEO award shows. If you want your website judged on that criteria I'm sure there are award shows to accomodate.