This weekend I was in NYC speaking at the AIGA Smart/Models conference (thanks again for the invite, Liz). One of the other speakers was a designer named Douglas Riccardi. After his talk I checked out his site.
It’s one page. It lists the name of the agency at the top. Then it says “A graphic design firm” in NY. Then it lists his phone number and email address.
Then it shows his work. Not links to case studies or a portfolio page. Just pictures of his work. He doesn’t have to bullshit. He doesn’t have to give detailed descriptions of what he did, what the goal was, or display the obligatory testimonial quote from the client. It’s just the work. Here it is. It speaks for itself. This is the kind of stuff I do.
Then at the bottom of the page it says “Thank You,” lists the phone number again, and simply states “Please call us to learn more about our firm.”
It’s as effective as any agency site I’ve ever seen. More so, in fact. It’s not full of filler, full of effects, full of slick transitions, full of clicks, or full of “typical design company stuff.” Instead, it addresses the problem directly: It’s just the name, a single statement “a graphic design firm,” pictures of his work, a “thank you,” and a phone number and email address.
It’s perfect. Excellent stuff.
Tim
on 19 May 08Not only is the site simple and direct, it’s also just one giant image.
Interesting as well b/c the speed of download is much quicker for 1 image verses an image per piece of portfolio work.
Benjy
on 19 May 08Nice! It’s great to see when a designer - particularly one who works in an off-line media - truly understands that their work is what needs to be front and center. By simply scrolling down, one gets a quick sense of their firm’s style and capabilities. Within 30 seconds one can determine if they’re worth talking to.
All too often I see graphic designer or architects who try and show their work in some sort of clunky flash interface that takes 5 minutes to figure out, loads slowly and as you alluded to adds way too much superfluous text.
justin heideman
on 19 May 08While I’m a fan of the single page sites and am in complete agreement on the no-bullshit ethos, having it be just one image seems kind of… lazy.
It’s not very google friendly, nor easy to copy and paste the address into anything when I need to find directions or give them a ring. Wouldn’t be very hard to make some of the text HTML.
Heavy
on 19 May 08View source. It’s comically brief.
Gerrit van Aaken
on 19 May 08Note the lousy quality of this JPEG image when it comes to displaying vector logos or type. Fortunately this agency doesn’t offer web design …
Anonymous Coward
on 19 May 08It’s not very google friendly
Who cares.
He seems to be doing pretty well not being Google friendly. I get the feeling most of his work is word of mouth, not random searches for “graphic designer in NYC” on Google.
Ryan Heneise
on 19 May 08It may not look Google friendly, but it’s the first result for “memo ny”.
It also displays identically in every known browser.
Cody Marx Bailey
on 19 May 08Nothing new here, there are literally 100’s of sites out there like this one. There’s no genius, there’s no need to freak out.
JC Cameron
on 19 May 08This is exactly the kind of company where word-of-mouth is so critical. Simple, straight-forward, to the point. Clearly, they made a decision to focus purely on the work and let it speak for itself. And, well, it works here.
That is why we built VendorCity, our B2B recomemndation site where companies can find the best local vendors based upon real referrals…and not based upon how much marketing dollars you spend to get to the top of Google.
So, a posting by Jason here on 37signals is likely to generate many more valuable client opportunities for Douglas than spending money on Google where he is one of a million “graphic designers in NYC”. This is where crowd sourcing plays such a huge part in identifying the best vendors in the market.
Anonymous Coward
on 19 May 08Interesting: check out Google’s cached text for memo-ny.com: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:uxiZT5DJVIQJ:www.memo-ny.com/+memo+ny&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1
Shows that you can be effective without a ton of unnecessary effort.
GeeIWonder
on 19 May 08Nice. But not perfect.
I might put the titles/context above each image series. But maybe below is better. In either case, the series of images for each instance should fit within a browser window, I think.
As others have said, I’m not sure a 680*15348px image is really necessary. Certainly it’s less indexable. It might not matter for a memo ny search, but what if I do a search for bumble and bumble design?
It’s as effective as any agency site I’ve ever seen.
I don’t know how that can be backed up or refuted. Effective for what might be a start.
Tom
on 19 May 08I am speechless. Never thought you guys would praise something like this. Minus points. Many.
Olly
on 19 May 08It would be great if they condensed that behemoth of a portfolio image by a factor of 100. The initial user experience is simply dreadful.
Nice idea in principle though, agreed.
Nick
on 19 May 08The simplicity is good; but the implementation could be better. I wish it wasn’t one image so when people search for “Zengo Restaurant Graphic Design” his name comes up. If someone did find out that he did Zengo through word-of-mouth, they can’t just go look at that work they have to consume the entire page.
I think with simple tweaks like listing his clients in columns at the top so you can jump to that work and would get the text picked up by search engines. (I’m not the biggest fan of jump links but it would keep to his idea.) The one image is bothersome to me because the whole image has to load before I can scroll whereas if the image was broken up per client, not even per piece, it would load in a way that lets people consume immediately even with a slower connection. This also doesn’t provide for a good caching mechanism if something changes. If the artist adds new work everyone has to download everything all over again.
What if I wanted to hire this artist and wanted to send around a link to a specific piece that was exactly what we were looking for. I have to say go here and its the 8th one from the top or 2nd one from the bottom.
I am really impressed by this guys work and tried to click on several pieces to get a better view of the detail but got annoyed at it just being “Hey email me!”
So this time I respectfully disagree with you guys. Its great work, but poorly presented for the web.
Dennis Eusebio
on 19 May 08I think you’re digging deeper into something that really isn’t that deep. They probably put this together because its:
a) fast b) not that much work c) what a lot of other agencies/designers/firms do
But hey, maybe I’m wrong.
Grant
on 19 May 08I find it fascinating how many people are so concerned about a) google search-ability and b) the use of a large image when in fact the site is doing exactly what it needs to do for this agency: display work and contact info.
Considering most design work probably comes from referral (I know mine does) and they’re not a web design agency, what else should the site accomplish? And why be so offended that they do it in the most simple way possible?
GeeIWonder
on 19 May 08@Grant:
display work and contact info [...] most design work probably comes from referral
If that’s the standard, he can do this on a bulletin board in his apartment as well. If you’re argument is that the details of the site doesn’t really matter, then why have a site at all?
And why be so offended that they do it in the most simple way possible?
I’d argue that it’s not the simplest way possible at all.
Anindya
on 19 May 08Jason, What do think about this? http://www.73dpi.net/
Nollind Whachell
on 19 May 08I think people are upset that this is highlighted because it doesn’t feel refined and perfected. So what. Read Getting Real. It’s all about getting something out there that is effective and works first. Then over time you can refine it. I mean that’s what design is (at least to me anyways).
I mean this may not be as “pretty” as some people want it to be but it looks pretty damn effective, especially considering that ya they probably didn’t spend a lot of time thinking about it but instead just did it.
Jin Y
on 19 May 08@Geelwonder: “I’d argue that it’s not the simplest way possible at all.”
how would you have done it?
Matt
on 19 May 08Awesome post – I couldn’t agree more, that a 1-2 page agency is the only way to go. I’ve been selling my clients on smaller and smaller sites for over a year, getting them to focus on tightening their message and content. A the same time however, I’ve been a bit hesitant to apply this to my own site. No more – the next rev of my site will definitely be a single page.
While I agree with previous posters that some code tweaks to this site could increase his page’s ‘visibility’, I’d also like to point out that, in my experience, very little quality work seems to come straight from web searches for ‘web design.’ 95% of my work (and I’d assume most other agencies) comes from word of mouth channels and repeat clients. A well designed “here’s my information and the work I’ve done” site will communicate to that audience effectively.
juytter
on 19 May 08yes but the website is a “no web” graphic design agency, no need for accessible data page content like any others webdesign agency (accessibility is a piece of the portfolio) . In this condition, do it simple, it’s easy :)
Mike Rundle
on 19 May 08I’ve always held the opinion that websites for designers or design studios are kept brief when they’re inundated with work and have little time to mess with a website. This definitely upholds that theory. Many times I’ll run across a stunning portfolio/agency site that obviously took a very long time, and then I’ll look at their client or work list and it’s terribly short and unimpressive. They obviously had a lot of time on their hands, so they spent it making their agency site look far better than any work they’ve ever done for any client.
This is a great site, however the technique only works when the work is fantastic and can speak for itself. If a designer does crappy work then they need to show “the meta” to make their designs look and feel better. Lots of descriptive text can be used to fluff up portfolio pieces that aren’t that portfolio-worthy, however everything on this site is fantastic, so no filler text is necessary.
I agree with others about the one-image approach, lack of titles, etc., but seriously, who gives a shit. We’re not here to discuss the code, we’re looking at a concept that’s brilliantly executed.
Jake
on 19 May 08I like sites like this to:
http://pixelperfecthtml.com/
Splashman
on 19 May 08Some of these comments remind me of IT guys trashing Macs (Windows is job security).
J
on 19 May 08There’s no genius, there’s no need to freak out.
Who freaked out?
JF
on 19 May 08I think you’re digging deeper into something that really isn’t that deep. They probably put this together because its: a) fast b) not that much work…
Never said it was deep. I said it was direct. And I love that they probably put this together in a few hours or a day so. That makes it even better in my mind. Make the point and move on.
ML
on 19 May 08They probably put this together because its: a) fast b) not that much work c) what a lot of other agencies/designers/firms do
So? It’s the result, not the reason why, that matters. Something that’s fast and easy and works is a great blend.
Paul Smith
on 19 May 08I like the site that Anindya posted : http://www.73dpi.net/ a lot more than the site you posted. The actual work is better too, but hey that’s just me :p
Grant
on 19 May 08@GeeIWonder
I think what I was trying to get at is that people seem to be unnecessarily hung up on how it was executed. Many of us would have done it differently – but what let that cloud the effectiveness of the message?
Splashman
on 19 May 08Jason didn’t post about a site he “likes”; he posted about a site he believes to be simple, efficient and effective—thus, he likes it.
Re: 73dpi.net, there are a bazillion sites like that. The montage of images is a mess—I can’t get a feel for the agency’s work from the montage, so it’s a slow-loading waste of my valuable time. The memo site shows me 20 projects with no clicks, and it loads a heck of a lot faster than the useless 73dpi homepage. To see 20 projects on 73dpi, I’d have to click 40 times, and wait for each to load. Blech. And 96 projects displayed? Gimme a break.
Charlie Triplett
on 19 May 08Great site, wish I was gutsy enough to do that.
Solve the human problem: Clients really like seeing things they recognize & can understand.
The quicker you get to something they can relate to, the better.
GeeIWonder
on 19 May 08@Grant: Yeah, that was probably not totally fair of me (basically for effect). But it’s a discussion of design, so there’s nothing wrong with pointing out the great, the good, and the less-great (or bad, even), right?
I like this, and find some value in most of the posts I comment on. Which isn't to say I always agree. It's not (usually) freaking out or getting upset, it's discussing. Some other cons of this choice that come to mind in addition to Nick's and others:+ Site (portfolio) updates are and will be harder. Google and others will never know about ‘em either. This content is effectively static. Ok for a museum, not really great for a graphic designer (IMHO)
+ So you don’t care about Google? Facebook is the new paradigm, right? It’s been a while since I wrote anything for Facebook, but caching this image might be an issue.
+ Speaking of Facebook, you know those Facebook “send this” links highlighted on this very blog a week or so ago? This’ll look ridiculous and be totally unhelpful on that.
+ Not really mobile accessible. Not accessible at all to some.
+ This does not degrade nicely if e.g. there’s a hosting issue.
golab
on 19 May 08tons of sites like this one around. there’s even a directory that lists them: http://www.onepagefolios.com/
Paul Smith
on 19 May 08@Splashman: I simply said I like it more. I never said anything about Jason’s opinion or what he likes or dislikes or thinks. I thought the Memo site was boring. I would have left almost immediately if it wasn’t posted here. It’s simple and everything, but it doesn’t sell to me. But they probably wouldn’t want to work with someone like me because they do a different style of work than I like. It’s just not targeted to someone like me, but I can definitely appreciate that it would work very well for a lot of people.
GeeIWonder
on 19 May 08Last one: Jason, did you not include a graphic/teaser in the OP because you couldn’t find one of a reasonable size that would work?
Splashman
on 19 May 08@GeelWonder:
Who hires a designer by doing a Google search? Answer: nobody I (as a designer) care about. Ditto for Facebook.
Site updates harder? What could be simpler than pasting a new image into the huge Photoshop file, exporting a JPG, and uploading to the server?
Not mobile accessible? What portfolio site is?
Doesn’t degrade nicely? What portfolio site does?
I’m not trying to be snarky; I think you’re trying to apply a generalized checklist without considering its applicability to the task at hand.
GeeIWonder
on 19 May 08Sigh.
What could be simpler than pasting a new image into the huge Photoshop file, exporting a JPG , and uploading to the server?
Posting a blog entry. No need to use an FTP client at all, or to edit the html to reflect the new image size or new image. That’s at least two more steps you neglected to mention.
Not mobile accessible? What portfolio site is? Doesn’t degrade nicely? What portfolio site does?
Lots are/do. Anything with RSS, or anything with meta tags. Which is almost everything. Hell, I can have most sites read to me if I want/need. Yes, even portfolio sites—the names of the clients says lots.
Splashman
on 19 May 08@Paul:
I appreciate your civil response. I’m curious, though: can you put yourself in the shoes of someone looking for a print designer, and visit the memo site again? I suspect you visited with your “cool site” radar turned up to maximum.
In my experience, a person looking for a designer has two major decisions to make:
1) Is this company/individual capable of doing work that I’ll be satisfied with? (e.g., style, attention to detail, etc.)
2) On a personal level, can I work well with this company/individual?
2 can’t be answered at a website. #1 might be able to be answered at a website, but in my experience, websites simply help funnel down the choices to a number suitable for interviews, at which #1 and #2 can both be definitively answered.Based on that criteria, a simple & quick site will achieve the purpose just as well as a fancier, slower-loading, harder-to-maintain site. It is certainly possible that the viewer will have their own “cool site” radar on and reject a simple site on that basis; it seems to me it is at least as likely the viewer will have their “uselessly flashy, non-intuitive-navigation, slow-as-molasses” radar on.
JY
on 19 May 08Geelwonder,
i think you're missing the point. you're judging how the site should be, based on how you would do it. their site does what they need, effectively.“Posting a blog entry. No need to use an FTP client at all, or to edit the html to reflect the new image size or new image. That’s at least two more steps you neglected to mention.”
why should they design a site, with someone, someday may post a screenshot of their site in a blog in mind? to update their site, all they need to do is upload 2 files.(via ftp client, or web upload tool)
if this site was of a different nature, i’d agree with you. but for what they are, the design is effortless to maintain and gets the job done.
Anonymous Coward
on 19 May 08Helps that this guy does mainly print/identity work. You couldn’t get away with this as a web shop.
JF
on 19 May 08You couldn’t get away with this as a web shop.
According to who?
Our original web site, from 1999-2001, was all text and didn’t show a single piece of work. We got away with it and prospered. You can get away with anything if it’s real, represents who you are, and is well executed. What you can’t get away with is being me too.
Splashman
on 19 May 08I stand corrected. Updating a blog can be simpler, no question. Perhaps as much as 30 seconds less time investment per update.
Um, let’s stay within the bounds of reality here. The most common scenario is this: Person gets a recommendation about Designer. Person visits designer’s site, either with supplied URL or after Googling designer’s name. Fair enough? Okay, so exactly when does RSS enter that scenario? And who’s going to make any kind of substantive, reasonable decision without seeing any images on the site? If it has degraded, I suspect they will leave. Whether they come back or not will likely depend on the strength of the recommendation.
Matt Radel
on 19 May 08Eh, it is nice. It performs its job of showcasing the work very well. I would say that they have a few too many pieces on it though. It seems a bit verbose for the simplistic concept.
I have to say that I really like the emerging trend of one page sites. Nice and simple, to the point and very little fuss. I have to wonder though – how do consumers feel about them as a whole? I think there might be a point where you’re a hair too simple for your audience and some folks might jump ship. Maybe that’s a good thing?
Nick
on 19 May 08@Jason Dude you have a lot of followers / stalkers dang. Your next post should be an image with the title of “What Would Jason Say”
I’ve never seen so many people give another person’s opinion. I mean dang.
Moving on: After reading all of the comments and shaking my head in one direction or the other we are mostly telling people how we perceive websites and like for them to communicate with us.
My first reaction to the site was this isn’t a website its a piece of print retrofitted for another medium. This is an ad, its a billboard, and that’s all its meant to be. Does that sell to me personally? no. Is it effective.. sure, obviously.
These guys do print and they are used to things being static and unchangeable; they are obviously okay with that. Its weird and quirky but it makes sense for them and that’s great.
If they want to make it work more with the constraints of the medium then see some of the suggestions above; if not just keep doing what you are doing.
I’m going to do some work now. Jason thinks I’m awesome, true story. couldn’t resist
FredS
on 19 May 08HTML and jquery lazyload. Look into it.
Roby Fitzhenry
on 19 May 08Well planned one-page sites can kick a lot of ass. Definitely some awesome work.
steph thirion
on 19 May 08Jason, I’d say, with all respect, the directness and small cost of the website is somehow admirable, but I think you might have gotten a bit carried away here…
Think of it in a user’s perspective. Everything is clickable and anything you click fires up the email client. ouch.
A good start, maybe. But, one of the best design agency sites? perfect? Really?.....
Nuadesign
on 19 May 08While sitting in the office late in the evening and thinking about what content we need to put on our website, this post has helped – we spend a lot of time thinking about the functionality of each of the sites we create and I haven’t spent much time thinking about the content for our own website the solution was enough I thought. www.nuadesign.com
JF
on 19 May 08But, one of the best design agency sites? perfect? Really?
Yes. Just my opinion. Yours may vary.
John
on 19 May 08@Jason,
The original 37S manifesto was what made me fall in love with 37S back in 2000-2001. I was total inspired to change how I did stuff from that.
I know this sounds/is cliche’, but, I have always felt talk is cheap, and that actions speak louder than words. Seeing the sites like Memo-NY, and Jody Ferry mentioned on zeldman a while back, totally prove that.
Roman
on 19 May 08My site is simple too, but one big images is a bit crude. No alternative way to browse, no way to resize font… and so on. Could still be simple…
Reality
on 19 May 08The site is not perfect.
sam
on 19 May 08i think this plays nicely off of your path vs. hierarchy post. and what i like most about this site is that it leads to a telephone number. i mean, wanna work with a designer who works for mario batali? sure. why? because the pre-selection is there. he’s done my diligence. he’s interviewed to 5+ firms and made a decision. why would i choose the same firm the batali chooses? because i understand his ethos and his mission. i’ve watched his show. i’ve seen his iconoclast on sundance. i understand his brand. and i buy it.
if i were going to hire this firm it would be because i was looking for customers like myself, which is not always the case. but if was, i get it. immediately. hired. period.
i’d make the trip to meet, of course, but this sort of pre-selection is a very important asset to have. not because batali is a celebrity, but because for many other brands he makes sense.
Chris Mowforth
on 19 May 08To take a leaf out of your [37 signals] book (p75), subjectively, the idea is great; to condense the entirety of the site into one page is admirable- I work with these people all day and they’re not known for their brevity!
Execution? Well, that leaves a little to be desired and it probably reflects the fact that it’s produced by somebody who earns their living working with Quark & InDesign rather than presentational programming.
But the fact is that it’s actually been built. Not without flaws, but it’s an actual real site which has progressed beyond a Quark layout. An xhtml genius can always clean it up later.
Anonymous Coward
on 19 May 08You proved my point – your original site erred on the strong side of the web, hyper TEXT transfer. You didn’t pop a single image w/ a mailto up because that would have looked very bad for a web shop, especially one that develops applications.
Web shops don’t just communicate with clients with their sites, they communicate with potential developers and developers who may become clients. If a site is this bare bones, the web shop looks lazy and incompetent.
Graphic designers or potential design clients, on the other hand, want the pretty picture, for which this site works. However, these guys still look lazy in that they didn’t bother to build something scalable.
You could not get away with this as a web shop.
Santiago
on 20 May 08google friendly or not, site is very simple. cool works, but “best design agency site” mm this is ok, it´s very relative in most of the cases, but is valid.
Clark
on 20 May 08I dislike sites like 73dpi that use vague obtuse thumbnails as a means to navigate data – it’s as clear as mud. It’s slow too. Otherwise the site does look good.
Lindsey
on 20 May 08The concept of the site is decent but it does fail on a number of factors. As one large image it prevents art directors from saving the pieces they like for reference later when they need to hire a design firm.
One good practice is to make each portfolio piece savable with contact information on each image.
Not to mention clicking the gigantic image just goes to a mailto:email.
It has a long way to go to be “one of the best design agency sites”
And being “google-friendly” does matter. Not so much for search engine position but for usability and accessibility. They could be losing a lot in general for specific searches by having all images. If I saw something in a store physically and wanted to know which firm did the design. I would google it.
JC
on 20 May 08It´s a matter of tastes. It´s simple and direct, not AWESOME. I would highlight that it downloaded very fast.
sam
on 20 May 08i’d propose that the “google friendliness” of this site doesn’t matter. i don’t think they need to be “seo-ed.”
finding a capable designer via google is insane. period.
every time a mission or vision statement is published on the web a little part of me dies.
Stefan Seiz
on 20 May 08Truly great and inspiring design. Stunning.
Let’s agree however, that single-image-no-text sites will hopefully not become Web 3.0 as we already had this in Web 0.1. I for one like to copy and paste addresses and phone numbers into my AddressBook Application (without having to do a view source). But having the text parts as text and not included in the huge image was apparently too much work for memo to get it right in every browser, so the huge image composition was the quickest and easyest. After all, they seem to focus on print and not online.
Arik Jones
on 20 May 08There is nothing interesting about this design. Its a big picture. Design is suppose to be impressive, compelling, his work is certainly those things. But this website is not. Frankly its rather sloppy and further iterates the fact that print designers are horribly irresponsible with web design.
Kesey
on 20 May 08It may have been put together in a few hours, but what a pain to update. Add pixels to the canvas, paste in the image, re-post the image to the site.
There is no flexibility or scalability.
Dustin
on 20 May 08Ah yes, perfect. Very accessible. My mobile phone loves it.
:\
While I agree that our work should speak for itself, the true value of a designer is in their process, which is left effectively mute here. High-five for finishing projects, but how do they get there?
J
on 20 May 08the true value of a designer is in their process
The value is in the product, not the process.
red
on 21 May 08print designers need to learn to work with html. or failing that, a web designer. it’s irresponsible to disregard the limits of a medium.
nothing makes me cringe more than seeing a webpage that’s just a giant image. i think that work can be effectively paired with well-chosen words.
Dustin
on 21 May 08J,
I halfway agree—the quality of the product is very very important, but not if it takes you seven years to complete because you’re just not feeling it. Your process, the way you get from problem to solution, says more about you as a creative professional than anything else.
This discussion is closed.