We are, I hope all familiar with The Pritzker Prize. It is architecture’s richest prize and I guess as result, considered its most prestigious. It is awarded each year by the Hyatt Foundation to an architect with a substantial body of consistently high quality work that upholds the highest values of design.
As such it seems a little strange that the official website so utterly, terribly, eye-puncturingly, horrifically designed? Don’t believe me? Let us have a look:
Click - Enter - to enter. Before you do though, note that the site was last updated in April 2006. Not as you may imagine, in say, 1997.
Awesome. Frames. So retro.
In order for you to gain a full appreciation of the site I have taken the liberty to point out a few of the more subtle features:
- 01. Times New Roman.
- 02. Pritzker Medallion draped over a piece of virtual blue marble.
- 03. Britannica Internet Guide Award. Whatever the hell that is.
- 04. Little ‘blue earth’ bullet points.
- 05. Paulo Mendes de Rocha looking like he wants to Punch You In The Face. Paradoxically, unlike this dude before him.
- 06. Information en Espanol? Uh-huh. Tick.
- 07. Tiled ‘Pritzker’ logo background. Particularly successful where the menu frame and the content frame misalign.
A quick look at the source code reveals that the site was made in Microsoft Frontpage, which begs the question - With a prize for US$100,000.00 given out each year why not spend a couple of bucks to get someone to design something that even remotely does justice to the work of the architects being awarded?
April 28th, 2006 at 3:03 am
Have you offered to redesign it? Maybe I will…
April 28th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Perhaps an official design competition is in order…
I’m onto it.
April 28th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Have a look at this:
http://sketchup.google.com/product_suf.html
April 28th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
The fact that this website does not conform to the infectious white archi-look that has just about annihilated everything else on the web is refreshing. Perhaps it is indicative of the organisation’s goal of quality content rather than savvy marketing and PR. Not all architects care so much about how artistically (more often than not confusingly) there work is presented on a the web.
This is the lamest ‘issue’ to be posted recently. Stick to the dayjob.
April 29th, 2006 at 4:06 am
I totally agree with batman. I think the content of the website is presented in an easy to follow format. I think the problem with today’s web designers is that they want to make their websites more eye candy than functional. The purpose of the site is to provide relevant information about the Pritzker Prize not to sell products or mimic websites like cnet.com
April 29th, 2006 at 8:15 am
In regards to batman’s and Art Geek’s criticism, even if we ignore the aesthetics of the Pritzker page there are problems. Marcus mentions frames, and to me that’s the biggest problem with the site. For one it doesn’t help when trying to link to specific pages. Yes, it can be done by linking to the page within the frame but then people will have a hard time to further navigate from there, if they wish to do so. Notice that any web page that mentioned the naming of the 2006 prize recently linked only to the main page, partly because of the frame problem but also because they don’t provide a specific page for that announcement; they just add to the main page and the news page. And if the frames thing weren’t bad enough, they use anchors in the pages within the frames, another annoyance and hinderance to linking. Part of the point of having a web page is to share information, and the best way to share is by being able to link to specific pages, to point people in a specific direction.
Now, even though I agree that they should redesign the site, I don’t think it should be like other architects’ web pages, all Flashy and busy and annoying. But if they think of the Pritzker page in a similar vein as an architect thinks of a building then we’d see an improvement. Hear me out. Ultimately, architects strive for a balance of function and aesthetics; you can’t have one without the other and call it architecture. Most cutting edge architecture values the latter over the former, but on the laureate list, there’s a wide range of approaches to achieving some sort of balance. Similarly, a web page that values aesthetics over function may use Flash and frustrate people trying to use it in different ways. But if the Pritzkers think of their web page as a balance of function and aesthetics, a redesign would be justified. Right now it’s lacking in both function and aesthetics.
April 29th, 2006 at 11:16 am
The Pritzker website is the public front to the Architectural Profession’s most prestigious prize - a prize which gets mainstream press attention from around the world. That this is their public presence sends a message that this is a half-baked award with no care for design.
The point is that design is important. Whether it is white or not is irrelevant.
As is arguing that the site need not be thoughtfully designed because it is all about the content. Would you argue that the New York Times should forget about typography and layout?
+
Art Geek - who said anything about selling products or mimicing cnet?
Batman, I will stick with my dayjob, thanks for the encouragement! And dude, you stick to fighting crime - the streets need you man.
And John, thanks for the considered response.
April 29th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
At no point did i suggest that the site wouldn’t benefit from some functional and perhaps aesthetic improvement.
John has presented a thoughtful analysis of the problems with the site’s navigation, and the need to carefully balance aesthetic and functional requirements.
On the other hand, the original blog post made a few obvious and rather shallow observations.
1. The fact that frames are old html technology or ‘retro’ does not mean they are redundant.
2. The typeface. Actually more legible than arial or verdana.
3. The choice of photograph? Maybe he does want to punch you in the face…
4. Some other minor aesthetic reservations.
Why do we fall Marcus? So we can learn to pick ourselves up again…consider yourself warned
April 30th, 2006 at 11:46 am
This is a letter inviting a webstite to accept a britannica ‘internet guide award’. what a crock.
Dear Webmaster:
Britannica.com is contacting you because our editors have selected your site as one of the best on the Internet when reviewed for quality, accuracy of content, presentation and usability.
As a result, we would like to offer you the opportunity to join in the launch of our new link exchange program. This program will give you and other top quality sites the opportunity to add a Britannica search box to your site and thereby provide your users with direct access to Britannica’s awarding-winning content, including the trusted and authoritative Encyclopaedia Britannica.
The search box will be accompanied by an award, which will tell visitors to your site that Britannica editors have rated one of the most valuable and reliable on the Internet, in the company of an elite group of Web sites. You can choose to use the search box, the award or both.
We know quality is always difficult to accomplish and maintain. Congratulations on being a selected member of the Britannica Internet Guide. We look forward to our growing association in the future.
Regards,
The Staff at Britannica.com
April 30th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Times New Roman deserves more appreciation than it gets.
May 1st, 2006 at 3:48 pm
I agree with you, Marcus - I’ve wondered about this many times. The Pritzker Prize page is laughable.
May 2nd, 2006 at 8:12 am
I think everybody here has valid arguments about the Pritzker Prize website. However, I don’t think the site is bad at all. The average user doesn’t know what frames or best design patterns are. Most people want to find what they need fast and I think the site is doing that very well. Try to get around Zaha Hadid’s website (http://www.zaha-hadid.com/), good luck trying to find what you need.
Best Regards,
-M
May 2nd, 2006 at 8:27 am
Haha, it’s funny to see people criticizing other websites, and just look at this one (gravesmor.com). My 3 year old kid can can do better than this (no offense).
Then again…I’m criticizing this one.
What a wonderful world :-&
May 2nd, 2006 at 9:04 am
mmm…’batman’ and ‘art geek’…don’t bother applying for any graphic design jobs…
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:43 am
hmm…
i think that trying to defend that pritzker website is pretty lame. if there were awards for reputable organisations having substandard sites, pritzker would have to be up there. surely their website should strive to match the level of excellence that our award winning architects have achieved in their careers. even if the web design had strived for excellence but fell short you could forgive them. but they haven’t even tried.
i’m wondering if batman and art geek work for pritzker’s web design company…
May 3rd, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Batman, art geek, carmen.
look at it… LOOK AT IT! Beveling on the logo? Center justified text? Strange old man photo?
Carmen, if you showed that website to your 3 year old kid they would be having nightmares.
Batman:
1. The fact that frames are old html technology or ‘retro’ does not mean they are redundant.
LOOK AT IT!
2. The typeface. Actually more legible than arial or verdana.
LOOK AT IT!
3. The choice of photograph? Maybe he does want to punch you in the face…
LOOK AT IT!
4. Some other minor aesthetic reservations.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? LOOK AT IT!
don’t you feel dirty?
May 3rd, 2006 at 7:11 pm
LISTEN UP!
Anyone can see that this site isn’t striving to achieve any design awards on the merit of visual presentation. It does achieve:
Clarity
Simplicity
Functionality
and it’s VERNACULAR dammit!
We do not need a breakdown of the superficial issues that don’t conform the the design + architecture website norms. This is plain obvious.
Ultimately, it just ain’t worthy of discussion.
‘nuf said
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Few architects can design anything other than a building. They think they can. Try doing print or advertising with one and they’re micromanaging the colors, fonts, photos, etc.
Few illustrators or photographers can design anything other than an image. They think they can. Try doing print or advertising with one and they’re micromanaging the colors, fonts, etc.
Few print designers can design anything other than a print piece. They think they can. Try doing some web work with one and they’re micromanaging the colors, fonts, etc.
I would say my point is sometimes an individual’s expertise in design is not the appropriate expertise in design.
May 3rd, 2006 at 11:33 pm
I believe the author’s point is that the Pritzker organization should appreciate the importance of good design. Period. If a Frontpage site is good enough, why not just pick our building plans out of one of the books they sell in the checkout line at Home Depot?
May 4th, 2006 at 3:07 am
Apparently batman’s assertion that “Ultimately, it just ain’t worthy of discussion” isn’t the case, or we wouldn’t have 19 comments that illustrate both sides of the argument. Though I’m curious what’s vernacular about the site. Does vernacular mean first-generation web design? Is there such a thing as vernacular in web design? Or maybe the silly architect in me is equating that word with the architectural term, where building design responds to functional needs and other considerations, particularly climate, over a long period of time and trial and error.
And I can’t say I agree with Rog’s point, that those with specialized experience should stay out of the way of other people’s specialized experience. But maybe that just stems from my dislike of specialization in general.
May 4th, 2006 at 3:30 am
You make an interesting point Todd. I’d also like to point out the irony of how miserably the architecture - not the content - of the Pritzker site on the most basic functionality of separating content from style.
However, I think Rog was on the way to making a good point - these are architects of “real space” not “web space” and just as many web developers are not well versed in the current version of the International Building Code - neither are most architects well versed in current web standards.
May 4th, 2006 at 6:06 am
What the you guys think about the Pulitzer website?
http://www.pulitzer.org
Jay
May 4th, 2006 at 8:44 am
mmm now lets be clear. Good or bad?
i’d suggest that the Pritzker site is circa 1998 bad in many respects. Not because I’m an architect or an artist but because i work with web technologies every day. Its fair enough to state current trends might be getting stale, and I do agree, but for the life of you if you paid over $500 to a high school kid to produce that site you’d have been ripped off.
if anyone is actually trying to say pritzker is a good site then I would kindly suggest they don’t quit their day job to take up web development. I actually had considered blogging the subject myself when a family member went to do some work for Zaha recently and I saw both sites.
A good post and a very valid point. I agree - if $100,000 is the prize you’d expect some professional web development to be a part of their overall marketing strategy wot! Cheers mate and don’t listen to the knockers… they’re most likeley Pritzker related people or the kids who put it together.
May 4th, 2006 at 8:52 am
[…] The Pritzker Site Is A Major League Dog - gravestmor points out that with $100,000 prize money they might have paid a web professional to do the site. Not everyone agrees (funnily enough). The code sucks like a Hoover on horse steroids! […]
May 4th, 2006 at 8:54 am
christen - good point.
hire an architect to build and hire a web developer to make web sites… actually the point of this article… the equivalent would be having you all come over to a house I built myself in ignorance of the building code and having several people insist it has some merit despite that. cheers.
May 4th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
I particulary enjoy that they have used ___________________________ for making the little line rules about the site. On the homepage they even use ___________________________________.
Make sure you put that one in the tip jar!
May 4th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
That was <b>_______________</b>
So while we are talking about website usability, how about posting your policy on HTML in comments?
May 5th, 2006 at 4:56 am
The design hasn’t changed in a long time. The first time I visited the site was about 6 years ago. It had the same design.