Periscopix

Site I'm still in the progress of creating (on test server still) - Will be sitting down with a sound guy today to produce the SFX (talking/machine noises) which should hopefully help the animations make a little more sense.

Would love to hear peoples opinions of the design - the client was very involved in the design process and wanted something really funky and zany in a monty python-esque style. The animations may not be to everyones taste because of how off the wall they seem, but I'm personally happy the client wanted to go in this fun direction.

Also if people could let me know any issues they have with the accessible HTML version that would be much appreciated. There will most likely be a few CSS errors due to some IE6 display issues that I ended up fixing using _styleproperty: which I am not too concerned about.

Well, kudos to you for producing exactly what your client wanted; but I'm sceptical whether it's want your client needs. The zany style seems totally inappropriate to the subject of pay-per-click ad providers.

I love your animations -- really I do, they're delightful -- but I think you're in the wrong business for your talents. I found myself almost incapable of reading the text, because I enjoyed watching the animations too much. When an animation finished, I went to the next page to see another one; and when I'd seen all the animations, I couldn't be bothered to go back and read your text -- I just wanted to leave.

I think it's a wonderful piece of art, but a terrible piece of business, which will cost more and deliver less than a simpler alternative. Sorry.

Hmm, I'm only half in agreement with you there Mike.

This site is visually stunning for sure. The animations are top class and the whole thing is delightfully quirky. I understand the reason you say it's wrong for a pay-per-click company... it's because it is entirely random and waaaaaay out there. But... The Cadbury's Dairy Milk advert with the gorilla drumming to Phil Collins has absolutely nothing to do with chocolate but it makes it stick in your mind! People might search google for Pay-per-click companies and see 50 sites that all look the same and say pretty much the same thing and then they'll se this one. Which one will stick in their minds the most? This one. And that's good because the experience is fun and memorable in a GOOD way! It's appealing to a younger, more hip class of clients, sure, but I have no doubt it wil have them all hooked!

I love this site and the quirky, off the wall ideas your client has.

Can't wait to hear the sounds they have planned for this.

On one negative note, however, you should try to make your "accessible" HTML version actually accessible. Make it simple and use NO flash. At the moment there is very little difference between the two.

1. Cadbury's is a household name. Different rules apply.
2. Seeking information on the Internet is not the same as watching TV. Different rules apply.
3. Buying chocolate is not the same as choosing an ad provider for your business. Different rules apply.

Of course, I'm no marketing guru. I could be wrong. But in my opinion, this website is too clever for its own good.

At first, I thought that the right-hand side content was actually an ad, because it seemed so incompatible with the design. It took me surprisingly long to work out what the site was about, because I was fighting my intuition, and because I was watching the animations when I should have been reading the text.

But hey, maybe that's just me. Or if not, maybe your distracted, bemused customers will still hang around until they work out what the site is about.

Or maybe they won't.

I still beg to differ. I don't think different rules do apply. A company website is, essentially, an interactive advert. The most effective adverts in history have always been the most quirky. Why not use the same rationale as you would while advertising on TV?

Of course it's not for everybody, but no design ever is. The clients he's aiming for here are young, hip companies... just the type of clients that will love this.

For one thing, I doubt he's conducted the same level of market research as goes into TV ads. TV ads are enormously expensive, and are carefully designed to appeal to the target audience. This kind of research costs money: much more money than designing a website.

Notice also that TV ads, while being quirky and eye-catching at the same time show you the brand. His flash doesn't do this, and so I deem it a distraction.

This website is not equivalent to a good TV ad. This website is more like an ordinary website, with a distracting TV in the background. Getting users' attention is not enough: you need their attention to be directed to the right area.

*agrees to disagree*

Yep, me too. And I'm glad to have provoked some thought (well, words anyway) on the matter, although I never knew my opinion counted for so much.

Regardless, it is one stunning, stunning site. I love it, and I hope it's a big success.

Sorry, I would critique this but the resolution is about 2/300 px to wide for my 21" screen!
Also load time is too slow, and I have to go now.

Thanks for the feedback. I kind of expected some people to be perplexed by the animations (In my logic they make perfect sense!) - From what I've experienced so far the site provokes either love or hate/confused reactions or both.

Alexgeek - the site has been tested on 14" screens with 1024x768 resolution (html version displays fine). This is the minimum resolution the client wanted their site to be designed for because of their traffic stats showing that no-one visited their old site with 800x600 resolution.

Also re: loading times - there is a HTML version which is a fraction of the flash loading time

What kind of pre-school resolution are you running!? :P

I'd be on 1600x1200 on that size monitor

All the content is visible, without sideways scrolling, on a 1024*768 viewport.

You need to scroll sideways at 800*600.

Btw. Thanks for the blog post - made some interesting reading - of course the hope is that you are right and I am guessing this is why the client wanted to go in this direction with their site so that they could 'stand out from the crowd'.

On the other hand I also understand where Mike is coming from seeing as the quirky nature of the site might be off putting for some people or even a distraction from the key message of the business - but again, the hope is that on the whole most visitors/potential clients who are pointed to the site by Periscopix will find it memorable and if anything a reason to stay on the site longer than if we had gone for a typical 'blue-chip' style design (I.e. like the approach taken with http://www.syntaxin.com posted on here a few days back). Also the intention is for it to become part of a viral marketing campaign.

Like with any project, only time will tell if it is a success.

How will you know whether it's a success?

Do you have a way of measuring the effectiveness of your design choice? For example, can you look at the trend in uptake of your client's service, and see whether the uptake rate increased or decreased following your new design?

Would this be a fair assessment anyway? What you really want is a comparison between the two approaches -- conservative and "hip" (yes, I use the shudder quotes in distaste). Was the original website of sufficient quality to make a comparison worthwhile?

I only say this because, if you're using bold marketing methods, it helps to have some data for assessing their effectiveness. Gorillas on drums may be inspired, but you can bet Cadbury's were keeping an eagle eye on their statistics as that ad campaign rolled out.

haha - a little on the pedantic side..

From the monthly lead, traffic and ranking analysis reports we create basically. If we have an upturn in conversions and generate the client more business I think it can be deemed a success.

If the new site generates no leads for the client then obviously that would be a failure.

Not really. Measurement is something most people are clueless about. But I'm probably biased, because I'm a mathematician and I live with a world expert on IT measurement.

That sounds like a pretty good method.

It can be deemed an improvement compared to what he had previously. And I imagine your client would be happy with that.

(Still, even unbiased evolutionary processes only find local maxima; but now I'm rambling.)

Note, however, that this assumes all other factors are constant; so if you're starting a promotional campaign at the same time, and the promotional campaign brings more visitors to the site, then that could bias the evaluation.