[Oscar Alexander]

Andy Foulds Portfolio

'Nuff said. Ow, make sure you check out his interfaces, they're briliant!

[The Dude]

Can I just say Wow! Very nice work. I can tell that's not something you just threw together in 15 minutes. I hope you still have a full head of hair after creating that. Programming in flash always makes me want to rip my hair out.

[lungx]

indeed wow! that's some amazing stuff...and
they load pretty fast too. cool stuff ahuh

lx

[assa]

Another boring MM flash showoff.
The actual flash actionscripting is pretty
good and some ideas ARE quite nice, but :

I.m.h.o the graphical & artistic value or
content is LOW. I don't really like the
colors, the fonts, composition, sounds etc.

This site is good to show what can be done by
turning static vector flash images into a bit
more dynamic content. The author did not
spend that many effort to fix some details,
searched for harmony in all colors etc.
making the overall artistic presentation a
bit crappy. I think this Andy guy is more a
technical person then a 'real' artist.

Too bad many people use a program, and prefer
technology to esthetics.
A good production should be easy on the eye &
powered by solid interaction design.
Typhography, color matching bg, logos, H.C.I
(human computer interaction), ui metaphors &
many other non digital elements should be
blended into a global mix of the final
outcome.

An 'artist' who hides behind the features of
a program, lacks orginality and quality,
should drop his computer for a while and go
back to the real basics of FINE non digital
art. Don't become a slave of any program, let
the program work for YOU.

"Less is more" -> Mies van der Rohe (Bauhaus)

Feedback me.. (not a lecture, just another
critical view) hehe

assa - Prof. (non web)designer/artist & media critic.

[This message has been edited by assa (edited February 28, 2000).]

[akh]

assa, i knda see what you're talking about.. less is more. For some reason, his site seems straining or too busy for the eye... but at the same time I disagree with you, because I can only drop my jaw at his originality and creativeness... it lloks really cool, but a little too much is going on

------------------
mmmmm...doughnuts

[assa]

I just stated that his flash actionscript
coding IS quite creative. (that's no question)
It's just too bad he did NOT spend more
effort on the 'artistic' & 'esthetic' side of
his site.

There are more sites who try to find the
limits of MM flash but don't get your vision
blurred by all this technical gizmo stuff.

In my honest opinion a solid design rocks
on values based up on "look & feel". The
program or medium used are simply variables,
they are not the icing on the cake.

Other flashtechie freaks might like :
www.randinteractive.com

Or these gods of shockwave experiments and
good looking gfx (my fav. choose of quality):

www.amaze.co.uk/noodlebox/
www.thesquarerootof-1.com/

Other good UI/experiment stuff can be found
on : e.g Tomato/antirom cdroms (simply
impressive), Emigre's codexseries cdroms
(emigre vs. josh ulm, matt owens etc.),
Gasbook package (from japan, the land of
extreme coolness) etc..

Trust me, there are MORE fonts to use then
a 10pt verdana and you don't need to
imitate a www.flashpad.com tutorial to be
creative hehe..

assa - F*ck technology, re-invent yourself!



[This message has been edited by assa (edited February 28, 2000).]

[immi]

I'd have to agree with what assa said. For me the site wasn't very user friendly or intuitive, and this sort of overshadowed the technical merit.

[dennison]

the scripting is amazing, but, like most sites which i find to be another flash 'show off', i also find it very hard to navigate, that it gets confusing somethimes, and that the inexperienced user will eventually become lost in the site, not knowing what to do.
flash was made initially for the purpose of making animation smaller and easier over the net by using vector animation instead of raster, but it seems a lot of people never saw it that way and think like "oh i am a flash expert, i'll show off my expertise by making a whole site in flash" um, excuse me, ever heard of "user-friendliness"?

[dennison]

those two sites www.amaze.co.uk/noodlebox/ www.thesquarerootof-1.com/
aren't user-friendly either.. i closed them right away. too bad poor people on lynx couldn't enjoy those sites!
user-friendliness: 0/10
compatability: 0/10
naviation: 0/10

[Oscar Alexander]

Assa and I had this discussion on the IRC (#digital-art, IRCnet) the other day, and I'd like you people to take part in it. The main point of disagreement was: Is Andy Fould a designer or merely a good actionscripter?

In my opinion his website is great showcase of what you can do with Flash, and not what Flash can do for you. Andy did a great job presenting his knowledge of actionscipting in a challenging yet simple design.

Andy does not hide behind any of Flash's features, instead, he make use of them in an innovative way. This site is obviously not created in 15 minutes. Also, Assa is contradicting himself by saying:

An 'artist' who hides behind the features of a program, lacks orginality and quality [...]

Don't become a slave of any program, let the program work for YOU.

And indeed: Less IS more...

[This message has been edited by Oscar Alexander (edited February 29, 2000).]

[assa]

Dennison :

Since Lynx has no "shockwave flash or
director" support, there's not much content
to see for you on any of the sites mentioned
above.

You are using a 'wacky' browser, so you can't
blame a GFX design company (prof. gfx and
shockwave designers) to build a txtonly non
shockwaved site. If you're a content only
websurfer, simple and fast browsers can be
good. But that has NOTHING to do with "less
is more", it's more a fact that those
browsers can NOT do more then that.. hehe

But 80% of the websurfing crowd (i did not
make up this number) has the flash plugin
enabled, quite a BIG crowd of inet people.

Again.. there's NOTHING wrong with building
a site completly in flash or plain HTML
whatever, cuz technology is just a side
factor. The final result should ATLEAST look
good, and a solid navigation & interaction
is a real PLUS.

As a true artist I dislike mega ugly but
very ergonomic interface or user <> computer
feedback. I do like a site, cdrom, program
that has good looking gfx AND the a good UI,
navigation etc.. etc..

The black box theory rocks, cuz most people
don't care about the technology used. So
it does NOT need to play an important role
on the foreground of your design. Be prepared
to make a choice and between autonomic design
(a.k.a art) or productional technology driven
creations. There's nothing wrong with beeing
a 'non artist' or constructor, just don't
try to become both. A mix can be done, but
you need to be sharp and very talented not
to get carried away by all those so called
helpful program features.

Gain experience, experiment etc. and time
will tell.. re-ivent yourself!

assa - Prof. designer & media critic

p.s

The "less is more" quote is done by Mies van
der Rohe, a famous german architect. It has
nothing to do with gfx or webdesign. Read the
Bauhaus philosophy and take a GOOD look at
some of Mies' Chicago skyscrapers to see how
he used technology from an artist's point of
view.
Too bad his work and visions got raped and
abused by several silly yankee non avantgarde
architects/builders. It's easy to read out of
context.

The Bauhaus school in Weimar & Berlin was
also very active in gfx design (look at some
known fonts, magazines like "de style" etc.)
and offcourse industrial design.

[assa]

Oscar :

I'm NOT contradicting myself, cuz quoting me
without reading/understanding the context is
way too simple. You just do not seem to get
the global point and values of doing non
technology driven design.

"An 'artist' who hides behind the features of
a program, lacks orginality and quality [..]"

Means : If you need a special feature done by
a program and use it as the MAIN ingredient
of your production, you HIDE behind a wall of
technology! Rip away the special features and
your production is 10times less atractive.
Balance your production and give technology
less priority!

"Don't become a slave of any program, let the
program work for YOU."

Means : Use any program or technology as a
TOOL. Don't use a program as the center of
your design. Make sure all elements (non
digital or purely digital) are well balanced.
Many computer artists limit themself by
looking at what CAN be done in e.g flash or
photoshop etc. but that's using the border of
current technology as a lame excuse for YOU
not creating your dream production.

"The Medium is the Message" -> Marshall McLuhan (1960's).

assa - non f*cked up urban designer



[This message has been edited by assa (edited February 29, 2000).]

[Oscar Alexander]

ASSA

Nooo... to me, what your saying is:

An 'artist' who hides behind the features of a program, lacks orginality and quality [..]

Meaning: If you use a Photoshop cloud-filter, you obviously lack the skills to draw some pretty clouds of your own. Whether it is the main element or not...

Don't become a slave of any program, let the program work for YOU.

Meaning: Why draw your own clouds if Photoshop can do it for you?

FYI (you already know this if you ever used Flash, which is the case): NONE of the effects on Andy's site are standard one-click plug-ins. Most interfaces rely on home-brewn actionscripts sometimes featuring sophisticated calculations. So he is definately NOT 'hiding behind a wall of technology'. And obviously the goal of the site is to show the visitor (potential client) what he, Andy, can do with Flash <-- Keep that in mind...

Oscar - [dull line goes here]

[This message has been edited by Oscar Alexander (edited February 29, 2000).]

[assa]

Well this is getting annoying but, hell who
cares...

Oscar : "YOU don't seem to get my point"

You're looking for a word to word translation
of things I said in the posting above.
That's a fucked up way of discussing, cuz the
things I said go further then the SIMPLE use
of any program etc.. it's a discussion about
"art" and the focus on an artist vs the use
of a program.

If technology, coding routines etc.. are the
center of a production, then the artistic
result will suffer. Many people don't give a
shit about how stuff looks, like standard
tutorial like stuff simply because they have
NEVER ever tried to extend their vision or
they simply don't care about a prof. look
a.k.a spending a bit more effort.

Andy is a FLASH coder, not a flash designer.
If you think that stuff his gfxical stunning,
then try reading some books, get some
magazines or take a look at films etc.
Observe the difference between the level of
quality & professionalism in digital 'art'
versus the traditional media. A damn eye
opener.

A good production is based upon more then
digital trickery.

If you care about HOW it's done and not why
it's done and what's it supposed to do etc.
you should better skip all ART mumbo jumbo
and call yourself an IT professional (nothing
wrong with that.)

I don't care if a website has a hard to code
'mouse cursor chase fx', cuz such effects do
not make the basis of a good website.
Ugly looking standard vector gradients,
shitty sounds, bad gfx, no use of
typhography, bad navigation, small ugly
animation glitches etc.. don't disappear or
don't get better by using GOOD flash code.

I respect his flash coding, i dislike the
rest, cuz i.m.h.o he did not do a good job on
those elements! Whatever the amount of time
spended in the actual development of a site,
I only look and judge the final outcome.
A 10 minute made crappy site = crappy, a 10
weeks made crappy site = just as crappy etc.

Don't use the level of technical difficulties
or lack of time etc. as an excuse for poor
gfx and shitty design a.k.a a BAD overall
result.

That's all, just my opinion. Ik zou zeggen,
ga nog maar een paar jaar rond kijken. Spreek
je dan wel weer. Er is namelijk meer dan
digital en internet design op de wereld!

assa - Prof. designer & media critic.

[Stolln]

When one begins to design a website, they should base the entire site around a main feeling that they are looking to portray. With this feeling, the content can be uniformed to any fashion that the designer sees fit. Personally, I don't care what people use to make enjoyable experiences, as long as they are enjoyable. Simply "Flash" means nothing to me. However, if it is executed in a way that is intuitive, creative, and innovative, while at the same time making it an enjoyable experience, then flash-only sites are fine. I do not base the design of sites I create on what I use; I base them on the best way to portray content to viewers. Typography is probably the biggest form of portrayal of information that a designer can use. Sites with only typography as a design element and that portray the information to the public effectively beat any sites that just use flash to show off.

When a person designs a site, they should look at the site through the viewer's eyes. Everything should be clear to the viewer so as not to create stress in trying to find where to go. This brings up navigation. Navigation should be clear enough to navigate (no pun intended), yet the best use extremely complex designs while at the same time being clear. This balancing act signifies a great designer.

Now, I'm not going to go on for 5 years about how to design sites; that is the job of many, many books and classes. However, just thought I'd throw this in.

------------------
From flesh to steel to blood to blade I fight to exist.

[Oscar Alexander]

Here's my final thought:

His site is not graphically stunning, I never said so. But I think his site
does a great job showing off what his, and not Flash's (that's just the tool
he chose for) capabilities are. I agree though, that the navigational part
could have been a bit clearer...

---------

That's all I have to say. Assa, I respect you as a designer, you obviously
are more educated then me when it comes to design in general. But please let
me have my own opinion next time. If I need someone to disapprove everything
I say and think, I'll let you know

Cheers,

Oscar Alexander