It seemed fair to post on this too, after yesterday's critique of the Telecom Prospect 2007 website
Auckland Triennial website
First off, the '07 Triennial site is a whole lot simpler than (a) previous Triennial websites and (b) the Prospect site.
2001 Triennial
2004 Triennial
2001 Prospect
2004 Prospect
Its got lots of white space, it fills the screen, and works with the usual expanding left-hand nav. The design may not be inspired, but it's easy to navigate and read.
The site has a print screen function, and The Supporters section has embedded links for all the sponsors (both missing from Prospect '07).
On the down side - only one image per artist (here's the Phil Collins page as an example), and some looooong pages. The Events pages, for example, might have benefited from using a table / calendar format.
Interestingly, my favourite section is the most administrative: the Visit section. Nicely laid out, pretty (and readable) maps and easy to follow.
The Triennial site doesn't have any Web 2.0 features - no interactive, no commenting, no podcasts (which I should have given City Gallery credit for, come to think of it). But it does a good job of delivering information and not pissing you off.
Showing posts with label telecom prospect 2007. Show all posts
Showing posts with label telecom prospect 2007. Show all posts
Thursday, 8 March 2007
The Telecom Prospect 2007 website ...
is alive. And very reminiscent of the 2004 site.
Telecom Prospect 2007 website
Telecom Prospect 2004 website
Design
Site designer Megan Hosking, from alto, did the '04 version too. In '07 the design has been tweaked to encompass Len Cheeseman's branding; last time round it was the four sets of branding (one for each venue) produced by Neil Pardington.
Navigation
The '07 version retains the annoying drop-downs menus, which obscure the text and images when you're trying to navigate. there's a bug in Firefox too - in IE the colour block for the menu covers all the links in the nav, but in Firefox the last couple of links get lost.
There's also a nav double up - you get the drop-down plus a page of nav. Call me old-fashioned, but I like left-hand nav. (Having said that, HappyCog Studios have ditched trad nav, and succeeded - but they are web standard heroes.)
'Opinions'
The short opinion pieces from the past two Prospects - 'real people' in '01, slightly-less-tenuously-related-to-the-visual-arts in '04 - have been dropped, meaning that the 'Opinions' section is only filled with the opinions of the director and the curator. Possibly (?) the essays from the forthcoming catalogue will appear here, although no placeholder seems to be in place.
Images
The images have been improved by the addition of a pop-up window to get a larger version (missing last time) - but don't hit 'View all the works in the exhibition' expecting an image gallery; it's a PDF list of works. And - I know, being picky - this time round they've dropped the image captions, so if there's more than one work by the artist you can't attach name to object. It also means that if you're not in the artists A-Z, you don't know whose work you're looking at.
The inclusion of installation shots is nice - what would have been nicer was linking the photos of each gallery to the 'Gallery notes' available under the 'Opinions' section. And then - even nicer - within the Gallery notes, link from each artists' name to the page on their work. It's the web people - exploit its webbiness.
And - okay, picky picky pickety pick pick - the fact that the installation shots are posted in a section called 'Participate' indicates that maybe the Gallery should have put some more thought into the site IA.
Recycling
The Comments book is particularly interesting (not because of the content - it's currently empty, but if you 'Mail [sic] your response or comments to citygallery@wmt.org.nz' they will 'endeavour to post them back on this page'.)
What is interesting is the shot of deja vu I got reading the invitation to mail a comment:
Telecom Prospect 2007 website
Telecom Prospect 2004 website
Design
Site designer Megan Hosking, from alto, did the '04 version too. In '07 the design has been tweaked to encompass Len Cheeseman's branding; last time round it was the four sets of branding (one for each venue) produced by Neil Pardington.
Navigation
The '07 version retains the annoying drop-downs menus, which obscure the text and images when you're trying to navigate. there's a bug in Firefox too - in IE the colour block for the menu covers all the links in the nav, but in Firefox the last couple of links get lost.
There's also a nav double up - you get the drop-down plus a page of nav. Call me old-fashioned, but I like left-hand nav. (Having said that, HappyCog Studios have ditched trad nav, and succeeded - but they are web standard heroes.)
'Opinions'
The short opinion pieces from the past two Prospects - 'real people' in '01, slightly-less-tenuously-related-to-the-visual-arts in '04 - have been dropped, meaning that the 'Opinions' section is only filled with the opinions of the director and the curator. Possibly (?) the essays from the forthcoming catalogue will appear here, although no placeholder seems to be in place.
Images
The images have been improved by the addition of a pop-up window to get a larger version (missing last time) - but don't hit 'View all the works in the exhibition' expecting an image gallery; it's a PDF list of works. And - I know, being picky - this time round they've dropped the image captions, so if there's more than one work by the artist you can't attach name to object. It also means that if you're not in the artists A-Z, you don't know whose work you're looking at.
The inclusion of installation shots is nice - what would have been nicer was linking the photos of each gallery to the 'Gallery notes' available under the 'Opinions' section. And then - even nicer - within the Gallery notes, link from each artists' name to the page on their work. It's the web people - exploit its webbiness.
And - okay, picky picky pickety pick pick - the fact that the installation shots are posted in a section called 'Participate' indicates that maybe the Gallery should have put some more thought into the site IA.
Recycling
The Comments book is particularly interesting (not because of the content - it's currently empty, but if you 'Mail [sic] your response or comments to citygallery@wmt.org.nz' they will 'endeavour to post them back on this page'.)
What is interesting is the shot of deja vu I got reading the invitation to mail a comment:
'o7Again, apparently.
We want to hear from you… we invite you to be humorous, whimsical, incendiary, sincere - in short, to be as idiosyncratic as the artists in the show. We want to hear your thoughts, feelings, comments, ideas and reviews.
'04
Now we want to hear from you… we invite you to be humorous, whimsical, incendiary, sincere - in short, to be as idiosyncratic as the artists in the show. You are also invited to talk about the show. We want to hear your thoughts, feelings, comments, ideas and reviews.
Friday, 9 February 2007
Bile.
Jim Barr and Mary Barr have posted a mock FAQ on Overthenet, based on the 11-page letter sent to artists taking part in City Gallery Wellington's Telecom Prospect 2007 exhibition.
The letter invited artists to submit a multiple for sale as at the Gallery as part of the show. I'm all for galleries making multiples (particularly large editions) available to the public. I'm not so hot on the following factors:
- City Gallery will be adding 40% to the sale price nominated by the artist - and then keeping this as their cut. If the artist has to pass a cut on to their dealer, this has to come out of their original price.
- Based on previous artist fees, it would seem likely that the Gallery will make more money off the artists than they'll give them to take part in the show.
And then there's the bigger question - should our public galleries be engaging in dealer practices?
FAQ - Overthenet
The letter invited artists to submit a multiple for sale as at the Gallery as part of the show. I'm all for galleries making multiples (particularly large editions) available to the public. I'm not so hot on the following factors:
- City Gallery will be adding 40% to the sale price nominated by the artist - and then keeping this as their cut. If the artist has to pass a cut on to their dealer, this has to come out of their original price.
- Based on previous artist fees, it would seem likely that the Gallery will make more money off the artists than they'll give them to take part in the show.
And then there's the bigger question - should our public galleries be engaging in dealer practices?
FAQ - Overthenet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)