Does the KERRY/EDWARDS Campaign Need a Better WEBSITE/GRAPHICS?

[Placebo]

I was wondering if I am the only one out there who is less than thrilled about the graphics and design of www.johnkerry.com

It just doesn't look exciting, rather boring in fact, nothing about it jumps out at you, there are no effects added to the text, even the font used is so...ORDINARY!

ALSO their campaign merchandise. It's so...blah.

Now, I despise Bush/Cheney, but I will give them this much, their website, store, and campaign gear looks waaaaaaaaay better than the Kerry/Edwards site/store/gear, but maybe it's just me.

[shockingelk]

1. As far as markup errors ...

Kerry/Edwards homepage: http://www.johnkerry.com/">2 errors

Bush/Cheney homepage: http://www.georgewbush.com/">280 errors

[JI7]

2. not really, many people like the "not too flashy" look

[RichV]

3. Really though, the gear is kinda ugly

The new K/E design is much less attractive then the old JK merch. That design with the flag is just not easy on the eyes, despite Old Glory's presence.

[Placebo]

4. I agree...

100%!

[JI7]

6. i'm thinking they probably intended it to be toned down

i thought it wasn't all that great at first either. but it has a certain old small town political campaign feeling to it.

[RodneyCK2]

5. You have a point...

The Bush&Co site is a bit flashy and more graphically embellished, but the Kerry/Edwards site is easier to read. Flip back and forth between the two sites to illustrate my point. Information on the front page of Kerry's site is more organized. Bush&Co's page leaves your eye flying all over the place.

In my opinion, glitz and flash is not always better. One thing Kerry could do is add another color or two to make it pop, but I like it's easy-to-read format, less is more.

[InvisibleTouch]

7. As a dabbler in web design and graphics myself...

...I would have to agree with you. I like a little more flash and glitter on my web sites, and quite a bit more color. Too much dark text on white background just screams "mundane" to me. I don't think the site looks that bad, but it could be spiced up a little.

Likewise for the Kerry/Edwards logo ... it needs some more motion and asymmetry. As-is, it's too straight-across and constrained, not enough drama to catch the eye.

Then again, my visual preferences are surely not Senator Kerry's, and it may be that he's trying to evoke just this effect - steady, solid, and down-to-earth ... and you'd never accuse one of my web sites of that. ;)

[bitchkitty]

8. Hoo boy -

As a designer/developer, I have very strong opinions on the subject. First of all, the Internet is about information, not pretty pictures. There is absolutely nothing wrong and many things right about the way the site is set up.

The site is fine - it's well designed (2 errors, very nice but I'd certainly take care of the errors) and it serves its purpose well. The only thing I don't like about it is that the text is a fixed font - they should make it a relative font so it can be enlarged simply by clicking View and Text Size. The way it is now, you have to change your internet options if you want to make the text larger and this is a pain in the ass.

[InvisibleTouch]

9. I don't entirely agree....

First of all, the Internet is about information, not pretty pictures.

The great thing about the web is that you can convey information in an eye-catching and interesting way, far more easily than you can in almost any other medium. "Information" by itself, shouldn't preclude "pretty pictures" - or vice versa, of course. But I never have and never will believe that it's necessary for a site to be boring and pedestrian in order to do a good job of providing information. Colors, backgrounds, the overall look of the site, can add greatly to the atmosphere that you want your visitor to come away with.

I had a similar disagreement once with a co-worker who hated the starfield backgrounds that I have such a passion for ... but, the site I was working on, needed to give a sense of mystery, wonder, and unlimited adventure. Not the small-minded metallic-gray crap that my co-worker liked. Eventually he assigned the site to someone else, and now it looks like hell.

Anyway, just an alternate perspective.

[bitchkitty]

10. This is a subject that has

been hotly debated on a web design forum I used to visit. The issue at the time was Flash - was it a hindrance or a great addition to the Net?

I like Flash - if it serves a purpose. For instance, a chatroom built in Flash, or a navbar (although as I'm sure you know, an alternate text menu should be used in addition). I do not like Flash intros - even with a "skip intro" link. The exceptions would be a site that is about Flash intros or movies, or if the site is coded to show a user the intro ONCE, and not in subsequent visits (I have seen one site in 4 years that did this, so it's not common).

I look at it this way - if you're selling a product, would you put it in a store that was noisy, with blinking lights and sounds, or would you display it in a clean, orderly shop, on a rack that shows the product off to its best advantage, without distracting from the product itself? And our candidates are a product, all philosophies and platforms aside.

I've sent you a PM - always interested in other designers and what they're up to!