A fourth potential design for the new Georgetown.edu

We got a look at three potential designs for Georgetown’s website redesign last week, but after getting mixed feedback on those designs, the Communication Office’s Scott Anderson writes, they’ve asked their design firm to come up  with a fourth option.

“We’ve heard from a number of people that they felt the designs we posted earlier were not ‘cutting edge’ or ‘innovative’ enough,” he writes, “so we asked Happy Cog to come up with a more aggressive option.”

Above is that fourth option. It still includes the floating footer, but it features more content on the homepage, like events and additional University news stories, and places the seal and a sketch of Healy Hall at the bottom, too.

Commenters on the Georgetown Web Redesign blog are split:

Teresa Weber says, “Whoa, my head is spinning from looking at this website. I’m not sure where to look for the content that interests me most. Incredibly busy design with a squished feel. I agree with comments from the first round that Georgetown University looks best when all on one line. I would still recommend working from the ‘Clarity’ design from Round 1.”

Piet Niederhuasen writes, “This two column layout has the benefit of making the page more flexible — you can put more types of content higher on the page, such as current news/events (left) in addition to background content (right). It makes the page more useful in the long run.”

What do you think?

10 Comments on “A fourth potential design for the new Georgetown.edu

  1.  by  Alexander Pon

    Much better. This one has my vote.

    I still think that the bottom bar is ridiculously gimmicky and no one will use it.

  2.  by  Tom Bridge

    I guess imitation is the highest form of flattery. Those subheads on the left look awful similar to our subheads…

  3. Pingback: The New Wave of Website Awesomeness? » We Love DC

  4.  by  typical

    Way too much. Georgetown University should be on one line, as should each row of headers.

    Also that picture of Healy at the bottom left is really distracting and I think it ages the look of the page.

    I still like the 2nd option of the previous three, whatever it’s called.

    And Mr. Pon is right about the popup bar thing at the bottom. It’s like an afterthought, at least from what we’ve seen.

    Any chance we could get a sample page so we could see how it moves, and how the content looks?

  5.  by  John Athayde

    Yeah, it’s my design style for We Love DC that I put up when we launched TWO YEARS ago. Same damn font, one word in blue. c’mon. Thats just low.

  6.  by  Lizzy

    It has taken them this long to come up with 4 page designs that look like templates on cheap “make your own website” programs?

  7.  by  lol @ welovedc

    Really, welovedc? You trying to claim that you came up with using Verdana and an accent color? John Athayde, your “design style” is the same style as 99% of “designers” out there. Let’s not pretend you invented switching colors for the second word in a title. That design technique has been around as a typography tool from long before web design, and long before your terribly designed website. Try coming up with a less derivative style, and maybe you’ll have some legitimacy in challenging other designers.

  8.  by  lol @ welovedc

    And by the way, if you’re going to call out Happy Cog for stealing work, you better have a damn better reason than them using the same font on a subheading. They (especially, Jeffrey Zeldman) have done more for web standards and design than almost anyone. The best part of all of this is that if you even claim to be a web designer, you’ve read A List Apart (http://www.alistapart.com) which was created by Zeldman, and which is essentially a Bible for anyone proficient in web development.

  9. Pingback: Vox Populi » Georgetown selects the concept for its website redesign

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>