Wanderwall falls down as CommArts builds it up

May 31st, 2007

This week, Design Interact introduced a new site called Wanderwall. This news item describes Wanderwall as:

…aiming to blur the boundaries between professional and user-generated content in a novel, fun and interactive format.”

For the sake of this post, let’s just agree to say “claiming” instead of “aiming” since it actually makes a lot more sense.

Here’s Wanderwall in a nutshell. Started by a London advertising executive, this site blends user-generated content with purchased advertising content and displays them in small graphical blocks spread across the page. As you roll over each of the images, a window opens up with a larger photo and a caption. And if you’re interested, click on it and away you go to that site, video clips, etc. There are 9 categories to choose from, including news, sport (apparently there’s only one sport), showbiz, men, women, celebrities - you get the picture.

An innovative interface where user-generated and advertising content is displayed in a uniquely visual and interactive way? Great, I’m in. That is, until you actually go the site.

Just Enough Flash to be Dangerous
Wanderwall is made completely in Flash. No, not the cool Flash sites with video, dynamically-generated content, etc. It’s old school, bad flash. Choppy animated transitions with windows swooping in. The entire site shrinking in proportion with the browser size. Annoyingly bright, primary colors with the standard overuse of drop shadows, bevels, and outer glows. Overly-beveled, blurry photographic images. Oh my god, I’m back in my first year of art school. It’s my “Introduction to Flash” class all over again.

Web 2.0 does not mean the year 2000
Just because users can submit content to be displayed on your site does not mean you can call yourself a “user-generated” site. Especially when they have to fill out a form that opens in a new browser window and then their content takes 24 hours to show up on the site. And please, don’t compare yourselves to MySpace and Facebook since it’s obvious you’ve probably never even visited the sites.

Suggestions and Solutions
Where to begin? Where to begin? How about you start by keeping the overall concept and trashing the site. Throw it away. Kill it. Destroy it. Do a Pink Floyd and “break down the wall”. Then start again by figuring out what Web 2.0 actually is, look at your competition and pay some real money for professional usability engineers, web designers, AJAX developers, etc. It’s a solid concept. Just do your due diligence and create a site that is so damn incredible that users have no choice but to “wander”.

Bad, CommArts, Bad
This is where I stop my critique. Not because I have nothing else to tear down and over-analyze because, believe me, I do. I just want to focus on the most disappointing part of all this hubbub - Design Interact and Communication Arts.

Communcation Arts is a professional, industry magazine. Design Interact is a section of their site that focuses on the on-line and interactive professionals and industries. There are forums, resources, interviews, and even “Site of the Week” awards for the best of the best - which they definitely are. I know countless web professionals, including myself, that explore the winner archives for trends and inspiration.

So how is it that such a valuable resource to countless design and marketing professionals can promote Wanderwall in the same breath as the Michelin Better Mobility and Verizon’s action hero websites? I’m at a loss.

I understand that the article was a press release and not written by your staff. You can tell by the self-congratulating fluff that’s permeates through every paragraph. But isn’t there anyone at that magazine that reads this stuff and possible asks, “Does this belong on our site?” or more importantly says “Wow, this is a pretty crappy site.”

Who knows. Maybe it was just a slow news day.

0 Comments  |   1,052 Views  |   Design, Media

Digg this  |   Bookmark at del.icio.us  |   E-mail This Post