Notes on a redesign

Celebrating the conclusion of my 5th year of successful freelancing I decided that JohnLoomis.com should have a new and dynamic home created this year that would be the website that I've always wanted for my photography. Originally I hoped to use the project as a launching pad to become an advanced web designer myself (I've designed every version of JL.com since the beginning), but that idea was eventually scrapped (see "Expert") because web design on that level is a distraction from my core goals. So I decided to hire a true expert and begin the process to help create the new site. A lot of us are (or will be soon) doing the same, so I thought I'd take some notes.

Before I even thought of making of list of designers, friends, and firms I'd like to approach with my project I began with a list of ideas and goals that the website should fulfill. Just like a photo editor needs to understand what they want with the direction of a story before they begin to call a photographer to shoot it, I wanted to have a clear image of the new site in my head before I both entrusted it someone else and allowed it to take the twist and turns I knew it would in becoming real. It began with a list of concepts/adjectives:

Permanent; dynamic; BIG; elegant; smart; expensive; image-based; updateable; cohesive.

Those few words had a few thousands words behind them which represented the history of JL.com and of my brand concept for my work and business. Because I've been so hands-on with my websites and branding I knew that I was basically a nightmare client -- knowing enough to be a total pain in the ass, but also knowing too little to truly handle it myself. Here is a condensed list breakdown.

Permanent, dynamic, & BIG: As the lead designer, I have routinely gotten bored with my site on at least an annual basis and (with a weekend of free-time from assignments) completely revamped the whole thing (because I could, and because my skills have never been significant enough to allow me to create something truly lasting). So one of the first big things I wanted with a redesign was to create something I could be happy with for a "long" while (3 years). The new site would be coming after many years of HTML DIY projects which worked well enough, but if I was going to hire someone to do something, it should be something truly dynamic and exploding the simplicity of my former sites. Ditto for the size and scale of the new project... it should be a statement; it should feel BIG. Capital Letters, shouting, "I Am Here, PE's, AB's, AD's, & CD's of the World!"

Elegant, smart, & expensive: I wanted the first impression of the new site to wow both in terms of the aesthetics of the design, but also in the fluidity of the UX. I wanted something very elegant and thoughtful, but not bulky or needlessly ornate. Though the new project would be a Flash site, it would use Flash to connect things seamlessly, present photography gracefully, and be ready with want you wanted when you wanted it (like a good waiter in a nice restaurant... there and not). The site would be smart; no intro movies, no shutter click sounds; nothing that makes you leap for the close window button. But on top of all of this yin/yang it would ultimately feel high end and expensive, meant to encourage the consideration of my work as a luxury item, not a space-filler. I wanted the new site to be fancy enough to stop some of the bullshit calls we all receive dead in their tracks before I ever had to deal with them. (Hi, I'm an art buyer from McDonald's... we want you to do some publicity photography for us, but I'm afraid our budget is only $450 including expenses). That may sound crass, but I wanted the first time that I talked to a new client to be concerned with photography ideas and possibilities, not budget.

Image-based, cohesive: Lastly the new site was going to be for and focused on photography. I wanted images to speak for themselves and not be dependent on elaborate text and menus upon submenus of information architecture. There should be a joy in exploring the photography, and a freedom of movement throughout the site, allowing users to experience the photography to their own preference (thumbs, BIG images, slideshows). Of course my new site had to have the flexibility and power of a custom backend that would allow me to simply and quickly add and delete new pictures, change text info in a bio, and manage the site without having to send off an e-mail and wait a week. And all of these words ultimately had to paint a picture of a unified set of ideas that made up John Loomis Photography, bringing together the many threads and styles all in a single home which gave them connections. With the new site I would almost certainly be dismantling the JLPFL.com advertising site test, and knew I would be searching for something whole.

To match the wish list was another smaller list of things that the website did not need to be. It did not need to (at this time), fully integrate my archive within my portfolio site; or present (future) multimedia work; or deeply focus on keywording/meta concerns (I knew I wanted a Flash site after all).

With all of those thoughts in mind I created a set of blueprints (Photoshop mockups) of what this dream site actually looked like in a rough sense. I matched those with as articulate and clear of a simple description as I could about what I was hoping to have created: new flash-based portfolio website with a modern, elegant, and dynamic design aesthetic focusing on images rather than words, powered by simple backend CMS solution. I had a short-list of other sites that were inspiring to me in the process (here and here, primarily), and perhaps most importantly I had a potential budget and timetable for the project: $10,000 to $15,000 and 3 to 4 months.

My project request went out to 8 potential designers, both small and large, half of which never got back to me in any real way (that's how it is, I wasn't upset). I got concrete bids from 3 firms and they ranged very widely, both above and below my budget. I got a lot of advice from friends, and considered working with a close friend on the project but decided against that for various reasons. Before choosing my new designer I got in touch with several of their former clients (always important), all of whom professed a deep admiration for their methods, communication (before, during, and after launch), quality, and delivery.

Ultimately the job was awarded to Arseni and iHouse Design largely because I found their sites to not only be done in a clean, modern style, but especially because they felt pretty bullet-proof, unlike a lot of other designers out there (where everything looks nice until you check under the hood and bug after bug appears causing a potential viewer to have to refresh and start over in the site). iHouse had a clear picture of what I wanted, an aggressive time-table that included a penalty for late delivery (my idea), and a pretty incredible budget (bang for the buck, wise). Working with Arseni, I received a full sitemap and the first round of designs (full mockups in browser) within a week of my initial payment! Last week we completed the design of the new site after at least 4 rounds of back and forth, and are moving on to the interface/UX before testing and then launch.

I'll close out this first post with some last notes on working with a designer. As I've already said Arseni has been great to work with, but communicating about design (especially without the right vocab) can be tricky, especially if you are a pain in the ass client (like me). After using straight up words to try to describe detailed corrections to the first 2 rounds of designs, I gave up and decided to literally bring the designs into Photoshop and use the much more plain and powerful language (considering my ignorance) of lines and symbols, using the pen, line, and annotation tools directly on top. The effect was immediate. The next set of designs was 99% perfect.

I would also advise anyone in the same process to think a lot about whether what they actually are looking for is a programmer instead of a designer. To some degree I was looking for both, but understanding the difference makes things much clearer if you want your own ideas executed exactly without creative input. A designer (more expensive, typically) is going to take your ideas and needs and run with them. A programmer (less $) is going to take your sketch and make it a reality. If you are already a good designer, or have a very, very clear idea of what you want, you may be able to save some cash by finding a programmer, but your overall project might suffer (especially in the details).

That's the end of Part 1 of this adventure. Sorry to not illustrate anything with examples of the new site, but it wouldn't be much of a surprise if I did, would it?! Part 2 will follow the new site's launch in early fall.

« Go to previous entry | Home | Go to next entry »

Comments (6)

It's funny how many design firms don't get back to you, I had the same thing. I know we moan about how hard photography has become as a business, but the designers must be minted if they can ignore legitimate requests :)

new design is very very sweet John, it's refreshing to see someone use html instead of flash (which i still cannot love, no matter how many drinks she buys me)

Thanks Daniel, but what is currently live at johnloomis.com is just a temporary version of the site -- not the "new" site.

John, this was incredibly helpful and illuminating for me. (My jaw dropped at your budget, but I'm sure it'll be worth every penny.) I'm in the middle of a redesign of my own site right now, and I've bookmarked your post for the next time I go through this process. Each time I work with a designer, I learn something new--things I like, things I'd do different--but your post will save me a ton of time on the next go-'round. Thanks!

This was an incredibly helpful post. We're struggling with just this issue. Thanks.

Two homers in a row. Very informative. I have always found that if you can design it yourself it's always better to have someone else design it for you. Do you think once completed by iHouse you would feel less inclined to change it after a year? I always wondered if I paid a pretty penny for my site if I would be less itching to change it after a few months.

@Liz - In terms of budget, each photographer needs to think how important their website is to their business, and getting new work. Obviously it's important to me. I didn't write about other template alternatives out there, but I was never going to be happy with a LiveBooks or NeonSky website because I wanted something unique.

@Sherman - That's the big risk I guess, especially with someone like me who tinkers so much. In paying for something high quality I hope that I can live with it for much longer. I don't think that changing your site frequently is actually a good thing; only adding new content is good.

© 2006-2008 John Loomis. All Rights Reserved.