Read the entire post here.

As this particular creationg won’t make it into our actual web portfolio until the next redesign, we won’t get a chance to give the typical “objective/solution” breakdown. So, let me offer it here.

objective

This site serves two main purposes: to display our portfolio of work in a setting that makes it shine, and to serve as a portfolio piece in itself, as a supreme example of how we make websites.

Our previous design leaned more toward the “flashy” side of things, with plenty of animation but not enough descriptive text or categorization. This time, we wanted to push for increased clarity and usability, while keeping it engaging. We also needed more descriptive copy and informational text to give potential clients a closer look at how we do things.

Code which may have seemed snazzy at the time of the last redesign now needed significant improvements, and with all the other changes, the whole site would need some kind of rewriting.

solution

Every incarnation of the site has had some element of dynamic change (our company concept), usually a certain element that changes depending on the section you’re currently browsing. This time, the color scheme, and the logo, changes to something appropriate to the content of the section. For example, in “web,” the color changes to default-hyperlink blue, and the logo becomes pixellated. We believe this is not only conceptual, but makes exploring the site more fun and interesting.

The gray background was done in the best interests of presenting the portfolio work. As a completely neutral color, gray is least likely clash with, or interfere with the perception of, any work displayed within it. Whether the work is light, dark, colorful, black and white, high contrast, or quiet, gray serves as a neutral matting.

Every project gallery, and every image within the gallery, is accompanied by a thumbnail, instead of just a button or a text link. This increases usability by giving the user a preview of what they’ll be seeing.

With so much more text, even after editing it down, visuals were needed to break things up. As the site itself, when it’s not displaying work, is very clean and neutral, so the sketchy and whimsical illustrations made for an entertaining contrast. When the project calls for our own illustrations (not often), they tend to be very design-y: clear and bold shapes, expressing a strong concept.

Much of the innovation in the new version can’t be seen on the outside; it’s underneath the hood, in the PHP code. Previously, there had to be multiple include files, based on what directory level the file existed. By creating a variable for this information, the amount of repetitive code (and the time needed to edit it) was slashed by more than half.

The single most useful innovation is the “gallery script.” The script takes a few variables for each individual work in our portfolio (such as the title, acommpanying text, and the number of screenshots) and uses this information to automatically create the page. This way, every single work runs off only two files, making adjustments a breeze. This solution is also highly adaptable for any client site needing a large number of similar pages, such as product listings on an e-commerce site.

Finally, the whole site validates for XHTML 1.0 Strict, instead of just Transitional. As a strong proponent of W3C standards, there’s no excuse for this site not being an example.

What do you think about our new look? What was your first impression? How did you feel after looking around a bit? What would you like to see added or changed?

Clearly, we weren’t going to settle for the subpar norm. So, the only option was research. I never called that accountant again.

Things had to stay in spreadsheets for a while, while various systems were tested and sampled. As a starting point, I compiled what features were needed for a graphic design business.

• Time tracking, including tracking by both job and task, and the ability to convert billable hours into an invoice
• Emailable invoices: Nowadays, for the sake of time and of saving trees, no one wants to print and mail anything they don’t have to.
• Reports, and lots of them: Beyond just a Profit & Loss statement, the software must show time spent by task, expenses by category, and other information that only software can easily compute. Why bother to do all that record keeping if you can’t use it to gather important trends? (Well, there’s the IRS too, but point made.)
• Customizability of forms: one of the essential points of branding is that nothing goes un-designed. Documents sent to clients such as statements and invoices are a wonderful, and often ignored, place to inject design and make an impact in an unexpected place.
• Mac compatibility: sadly, it’s still often hard to find.

FreshBooks: was a good place to start. Time tracking with the OSX desktop widget was a breeze, and (for better or worse) clients were able to login and check on their job’s timesheets. However, it doesn’t go beyond time tracking and invoicing. It’s billing software, not accounting software. I’d question how any service company could manage using Freshbooks alone, and what the hassle of integrating it with other bits and pieces of software to do the rest of the accounting costs in loss of time.

Less Accounting: was a step up. Now we could put in expenses, as well as invoices. Reports were present, though few. They offer time tracking as part of the package: if you use one of their -other- services, LessTimeSpent and import it in every time you need to update your records (for designers, this means… every day). Ultimately, the hassle of integrating time tracking and sparse reports pushed Less Accounting out of the running.

MYOB: Advice touted this as -the- Mac accounting solution. It was robust, comprehensive, and Mac-only. It seems to be made specifically as a Quickbooks alternative, matching all of its features and some of its interface (flowcharts with arrows). Time billing features are tight; however, it’s only included in their most expensive version (US $299).

Saasu: A strong contender, and probable second choice. A strong set of features, including all the essentials, promising APIs, rudimentary CRM, and connectivity with Salesforce, at a reasonable monthly (US $47.8337 … per … quarter?), all web-based.

Quickbooks: Intiut shortchanges the Mac market by offering only one version of Quickbooks where Windows gets four, plus several specialized editions and add-ons. However, this package (priced at $199) still had everythiing we needed: complete time billing, conversion of invoices to PDF and sent right to Mail, and several zillion data reports (far more than any competitors).

Layout Designer was a major advantage. It’s a relatively simple plugin thats allows one to actually -design- the forms: insert images, place things anywhere, use our own fonts. Though the interface is simplistic and MS Word-ish, it’s powerful enough to turn the same old business forms into designed collateral documents.

Sure, it’s not online. It’s regular old software that uses RAM. Shouldn’t we, as a modern design firm, shun any software that isn’t based on the almighty Internets? Not blindly. Every online-only software charges monthly. Even with reasonable cost, over the years, this would make for significantly higher cost over buying it once, and upgrading it at a discount as necessary.

A laptop makes the issue of “anywhere accesiblity” moot. If the accountant needs to look over the files, I export them as necessary: they are more likely to already understand Quickbooks than any other software. Being “the” accounting software works in its favor. Ubiquity, economy, and customizability were all on Quickbooks’ side. By shopping around for discounts, the final price tag was $168.

The Decision: Quickbooks

The setup process that must be done before any records can be input involves choosing a “conversion date” (when to count records from), answering several questions about your business, and setting up “accounts” (a term which covers not only bank accounts and accounts receivable/payable, but expense accounts). Our switch of accounting occurred in the beginning of the year, so setting it up with the start date at January 1, 2009 involved re-entry of a few dozen transactions.

One of the bigger gripes with Quickbooks seems to be the difficult learning curve. I was confident that this problem was probably limited to those switching from paper accounting systems, and astute computer users wouldn’t have a problem. Having used it for a while, I think the gripers may have a point; some of its terminology is not intuitive. For example, there’s no way to enter “purchases” or “expenses;” everything you spend is a “bill,” whether or not you paid for it immediately. Categories like equipment, software, and hosting are “accounts.” Use of the word “account” confounded me for some time. On top of that, every purchase requires a new vendor record. This makes for quite a long vendor list, from the dozens of websites and stores where we’ve only bought something once, to frequently hired 1099 employees, all on the same list.

Perhaps this is a more traditional way of thinking about money, and maybe that’s why accountants like Quickbooks so much. However, none of the above gripes yet outweigh the benefits (even clients love the beautified invoices).

What’s your experience been with accounting software? What does your business use? Are you satisfied with the system, or would you consider switching?

For our first post, here’s some work that will never make it onto any portfolio. Back in the last millenium, the first things I ever “designed” — unknowingly — were skins for the popular Windows (man, remember Windows?) MP3 player, Winamp. Visuals reflected my passions for video games and Photoshop filters.

I enjoy very much looking at older work. In addition to bringing back memories, I feel a fondness like a child’s simple but treasured refrigerator drawings. As time and careers go on, many designers beceome progressively less personal and expressive; looking back always lets us find old, forgotten, and often youthfully vibrant creativity.

What do you think? When you look at your extremely old work, do you feel disgust and shame that the pieces still even exist, or amusement and pride in how far you’ve come? What do you gain from looking at it?