Examples of Personal/Professional Websites for Academics?
May 31, 2005 7:49 AM Subscribe
A professional website that doesn’t me look like a pompous jerk?
I need a simple, clean professional website. I am an academic who does a little grant writing and consulting on the side and I want a site where potential clients, other historians, hiring committees and my students can learn a little more about me. It would include my vita, some writing samples, a few pictures of the family, and maybe some things like a statement of teaching philosophy. No flash or other bells and whistles.
Problem is, every such site I see either looks amateurish or makes the person look a self-important weenie. (I could link to examples but that seems cruel.) I am looking for some examples of good websites for academic professionals. Any suggestions?
Difficulty Level: I will be using FrontPage, and I probably really am a pompous jerk.
I need a simple, clean professional website. I am an academic who does a little grant writing and consulting on the side and I want a site where potential clients, other historians, hiring committees and my students can learn a little more about me. It would include my vita, some writing samples, a few pictures of the family, and maybe some things like a statement of teaching philosophy. No flash or other bells and whistles.
Problem is, every such site I see either looks amateurish or makes the person look a self-important weenie. (I could link to examples but that seems cruel.) I am looking for some examples of good websites for academic professionals. Any suggestions?
Difficulty Level: I will be using FrontPage, and I probably really am a pompous jerk.
Best answer: Examples: Malcolm Gladwell's website and Reza Aslan's site.
posted by scazza at 9:55 AM on May 31, 2005
posted by scazza at 9:55 AM on May 31, 2005
I'm sorry to be pompous and self-serving, but the terms "professional" and "front-page" should not be uttered in the same sentence.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:38 AM on May 31, 2005
posted by jsavimbi at 10:38 AM on May 31, 2005
Michael Cosentino
In my book, it doesn't get much better than this. Minimalist but everything you would ever want to know about the guy is there. Remarkably restrained yet professional if you consider the guy's an interaction designer!
Oh and please, whatever you do, don't copy a website. Use what you find as inspiration rather than as template.
posted by junesix at 11:32 AM on May 31, 2005
In my book, it doesn't get much better than this. Minimalist but everything you would ever want to know about the guy is there. Remarkably restrained yet professional if you consider the guy's an interaction designer!
Oh and please, whatever you do, don't copy a website. Use what you find as inspiration rather than as template.
posted by junesix at 11:32 AM on May 31, 2005
I agree with jsavimbi. This isn't just run-of-the-mill Microsoft hating. FrontPage is notorious for generating bloated, nonstandard HTML.
posted by elderling at 12:18 PM on May 31, 2005
posted by elderling at 12:18 PM on May 31, 2005
Response by poster: Thanks all, and keep the suggestions coming!
Junesix: I promise I won't steal. Not sure I'd know how anyway!
Jsavimbi and Elderling: I knew I'd take flack, but Frontpage is the devil I know! Are you saying that a FP website can't look good on the screen? Because some of the templates discovered through Dejah's link (thanks Dejah!) look pretty good.
posted by LarryC at 2:10 PM on May 31, 2005
Junesix: I promise I won't steal. Not sure I'd know how anyway!
Jsavimbi and Elderling: I knew I'd take flack, but Frontpage is the devil I know! Are you saying that a FP website can't look good on the screen? Because some of the templates discovered through Dejah's link (thanks Dejah!) look pretty good.
posted by LarryC at 2:10 PM on May 31, 2005
FP is also the devil I know. I didn't even know, until now, that it has some sort of drag and drop thingie. I do my own coding on the HTML screen.
posted by deborah at 2:33 PM on May 31, 2005
posted by deborah at 2:33 PM on May 31, 2005
FP websites look fine on screen. Behind the scenes, the code can get ugly and is bloated, but that's not terribly important when you're dealing with a site as small as yours is likely to be.
For almost a decade I've been defending FrontPage and I'll keep defending it until all coders who bitch about it are willing to create user-manageable websites for the cost of the program, or acknowledge that not everyone has slashdot bookmarked.
To be fair, I did write the first couple of FrontPage manuals, and I've trained corporate clients from EDS down to mom and pop shops on how to use it...and have been doing so since 1997ish, so I'm not entirely unbiased.
Would I suggest it to someone who can write CSS or ASP or who is comfortable working in VI? Oh good lord, no. Is it absolutely the best solution for visually-tuned people who want to be able to make things pretty/clean/interesting on the screen without having to learn a new job skill set? Absolutely.
Yes, FrontPage has issues that make devs crazy...but you know what? Not everyone has the time to learn the developer's bag of tricks when they just want to put out a nice looking site and not have to think about anything more than the content. Nor is it fair or rational to expect that everyone with internet access who wants to put content on the web should be able to jump through HTML hoops.
FrontPage is an egalitarian tool that allows non-coders to provide content. It's not EvilTM even if MS did buy it and screw up the backend.
We can't all be geeks, people.
posted by dejah420 at 5:25 PM on May 31, 2005
For almost a decade I've been defending FrontPage and I'll keep defending it until all coders who bitch about it are willing to create user-manageable websites for the cost of the program, or acknowledge that not everyone has slashdot bookmarked.
To be fair, I did write the first couple of FrontPage manuals, and I've trained corporate clients from EDS down to mom and pop shops on how to use it...and have been doing so since 1997ish, so I'm not entirely unbiased.
Would I suggest it to someone who can write CSS or ASP or who is comfortable working in VI? Oh good lord, no. Is it absolutely the best solution for visually-tuned people who want to be able to make things pretty/clean/interesting on the screen without having to learn a new job skill set? Absolutely.
Yes, FrontPage has issues that make devs crazy...but you know what? Not everyone has the time to learn the developer's bag of tricks when they just want to put out a nice looking site and not have to think about anything more than the content. Nor is it fair or rational to expect that everyone with internet access who wants to put content on the web should be able to jump through HTML hoops.
FrontPage is an egalitarian tool that allows non-coders to provide content. It's not EvilTM even if MS did buy it and screw up the backend.
We can't all be geeks, people.
posted by dejah420 at 5:25 PM on May 31, 2005
Mostly because themes are universally ugly, once you've seen one FP Theme, you'll recognize every one you ever see; and they all scream "Help! I"m trapped in 1998 and I can't get out!". They are clunky and horrid. Really. They offend the eye, and are the main reason that FP has so many detractors.
When people who don't know the application think of the application, they think of the horrible, gawd-awful themed sites they've been forced to wade through at some point on their trek through cyberspace. Nobody wants that.
The main thing is that templates were a part of FP97, and have been left in as legacy support, but the templates are a much better solution in that it still allows non-coders to have a really nice, easy site that looks professionally designed, and maintains graphic consistency throughout everything in the navigation structure. (Although, stuff outside of the structure is managed differently.)
Templates allow for the easy use of CSS and ASP and taps into the .Net framework pretty well. You may need CSS for your site, but you almost certainly won't need ASP.
That said, templates are a little more difficult to use initially than the push-button themes, but the learning curve is pretty fast, and I think most templates from big resellers come with instructions on how to install them. Once you've seen how one works, if you have graphic skills, it's not terribly hard to create your own templates. (Graphics, IMHO are so hard to get right and so easy to get wrong.)
Just scan the manual section on templates, and you should be good to go. :) Also go to the FP section of the MS site, they usually have a slew of free templates that you can download and play with and be assured that you're not getting any weird spyware from unknown sites that offer "free templates".
posted by dejah420 at 10:09 PM on May 31, 2005
When people who don't know the application think of the application, they think of the horrible, gawd-awful themed sites they've been forced to wade through at some point on their trek through cyberspace. Nobody wants that.
The main thing is that templates were a part of FP97, and have been left in as legacy support, but the templates are a much better solution in that it still allows non-coders to have a really nice, easy site that looks professionally designed, and maintains graphic consistency throughout everything in the navigation structure. (Although, stuff outside of the structure is managed differently.)
Templates allow for the easy use of CSS and ASP and taps into the .Net framework pretty well. You may need CSS for your site, but you almost certainly won't need ASP.
That said, templates are a little more difficult to use initially than the push-button themes, but the learning curve is pretty fast, and I think most templates from big resellers come with instructions on how to install them. Once you've seen how one works, if you have graphic skills, it's not terribly hard to create your own templates. (Graphics, IMHO are so hard to get right and so easy to get wrong.)
Just scan the manual section on templates, and you should be good to go. :) Also go to the FP section of the MS site, they usually have a slew of free templates that you can download and play with and be assured that you're not getting any weird spyware from unknown sites that offer "free templates".
posted by dejah420 at 10:09 PM on May 31, 2005
I'm no FP basher, but this is simply not true: "Is it absolutely the best solution for visually-tuned people who want to be able to make things pretty/clean/interesting on the screen without having to learn a new job skill set? Absolutely."
Dreamweaver and/or Contribute, Adobe GoLive, or any of the new breed of lightweight CMSes are a far better solution for making maintainable sites that work for a wider variety of clients. It's irresponsible to advocate the creation of sites that are inaccessible by between 5 and 20 percent of the audience today, with that number likely to increase radically in the next few years, particularly as people use mobile devices to access sites.
posted by anildash at 10:54 PM on May 31, 2005
Dreamweaver and/or Contribute, Adobe GoLive, or any of the new breed of lightweight CMSes are a far better solution for making maintainable sites that work for a wider variety of clients. It's irresponsible to advocate the creation of sites that are inaccessible by between 5 and 20 percent of the audience today, with that number likely to increase radically in the next few years, particularly as people use mobile devices to access sites.
posted by anildash at 10:54 PM on May 31, 2005
Is it absolutely the best solution for visually-tuned people who want to be able to make things pretty/clean/interesting on the screen without having to learn a new job skill set?
Hahahahahaha. No.
There are far better solutions. Dreamweaver is the most commonly used.
posted by grouse at 1:48 AM on June 1, 2005
Hahahahahaha. No.
There are far better solutions. Dreamweaver is the most commonly used.
posted by grouse at 1:48 AM on June 1, 2005
"When people who don't know the application think of the application, they think of the horrible, gawd-awful themed sites...."
Um, no. I didn't even realize FP had themes. When I think of the application, I think of the miserable hours I've spent trying to work with sites built in FP. Even extracting content is needlessly difficult. And I was actually being paid for it.
I don't even like Dreamweaver, but if someone asks me to recommend one or the other, I never hesitate.
For this poster, maybe a good solution is to enlist a friend who knows his or her way around a CMS to create some templates for him. Another reaction I have is that including some pictures of your family in a site that is intended to be a brief introduction to your consulting work is a little odd and may contribute to the off note the poster is trying to avoid.
posted by caitlinb at 4:20 AM on June 1, 2005
Um, no. I didn't even realize FP had themes. When I think of the application, I think of the miserable hours I've spent trying to work with sites built in FP. Even extracting content is needlessly difficult. And I was actually being paid for it.
I don't even like Dreamweaver, but if someone asks me to recommend one or the other, I never hesitate.
For this poster, maybe a good solution is to enlist a friend who knows his or her way around a CMS to create some templates for him. Another reaction I have is that including some pictures of your family in a site that is intended to be a brief introduction to your consulting work is a little odd and may contribute to the off note the poster is trying to avoid.
posted by caitlinb at 4:20 AM on June 1, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
There are a zillion companies that make templates for FP integration. They all have previews of the templates, so you can look around, find one you like, spend the 20-100 dollars and poof...all you have to do is add content and do the drag and drop navigation thingy...and there you go, website on demand.
posted by dejah420 at 8:26 AM on May 31, 2005