Help with explaining beautiful but exclusive webpages

September 22, 2004 4:07 AM

A friend of mine is doing a study of websites that look beautiful, but have an air of exclusivity about them. I can't help, because I only ever use the internet for skanky amateur pr0n the latest cricket scores. Can anyone else suggest anything appropriate?
posted by nylon to Computers & Internet (16 answers total)

exclusivity because you have to sign in to use them, or the interface is hidden, or exclusivity class-wise?
posted by amberglow at 4:53 AM on September 22, 2004

Yes, I'm also a bit confused about that bit. Anyway, here's a site I love that's French, and thus, automatically exclusive!
posted by taz at 5:34 AM on September 22, 2004

Response by poster: Exclusivity as a general, vague, class-wise concept. Things very much not for the unwashed masses. Things that make you feel like you have to be a bit special to enter beyond a splash screen or be a member of or use their services or bandwidth. This is more conceptual than literal, so not solely based on having to register or sign in to use them. Interpret that however you wish. Does that help?
posted by nylon at 5:36 AM on September 22, 2004

The site I mentioned designs websites and multimedia, so there are a lot of links from there to the kind of thing your friend is looking for. This site, for example.
posted by taz at 5:41 AM on September 22, 2004

In my experience most high-end Italian design firms and luxury goods companies fit this bill. A good start may be to go to the sites of some of the companies listed here. Also, pick up a copy of any fashion magazine and go to the sites of the advertisers.
posted by anathema at 6:48 AM on September 22, 2004

I reckon that Dunhill and Turnbull and Asser's websites might be the sort of thing that your mate is looking for...
posted by dmt at 6:50 AM on September 22, 2004

How about a dating site for sugar daddies to find gold diggers? I think there's also a "pre-screened" dating site out there that has a stifling musk of pretension. Oh yeah, and every LiveJournal rating community ever.
posted by revgeorge at 7:26 AM on September 22, 2004

You can browse, but you can't get in
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:49 AM on September 22, 2004

Response by poster: Thanks folks - some good stuff here. I've passed those on.
Although revgeorge - LiveJournal?! Not the first thing that comes to mind when I hear the word 'beautiful' :)
posted by nylon at 10:16 AM on September 22, 2004

There actually are some nice-looking LJ ratings communities. Let's see... This. This, if you're using IE. Possibly this. (I swear, I've seen ones so cool that I got mad at their creators for being simulataneously talented designers and annoying little pricks; just can't find them at the moment.)
posted by Tlogmer at 10:44 AM on September 22, 2004

I'm not sure whether exclusivity is meant to imply something like a very classy boutique, or whether it means to suggest that people will feel excluded because they don't have a key to get into the site's contents.

If the latter, here are two sites I saw at a multimedia festival a year ago: 79 Days, which is about troubles in eastern Europe, and Civilities/Civilités which is in French and English. Neither of these can be browsed linearly: figuring out where the content is is part of the challenge.
posted by zadcat at 2:12 PM on September 22, 2004

CSSVault is a good, thumbnailed place to look for purty sites. Exclusivity is your call, I guess.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:17 PM on September 22, 2004

http://www.pignon-ernest.com/

http://www.subdisc.com/index.html
or
http://www.anneblack.dk/ simple - pretty, and just the right amount of exclusivity
posted by specialk420 at 7:36 PM on September 22, 2004

and mike's site or jemma's
posted by specialk420 at 7:39 PM on September 22, 2004

oops. that should have been: or jemma's
posted by specialk420 at 7:41 PM on September 22, 2004

If you're going for upscale, you can't go wrong with Patek Philippe, also consider Hoares' Bank the oldest private bank in England, still owned by the same family as in the 1600's. Apparently you've got to be recommended by a member of the royal family to put your money there.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:20 AM on September 23, 2004