How crowdfunding is giving UK creative independents a Kickstart

This month Kickstarter launched its first UK based projects. Before then the only way to fund a UK based project through the site was a convoluted setup where you would have to 'fake' a US presence by having a US based phone number, forwarding address and bank account. This was an inconvenient workaround, to say the least.

However, now they have opened up the site to UK users which is fantastic news for anyone thinking of launching a creative project that requires funding. Ok, so Kickstarter isn't the only crowdfunding site out there (run a Google search for 'crowdfunding' and a whole selection will pop up, including Indiegogo and Crowdfunder), but it's certainly the most recognised name and tends to attract the biggest projects and thousands of potential backers.

Here's the science bit...

For anyone unsure how crowdfunding works, here are the basics. If you are trying to launch a new game, or a short film or piece of software, you post an appeal on the site which consists of a description of your project and what you hope to achieve, and then offer rewards or incentives to people in return for donations. These can be modest incentives in return for $10 (or £10 now) but can go up into thousands of pounds for huge rewards. It's a great way of spreading the load among hundreds of people who are looking for something new and exciting on which to spend their money, and simultaneously give them a unique experience or product and give them the chance to be part of something a bit more personal than just another new game produced by a faceless company.

Introducing Objecty

Some moments from the Kickstarter video campaign by game development project Objecty

One exciting example of this is one of the very first UK Kickstarter projects by a small, new company called SKN3. They are working on an fascinating new game development tool called Objecty. This is aimed at helping 2D game developers create animated characters for their games in an intuitive and efficient way. Rather than having to draw out every single frame of every character's animations (normally a laborious task, at best) Objecty gives the user complete control over individual parts of the character (for instance, head, arms, legs, eyes etc... ). All you have to do is assign start and end points for each element, and Objecty will fill in the intervening frames to give you smoothly rendered, realistic animation. This is all done in a way to minimise the memory size of the graphics used in your games - an important consideration particularly when designing for smartphones and tablets. In addition to this are tools for editing game levels, setting collision detection attributes between game characters and the backgrounds and building realistic physics into games.

Power Shift

For a small software company producing such a powerful and professional development tool, crowdfunding is a vital source of funding. It gives smaller businesses, well, a kick-start to cover those dreaded overheads which could otherwise only be overcome by large companies. It is also the latest shift of power towards independent operators within an industry previously dominated by the major players. We have already seen major transformations in a similar way in the music, literature and film industries, with people able to produce polished and professional works at minimal cost from their bedrooms and publish them online for a worldwide audience. Crowdfunding theoretically makes this possible in many other industries.

It was long predicted that the popularity of the Internet would lead to much more targeted advertising based on an individual's tastes. I suspect it has been much more of a surprise to find it is also enabling individuals to create and source products according to their tastes as well. I bet the mega-corporations didn't see that coming.


www.apexwebworks.com

Why it's right to tax IE7 users

Last month an Australian retailer imposed a tax on purchases made through its website Kogan.com, for customers using Internet Explorer 7. You might have seen it mentioned on news programmes and websites. This was the first widely publicised instance of a website taking punitive action on users accessing their site through an inferior browser. The 6.8% surcharge was implemented to represent the extra work undertaken by the web designer to ensure the website looks as good in IE7 as it does in other browsers.

Why does this matter?

For most people who browse the Internet, whichever browser they have chosen to use, not a second thought is given to how websites appear on the screen. This is largely because the web designer has put a lot of work into ensuring that their website looks the same to the user, whichever browser is used.

However, mention the words "Internet Explorer" to most web designers, and they'll probably look at you as if you have something unpleasant on your shoe. Internet Explorer is horrendous to design for. It operates on an almost entirely different set of rules to more friendly browsers like Firefox or Chrome.

In recent years fancy new features have been made available (mainly in the form of CSS3 and HTML5) which allow much more scope for visual inventiveness on websites – things like text shadows, rounded corners on boxes, box shadows, gradient filled backgrounds.


Still not sure what that means? Here's an example. A site I recently designed looks like this in Firefox:

Ely Perspective website in Firefox

Lovely, right? But without inserting extra tools and special code for Internet Explorer, this is how it looks in IE7:

Ely Perspective website in Internet Explorer 7 (without fixes)

Not quite so good, is it? Flat, no rounded corners and an entire background has disappeared!

Fortunately there are clever tools to fix some of these problems, such as the fabulous CSSPie which makes it fairly straightforward to add the necessary extra commands for IE7 to display the site properly. But even with these lifesaving tools, it's no exaggeration to say that at least 20% of the development time that goes into a website is dedicated to tailoring the site specifically for Internet Explorer users.

This is why it's a great idea to introduce a surcharge for viewing a website through IE7. It's not so important to recuperate the extra costs incurred during the design stage, but to encourage people to upgrade their browser.

So, problem solved then?

Well, yes and no. In truth, Microsoft have taken steps to improve newer releases of IE (although even IE9 ignores some common rules), and with other browsers such as Firefox and Chrome becoming more popular IE is being forced to move with the times.

However, older browsers are still being used by a lot of people - recent statistics (accurate as of 16th July 2012) stated that around 3.10% of users are still using IE7, while 5.92% are on IE6. There are plenty of web designers who would probably be inclined to ignore those users, and force them to upgrade to see websites as they should be. Unfortunately, most clients would not agree with this approach, particularly if their potential customers are likely to reside within the 5.92%!

It will be interesting to see if the IE7 tax is merely the first of such ideas from web designers wanting to highlight areas in which they are having to put in extra work. With ever more types of device being used to access websites, and a steady rise in the popularity of smartphones, there is more for a web designer to take into account than ever before. For the next few years it could become common for a web designer to be expected to provide different versions of a website to function specially for PC, smartphone, tablet and smart TV. Convincing a client to pay four times for a single website might prove to be a hard sell!


www.apexwebworks.com

Self-publish or perish? (with Richard Herring interview)

One of the more exciting developments we have seen in recent years on the Internet is self-publishing. This is an opportunity to distribute and promote entertainment in ways which was previously only possible for major distribution companies and national broadcasters. One of the fields exploring interesting alternative platforms is comedy. Here I will examine a few cases as examples of ways that comedy is benefitting from the advantages of self-publishing.

The rise of the Internet has coincided with a gradual shift of comedy into the mainstream, to the extent that stand-up comedy, once only seen in small pubs and clubs and occasionally on television, is now described by some as "the new rock 'n' roll". Stand-up comedians regularly fill large stadia and feature heavily across television schedules.

YouTube if you want to

The meteoric rise of YouTube has been central in popularising comedy videos, to the extent that the term "viral" is now used in reference to videos (usually comedy) gaining millions of viewers in a short space of time. Over the last couple of years Foster's have tapped into this phenomenon by reviving popular television comedy titles of the 90s. The first of these was a new series featuring Steve Coogan's character Alan Partridge called Mid Morning Matters. This comprised 12 weekly episodes of more than 10 minutes each; an entire 2 hours of new material presented entirely free for YouTube viewers. 

This proved to be an incredibly popular project, with more than 4 million views in total. This has led to various broadcasters taking a new interest in Alan Partridge, with the BBC and Sky leading talks with Baby Cow (the production company who owns the rights to the show) in packaging these YouTube episodes into 30 minute episodes for television, with the possibility of a second series to follow. For a title not seen on our screens since 2002 this is a remarkable turn of events.

Since then Foster's have built on the success of Mid Morning Matters by producing new material from Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer and 90s BBC sketch show The Fast Show. Vic & Bob's Afternoon Delights has so far posted 20 short episodes of new sketches and gained more than 1.5 million views at the time of writing. The Fast Show has so far posted 12 short episodes (totalling more than 1 hour of new sketches) which have received over 1.3 million views at the time of writing. Whilst perhaps not quite as successful as the Alan Partridge episodes, these revivals of popular 90s comedy shows are demonstrating there are new ways to produce comedy without the need for agreements with television networks. Foster's have also shown there are new ways to advertise and sponsor programmes through a very popular campaign which strengthens the link between their brand and quality comedy. 

Stand-up and Deliver

Also exploring the possibilities of the Internet are a couple of stand-up comedians in the United States. Louis CK recently filmed a special live performance and made it available exclusively as a download directly from his own website at a cost of $5 per download. This was a financial risk as it cost him $250,000 to produce, but has proved to be a huge success, generating over $500,000 in its first week and soon afterwards bringing total revenue to over $1,000,000. He then announced that $280,000 of that would be donated to charity. 

Another U.S. stand-up comedian, Jim Gaffigan has recently announced plans to follow Louis CK's lead by similarly producing his own special performance to go on sale exclusively as a download in April. To reduce the likelihood of piracy, Gaffigan has already declared that $1 out of every $5 download will be donated to charity, in the hope that this will appeal to the conscience of someone looking to illegally upload the file for others.

Fist Of Fun

Similar to the approach taken by these U.S. comedians is the case of British comedians Richard Herring and Stewart Lee, who have funded the release of 90s BBC comedy show Fist Of Fun with their own money. This involved buying the rights of the show from the BBC and financing their own production of DVD extras as well as the distribution on DVD through a website called Go Faster Stripe. This is a move which builds on the success of previous independently produced DVDs of stand-up shows through Go Faster Stripe.

The advantage of this move was for Lee and Herring to have the freedom to put out a premium version of a show which the BBC had no plans to release, packed with more extras than BBC DVD sets normally do. The obvious disadvantage was the financial risk to Lee and Herring, and Go Faster Stripe, who invested thousands of pounds of their own money in this project. I asked Richard Herring and Chris Evans from Go Faster Stripe about the process of self-publishing the Fist Of Fun DVD.

Interview with Richard Herring and Chris Evans (from Go Faster Stripe)

What were the risks of producing a Fist Of Fun DVD independently of the BBC?

RH: The risk was only that it would sell 0 copies and we'd all lose about £10,000. But I didn't think that was much of a risk. I was pretty sure we'd sell a couple of thousand of each series and break even. We've already done about double that for series 1. So the gamble seems to have paid off.

How helpful were the BBC in co-operating with the transfer of Fist Of Fun to you and Stewart Lee? Did they provide material for the DVD extras?

We had a man on the inside who ferreted some stuff out for us, some of it was about to be deleted (the extras not the shows) I think. I don't think the BBC thought there was any commercial value in the release and they had the choice to do it themselves, but turned it down. I am glad because Go Faster Stripe have done an amazing job of putting together a package that will delight fans and bamboozle enemies in its thoroughness. The BBC would not have spent the time or money in doing something this lovely and loving.

You have released a number of DVDs of Richard Herring's live shows in the past. How different was it to compile a DVD set of an existing BBC series?

CE: Well, it turns out the BBC had already filmed, edited and mixed the sound for the whole series, which is something we usually have to do, so that saved us a bit of time. And I had a lot of help from a chap at the BBC who got the master tapes and all the studio extras for me. So all I had to do was record commentary tracks, sort out the subtitles and get them all on the discs. But then this was a four disc, so all in all, it probably took about the same time as one of our usual releases.

How successful has the DVD been so far?

Like I say, we've made our investment back and I am hopeful that series 2 will earn Go Faster Stripe enough for them to keep putting out even more DVDs of obscure comics who would never get a DVD made any other way. 

Why do you think it is that larger distribution companies are unable or unwilling to release the kind of shows you offer?

It's all about the money. I think that as you get bigger, the cut of the sale price that goes to the creative side of the production gets smaller and smaller. You need to pay for advertising, PR, distribution and so on. So they can't take too much of a risk in who they choose to film - and that's why I think most big stand-up releases are pretty samey.

What role did Twitter, Facebook and other social networks play in promoting the release of Fist Of Fun?

I guess they helped spread the word. We did all this without any PR budget and via word of mouth. So emails to fans and social networks and reviews from journalists who were fans were going to be our only publicity. People are still finding out that it's out there. Every time I tweet about it someone expresses surprise. This is a product for old and new fans alike and most of them know where to get the info about us already.

How likely is it that we will see other 'self-produced' releases from you in the future, such as Fist Of Fun series 2, This Morning With Richard Not Judy and other projects?

I believe Chris Evans (not that one) is looking into it. Series 2 is definitely coming out (we did the extras in March), but the other stuff is up to the BBC again.

You have released previous live shows on DVD independently through Go Faster Stripe. Do you think more comedians and performers will follow this method to release material in the future?

It is now relatively easy and cheap to make DVDs of your shows, and yes, I think more people will do it. But it takes comedy fans who don't care about making or losing money to really make this thing work. Most of the releases Go Faster Stripe do lose money.

Do you think that other comedians and performers will follow the example of Fist Of Fun and purchase the rights of other cherished programmes from national broadcasters?

I don't know. I hope so. It costs a bloody fortune though.

Do you think the freedom to include material without fear of censorship is an advantage of distributing comedy online that comedians have yet to truly explore?

It is great to have autonomy. For me the best thing is just that this outlet allows the shows to exist once I move on from them (which is why I am going back and re-doing a couple of old shows). Once it's on DVD then people can see it and I can do the next show. It was always hard having to leave behind a good show knowing that it would never be seen by anyone else. This means old shows might get the respect they deserve somewhere down the line. Also the sales help to make a tour make a bit more money and justify me carrying on with live work

You have provided a huge amount of free material on your website, including your long-running blog and numerous podcasts. How important is this free content in driving the success of your DVD shows? 

I do the free stuff because it's fun and I'd rather have it out there than not existing. I think the podcasts especially have (without me intending this) given me a huge number of new fans who certainly come to see me live and give me money that way, but also who want to catch up on my old stuff. So there is a clever business model to doing the free stuff. But I only do it because I want to explore ideas in a cheap way and don't think you always need polished and edited comedy (in fact the lack of editing and the failed jokes make the good bits even better)

U.S comedians Louis CK and Jim Gaffigan are selling recordings of their stand-up shows as downloads through their own websites. Do you see this as a possible route to distribute your own comedy in the future?

It's possible. Though they have huge fan bases which mean they can afford to do it that way. I am not sure we'd do well enough to justify the outlay. But you never know.

Maybe - I was talking with Rich and Stew about this very thing in March as we were recording the commentary tracks for Fist of Fun series 2. I think we are going to give it a go.

Since this interview Go Faster Stripe have already begun making some shows available as downloads.

So what can we learn from all this? Well, the number of potential avenues for comedians to get their work seen by fans is growing and evolving. The Internet is providing possibilities for comedians to self-publish their own stand-up shows by download and DVD, as well as revive older much loved television shows which deserve to be preserved and seen by fans old and new.

In the case of Fist Of Fun we are even seeing the comedians themselves stepping in and rescuing their own work from a broadcaster with no interest in releasing the show. It seems likely that we will see more performers doing this in the future.

Fist Of Fun Series 1 is available on DVD from Go Faster Stripe.
A wealth of other material from Richard Herring is available at www.richardherring.com. 

www.apexwebworks.com

Why Twitter is the new water-cooler (with contribution from Graham Linehan)

When I was a child I thought that everyone watched television. I assumed that programmes promoted as big events were watched by everyone in the country. I suppose this was partly a product of conversations with classmates at school, which revolved around TV programmes from the previous evening. Such landmark TV events as a new episode of The Russ Abbot Show or New Faces '87 provided the excited chatter of the playground.

However, as I grew up it became clear that not everyone viewed the world through the same televisual prism as me. Very rarely did more than a third of the UK population watch the same programmes, with the odd exception such as England's nail-bitingly tense exit from the 1990 football World Cup semi-finals. Nevertheless, television provided shared experiences, especially back when it was normal to have only four channels to watch.

The Water-Cooler Moment

Around the turn of the century the phrase "water-cooler moment" became popular as a description of the memorable moments which dominate workplace conversations the next day. The phrase is derived from the common location where office-workers take a break from work, grab a drink and have a chat with their colleagues. Television and sport (and certainly televised sport) are the modern forms of community; shared passions and sources of heated discussions and jokes.

But television has drastically changed in the last twenty years. The emergence of satellite television and cable television has introduced hundreds of new TV channels into our homes, giving us much more choice. This has had the inevitable effect of diluting the audience and making it less likely that the bloke working at the desk next to yours watched the same programme. This means that your water-cooler moment has less chance of resonating with others.

Further depleting this diluted audience are other competing activities such as DVDs, cinema, computer games, music and the Internet. Fewer people are watching television. The nightly audiences of 18 million for regular programmes like Eastenders and Coronation Street are long gone. These days, only the biggest shows will ever reach audiences of over 15 million, and even then only in rare circumstances like the final of Britain's Got Talent. In short, the water-cooler moment no longer has the relevance it once had.

The Social Network

Still, us humans are a social bunch. This is evident in the popularity of social networks online. And these social networks are taking the place of the water-cooler in providing the platform for communal televisual experiences. Leading the charge, as we all know, are Facebook and Twitter. Much more so than Facebook, Twitter is an open social network which encourages conversation. Almost anyone in the world can read what anyone else in the world writes on Twitter. Trending topics (the most discussed subjects at any particular time) and hashtags provide an unprecedented ability to read what other people think about a common topic.

Often these topics will relate to television programmes; so much so that in the UK top trending topics nearly always include something connected to a TV show being broadcast at that moment. Sometimes programmes like X-Factor, Britain's Got Talent, Eastenders and even Question Time will dominate the trending topics during broadcast with references to aspects of the shows. Many users of Twitter are tweeting whilst watching television; often reading others' comments and responding; thus generating conversations about what they’re watching – the instant water-cooler moment.

Twitter ye not?

There is another dimension to this which never existed before, and makes television a kind of interactive experience. The popularity of Twitter with celebrities means that 'normal' members of the public can follow the comments of people they are watching on television. This creates some interesting scenarios.

Celebrities can tweet during the broadcast of their own programmes (assuming they’re not live). For example, Graham Linehan (@Glinner) provided interesting commentary during Channel 4's 'Father Ted Night' last year. Twitter is now being used as TV's own equivalent of a DVD extra.

Also, users can send celebrities unsolicited comments. Ok, there's no guarantee they will be read, but often they are, which means the process of audience feedback has gained an instant platform. For better or worse, it is possible for a celebrity to find out from Twitter what sort of response their programme is getting from parts of the audience as it happens.

Celebrities can perform a search of their own name on Twitter and find out what is being said about them, even when those comments are made by people not following or being followed by that person. I know of a number of instances of people mentioning a celebrity in a tweet and then being surprised by a direct response from that celebrity. In one example a friend of mine used Twitter to settle an argument about which programme Andi Peters used to present on the BBC. Unexpectedly Andi Peters answered the question himself, laying to rest any doubts about the reliability of the information! Be careful what you say on Twitter - you might inadvertently be telling someone exactly what you think of them.

Glinner Space

I asked Graham Linehan about his experiences with Twitter:

Your tweets during the broadcast of Channel 4's Father Ted Night provided the kind of extra information usually found in DVD extras. Do you think 'live-tweeting' is something we can expect to see more of during TV programmes?

I don't see why not. Lots of fun watching a show and tweeting a commentary. Certainly more fun than watching the show in silence.


Do you think you would 'live-tweet' any of your TV programmes in the future? 


Probably! Maybe not on first runs but certainly on repeats.




Twitter provides an unprecedented level of instant audience feedback. As a TV writer, how useful do you find this? 


I find it useful as a human being, but not necessarily as a writer. Audiences may think they want, say, a Die Hard parody, but I prefer to give them things they don't know they want.



To what degree do you think Twitter is the new 'water-cooler'?


Well, it's true that the water cooler is now our PC/phone, so the water cooler is everywhere. So I guess I agree.

Hashtag Wallop

TV shows have also quickly realised the power of Twitter as a free marketing tool. They use dedicated hashtags related to their own show and encourage viewers to use the hashtag when discussing it. This increases the likelihood of seeing their show appear in the trending topics (and spread awareness to people who might be otherwise unaware of the show), but also it gives the programme makers a handy keyword with which to obtain instant audience feedback.

Interestingly, this has recently been stepped up to another level by Britain's Got Talent, who have attempted to get individual acts trending on Twitter by placing a specific hashtag onscreen during their auditions. It is highly likely that we will see more new and inventive ways of using hashtags to promote television shows.

So Twitter is the new water-cooler. My rose-tinted idea as a child that the population watch the same programmes was never accurate, and never will be. But while it's true that fewer people watch the same programmes at the same time now than twenty years ago, Twitter enables a truly communal viewing experience. Like never before it is possible to share a televisual experience with other viewers across the nation. I know of some people who sometimes choose to watch a programme broadcast live, rather than on a catch-up service later, because they want to "join in" on Twitter. Perhaps Twitter is the first truly social network.

You can find Graham Linehan on Twitter at @Glinner.

www.apexwebworks.com

A Whiter Shade of Page

As a web designer I tend to visit a wide range of websites on a regular basis, you know, purely for research purposes. It is useful to see what kind of trends evolve in website design and the reasons for them. Recently I have noticed an interesting trend in redesigns of a few popular websites visited by thousands of people on a daily basis.

These websites previously presented strong identities through the appearance of their web pages, but have all launched new designs consisting of little more than white backgrounds behind busy, jumbled page layouts. I find this to be a worrying move for the future of web design as these websites are likely to be influential. The websites I am looking at are www.radiotimes.com, www.digitalspy.co.uk and www.bbc.co.uk.

Radio Times

I'll be honest. I've never been a huge fan of the Radio Times website but I do tend to visit it regularly for its TV guide, out of habit if nothing else. However, it did have a striking colour scheme based upon orange and soft shades of grey which made its navigation menus and buttons stand out from the background. The information was clearly and logically organised on its pages and it used pictures sparingly but effectively.

The Radio Times old Home page (left) and new Home page (right).

That design has been replaced by a design which I find to be much more cluttered, busy, and lacks a striking identity. The Home page pictured above demonstrates their attempt to fit in numerous different elements; a navigation menu, a glimpse of the TV listings, a logo, a 'carousel' of featured content, advertisements, a search bar, headings for categories of the website with matching thumbnail pictures and links for social networks. The layout is muddled and appears to be floating in the centre of the page like leaves collecting in a puddle of nothingness. This is due to an absence of clearly defined page areas which have been excluded in favour of a more 'magazine' feel.

Digital Spy

Digital Spy is a website providing a wide range of popular culture news, interviews and celebrity gossip. Its Home page displayed a prominently positioned logo and colourful banner with a simple colour coded navigation menu down the left side of the page, and the main stories with pictures and other headlines listed beside them. It was an accessible, simple design which successfully presented a lot of information on one page with easy-to-use navigation to the rest of the site.

Digital Spy's old Home page (left) and new Home page (right).

Sadly, in the new design the colours are gone, replaced by a minimalist colour scheme (really the logo is the only noticeable presence of an identity) and a horizontal navigation bar at the top of the screen. The rest of the page is largely the same layout as the previous look and it is less cluttered than the Radio Times website, but the reliance on white space and lack of clearly defined page elements are similar.

BBC Home Page

The BBC Home page is undoubtedly the most visited of these three websites. For many people it is the first stop in search of news, sport, weather, TV, radio and much more. This means that the design of its Home page is crucial in making a good impression upon visitors and is able to successfully navigate users towards an enormous breadth of topics.

The old design had evolved over a number of years since 2001, and had managed to achieve its objectives admirably. It communicated the identity of the BBC through its logo, a simple navigation bar, a graphically striking banner containing featured content, and below that a wealth of categorised information which could be arranged, added, or removed according to each user's individual tastes. It was everything a Home page should be; aesthetically striking, simple to use and navigate into the site, whilst providing enough information to satisfy users who visit on a regular basis.

BBC's old Home page (left) and new Home page (right).

All that is now gone, replaced by a design not entirely dissimilar from the Radio Times website, but far more cluttered and confusing. The warm colour schemes (which were also customisable according to personal tastes) have been cast aside in favour of white, with sparse use of colours to indicate tabs or buttons. The layout, like the other websites I've talked about, is much like a magazine layout with poorly defined boxes containing snippets of information headed by thumbnail images.

Most of the page consists of a 'carousel' of rotating content boxes which contain news, sport, TV and radio programmes and more, all jumbled up together. It is confusing, too busy, and lacks any element of identifiable design. As if that wasn't bad enough, almost every part of the page moves or is highlighted in some manner when the cursor hovers over it. It's unnecessary and annoying.

Perhaps some people like this development in the BBC's approach to its main online presence. However I couldn't find many positive comments in the two BBC blog posts defending its new design though (BBC new Home page blog post 1, BBC new Home page blog post 2). In fact at the time of writing there have been more than 2,000 comments and the vast majority of them are extremely negative, with many asking why their concerns during the period of 'beta' testing of the new design were ignored. The fact that its designers have felt the need to write two blog posts in defence of it suggests that it hasn't elicited the positive response they would have liked.

Of course, this is not the first time a website redesign has been unpopular with its loyal users; sites like Facebook and Twitter have experienced angry reactions from fans when new layouts have been launched. More often than not, people eventually warm to the new look, and websites must continue to evolve with tastes, required functionality and new technology. However, form and function must be considered together when redesigning websites, particularly sites with large fanbases. My worry is that we'll continue to see websites adopting the 'white space' look which results in uninspiring designs.

If you notice other websites rejecting their identities in favour of a whiter shade of page, please post them here!

www.apexwebworks.com