Quote:
|
Dynamic sites have a tendancy to have a clinical feel to them, almost manufactured (which they are), whereas static sites are more likely to exude a more living feel to them, even while retaining the basic "look and feel" of the rest of the site.
|
This is just plain wrong. Though it's vaguely possible you just haven't seen good design done for dynamic sites, I'm more inclined to believe that there are great sites you've seen (and recognized as such) that you had no clue were being generated dynamically, since it's possible to have totally normal looking URLs on a dynamic site these days.
Though there are a (very) few design limitations with dynamic sites, there are JUST AS MANY LIMITATIONS with static sites, they're just of a different nature. The biggest being the time factor. I can create a webpage in the five minutes it takes me to write the copy, paste it in, and hit the button. I add content to my site at a minimum of three times a week, and usually much more often. And other people add content to my site all the time. Do other people, complete strangers from all over the world, add content to your static site? Can they?
The new web is all about interaction and communication. Though you can possibly add some interactive tools to a static site, they won't be as well integrated, nor will they function as smoothly, and they certainly won't be as varied as what can be offered in a dynamic site. So if you're looking for an "organic feel" from a website -- get a conversation started with the rest of the world and build an interactive dynamic site.