Restaurant Web sites

If I opened a restaurant, God forbid, the first order of business (after the food, service, decor thing) would be to design -- or have designed for me -- a really compelling Web site.
When people have heard about your restaurant and are trying to decide whether to eat there, a lot of them are going to sign on both to look at the menu and to get a sense of what the place is like from how the Web site looks. That's a no brainer.
So why don't more otherwise savvy restaurateurs make good use of this tool? Here are...
...four examples of what I'm talking about.
The Watertable site (pictured above) almost doesn't need commenting on. The Renaissance Harborplace Hotel's main dining room is open and it's been open long enough for me to review it positively. It's not opening next July.
Pazza Luna in Locust Point is a restaurant I liked a lot. The Web site gives a good sense of its style, the music is nice, the intro isn't too long. But where's a dinner menu, even a sample menu if it changes too often to post a current one? It may be there somewhere, but all I found was a lunch menu when I clicked on "Visit the Pazza Luna Blog," not the first place I'd look.
Tabrizi's Web site does a pretty good job, I think. It shows you a lot of attractive food photos, and gives you an idea of what the place is like. The menus are easy to find and comprehensive. But why not put the address and phone number on the home page? Sure, you can find them under "contacts." But what's the downside to giving people that info immediately?
Finally, a site I'm on the fence about, Cinghiale. It's funky and fun, BUT I WANT IT TO HAPPEN FASTER. How about a "skip intro" button for those who need the information quickly. Thousands of Baltimoreans are probably clicking on it because the latest Foreman-Wolf project is the hottest new restaurant in town. They are either enchanted or irritated, I have no idea which.
I guess in the end it all depends on whether you go to a restaurant's Web site mainly for information, which I do.
Of course, by the time you read this post, any of these places may have redone its site, and this entry will be inoperative. But I'm sure you can think of other examples of what I'm talking about.

Comments
Cinghiale - I'm definitely in the irritated camp on this site. I have Flash disabled in my browser so I don't have to deal with obtrusive ads, and the site doesn't offer an HTML version. Not a smart move. Websites can be both informational and creative, but I guess their slick marketing folks decided to go for excessive bells and whistles without thinking about functionality.
Posted by: JLA | September 28, 2007 11:27 AM
The Pazza Luna website is also annoying, but it's not that hard to find the menu. You just have to click on the first star. "The evening stars will lead the way.."
I don't get these silly websites, it's like my first professors who used powerpoint and animated every single thing on each slide. Not cool.
Posted by: Cara | September 28, 2007 12:04 PM
A lot of these websites remind me of the early days of desktop publishing. Designers with new toys often forget that just because you can do something, doesn't necessarily mean you should.
Posted by: Hal Laurent | September 28, 2007 1:46 PM
I happen to like the Pazza Luna website and there is a dinner menu, when you click on the menu star, there is a banner at the top of the stage that gives you the option of the Lunch, Dinner or Dessert menu.
Posted by: Hon | September 28, 2007 1:56 PM
I had someone submit a proposal to design my corporate website. When I went to look at theirs, it was under construction. Needless to say, they didn't get the job.
Another irritating thing is when you open a site and music comes blaring out.
Posted by: Fairfax | September 28, 2007 2:30 PM
Just checked the Cinghiale site and its double the speed now than when I first went into it this morning. I think their web head powers at be, heard the loud cries of the hungry masses...
Posted by: Eric | September 28, 2007 3:30 PM
Its funny that you are commenting on restaurant websites...I so don't like the suns new site. Its been weeks and I can't get used to it! I don't think its very user friendly...just my opinion :)
Posted by: Terri McDonald | September 28, 2007 3:52 PM
I'm another person irritated by all the "un momento" messages from Cinghiale. My cat, on the other hand, liked all the movement on the site.
Tabrizi's looks very slick, but what's with the "stuffed wine leaves"? Are those different from stuffed grape leaves?
Posted by: Darlene | September 28, 2007 4:53 PM
I don't know why web masters think Flash is great. To see a example of bad Flash, go to Burger Kings web site. It's the worst site I've ever seen.
Posted by: Oat | September 28, 2007 9:16 PM
I find a lot of restaurants don't update the menus on the websites.
Last night I pulled up the Donna's at Cross Keys menu on the Donna's site. The menu showed the four cheese penne and walnut crusted chicken, both of which I ordered for takeout. When I picked up my order, I found out those items are no longer on the actual menu.
Posted by: Robert | September 29, 2007 12:46 PM
I despise the new Cinghiale website, and really, all of the sites for the Foreman/Wolf restaurants. I don't want to download PDFs in order to see the menu. Why can't they just update a regular page? And I don't need all that "hip" music.
The Chameleon Cafe knows how to do Internet. Their home page is basic--it lists the address, phone number and hours prominently so you don't have to hunt for them. The current menu is a simple click away in easy-to-read black and white. Bravo for simplicity.
Posted by: Paula | September 29, 2007 3:18 PM
I love the site. I've had it up all day so that I can chair dance to the music. My only complaint is that I thought the waiters should be dancing, not throwing pasta.
Posted by: Christine | September 29, 2007 8:12 PM
Am I the only one who noticed the Cinghiale wait staff picking food up off the floor and throwing it at me?
Posted by: Bill | October 1, 2007 12:10 AM
As a Web designer, I will admit that I hate Flash in most applications and I refuse to use it. There's no need for special effects when all one wants is a copy of the menu.
That said, a well-designed Web site is a sign that the restaurant cares about quality. If a site is cheesy or tacky or ugly, I probably won't eat at that particular establishment.
Posted by: Kathy | October 1, 2007 9:02 AM
This is a real pet peeve of mine. A few tips for restaurant owners having a web site designed.
1. Unless the name of your establishment is "Baltimore Restaurant", I probably have a good idea of what it's like from other sources.
2. If I want video, flash or otherwise, I'll put in a DVD and watch a movie. If I want music I'll turn on my iPod.
3. Splash pages are stupid. Unless you're serving graphics, they have nothing to do with your business and waste my time.
4. Most users care about three things. First, the menu, preferably as HTML. Second, your hours of operation. Third, directions. Depending on the establishment, a fourth might be reservations.
I agree that a clean, nice design is worthwhile and speaks attention to quality. But it's possible to do that without a lot of bells, whistles, and scooping food off the floor and throwing it in my face.
A commercial site should be designed with real life customers and their needs in mind. Don't make me sit through a lot of video, hide your menu behind stars, or otherwise waste my time and annoy me. None of the info I listed above should be more than one click away from the page that shows up when I enter the site, and it should be clearly labeled.
Posted by: Jon Parker | October 1, 2007 8:48 PM