Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I'm getting the feeling that the ultimate web site design for some of you would be a single, blank, what page.
I guess it's part of this I don't need a meter in my camera thing. Come on, embrace the technology.
What we want is a site that ALL visitors can use without downloading software, that doesn't hide our work from search engines, that isn't slow as hell and requires our visitors to have the fastest internet connection to use, and allows fast easy navigation. Flash fails miserably on all those counts. If you want a flashy pretty site and don't care about anything else, fine, flash rules. If you want to actually earn a living as a photographer, then flash is the very last technology you should even consider. I tell my clients this every single time one asks me about flash. I show them examples and explain how google works. They realize I'm right, which I should be. A web designer who doesn't truthfully explain to his clients what the different technologies can actually do and not do is cheating them.
morback
Martin N. Hinze
I'm getting the feeling that the ultimate web site design for some of you would be a single, blank, what page.
I guess it's part of this I don't need a meter in my camera thing. Come on, embrace the technology.
I'm not a fan of perfeption, but I'm a fan of the man who said this:
"Perfection is attained, not when there is nothing left to add, but when
there is nothing left to take away."
Otherwise know as the K.I.S.S. rule (Keep It Simple Stupid).
BillP
Rangefinder General
I detest flash. Like HDR I have never seen it done well. It is intrusive and irritating, like a chugger and less entertaining than a rag-book.
Regards,
Bill
Regards,
Bill
Jamie123
Veteran
I don't agree on a lot of those points. Firstly, I don't think many people share your feelings about having to download software. Flash is such a basic plug-in these days that not having Flash installed is like not having an Acrobat reader installed. I don't think many people are bothered by the few seconds it takes to install Flash whenever you buy a new computer.
Secondly, internet connections (even on mobile phones) are so fast these days that a standard Flash site shouldn't be a problem for most people. Sure, if you're still using dial-up you might have trouble loading a Flash site but we're in 2010 now.
As far as SEO is concerned, you do have a point but here it really depends on how much SEO you actually need. I have roughly 200 bookmarks of photographers' websites and the better part of them have Flash implemented. I think if as a photographer you rely on people finding specific images of yours in search engines then Flash isn't a good idea. However, a lot of photographers only require that their site comes up when their name is entered in a search engine and that's perfectly doable with an html embedded Flash page. Most editorial and advertising photographers get work by doing self promotion and being published etc. What they need is a web portfolio that photo editors and art directors can turn to when they want to see their work and here 'pretty' might be more important than having a specific image turning up in a web search. If they sell stock then they're usually part of a stock website that does the SEO for them. One other way to drive traffic to the portfolio website is running a blog.
Anyways, the reason why I finally decided against Flash is not that "Flash sucks", it's that so much can be done without Flash these days. If I had the money, on the other hand, I'd probably just use something like LiveBooks and be done with it.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Internet users have broadly accepted Flash. And computer users have broadly accepted the PC. That doesn't mean that there isn't a large and vocal group that opposes the use of Flash and would rather use an Apple product, rather than a PC.
In a way, it's another side of the coin in the same way that people prefer Canon or Nikon or Leica or Pentax or whatever.
Think of it this way: If you ask your non-photographer co-worker, friend, family member or colleague whether they oppose the use of Flash, you'll either get a cocked head and "What?" or a shoulder shrug.
Short version: Most people don't care. They just want to see a pretty picture once in a while, and whether it's Flash, CSS or DHMTL, it doesn't matter to them.
In a way, it's another side of the coin in the same way that people prefer Canon or Nikon or Leica or Pentax or whatever.
Think of it this way: If you ask your non-photographer co-worker, friend, family member or colleague whether they oppose the use of Flash, you'll either get a cocked head and "What?" or a shoulder shrug.
Short version: Most people don't care. They just want to see a pretty picture once in a while, and whether it's Flash, CSS or DHMTL, it doesn't matter to them.
sar-photo
Simon Robinson
Wow - I never thought that a bit of software would be so controversial 
I built my website using Slideshow Pro. The only Flash I use is the actual slideshow itself. The site is divided up into different galleries and each gallery page has its own meta tags so the search engines can find my photos. I have also kept the slideshow to it's most basic - no progress bars, whirly things etc.
I would appreciate any feedback if you have time to have a look - and you guys who block/hate Flash I would be very interested in hearing your opinions.
Cheers
Simon
I built my website using Slideshow Pro. The only Flash I use is the actual slideshow itself. The site is divided up into different galleries and each gallery page has its own meta tags so the search engines can find my photos. I have also kept the slideshow to it's most basic - no progress bars, whirly things etc.
I would appreciate any feedback if you have time to have a look - and you guys who block/hate Flash I would be very interested in hearing your opinions.
Cheers
Simon
user237428934
User deletion pending
This is just a guess. But I think the majority of photographers are not selling photos/art over the internet but they sell a service (wedding, fashion, architecture for magazines, etc etc). So I doubt that it's important for them that single photos can be found via a normal search-engine picture search.
Like Jamie123 said, there are a lot of photographers in my bookmarks too that use flash for their site. Looks good. But those not using flash have fine websites too. So hey, it's just a matter of taste.
sar-photo
Simon Robinson
I have a friend who has a non-Intel Mac and flash works fine on it (he uses Firefox not Safari though). He has a website that uses Slideshow Pro as well.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I have both Intel Macs and PowerMac G5's and I've never had a problem with flash and Safari. First I've heard of that.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I use a Mac... flash continually gives me problems in the form of hang ups and freezes.
Maybe you're equipment meets the specs Nikon's said don't have issues with flash? If so that still doesn't mean that his experience is invalid.
I avoid Flash and don't even subscribe to updates for it.
I think that was part of the point he was making
Maybe you're equipment meets the specs Nikon's said don't have issues with flash? If so that still doesn't mean that his experience is invalid.
I avoid Flash and don't even subscribe to updates for it.
I think that was part of the point he was making
NickTrop
Veteran
Flash - if not dead, is seriously wounded imo, as a platform for "general" interactive websites. The reason that iPhone and other mobile devices don't use it is because Flash is very resource CPU/RAM intensive. Flash was designed under the assumption that everyone would be accessing the web using relatively powerful laptop and desktop PCs with fast, powerful processors and tons of RAM. Then along came Internet-able mobile devices, which are growing increasingly popular and "taking over" as the preferred vehicle for accessing the web. Mobile devices don't have nearly the resources as laptop and desktops... so they're not supporting Flash.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The real snag of Flash is that it is presentational code, and as such a contradiction of every principle of the WWW. At the core it treats text and images as if it they decoration rather than information - which may deliver a warm familiar feeling to graphic artists (and art buyers) with an education dating back to pre internet days. But it cuts any flash site off searches, indexing and user side meta processing. A few corporate users love it for the copying restrictions implicit in that, but the majority simply use it because they are not yet web ready...
Jamie123
Veteran
I don't think that's really the reason. The iPad surely could handle Flash but it doesn't support it because Apple doesn't want to for several reasons. They say it's because Flash is buggy but I think it's more likely that they just don't want anyone to be able to make Flash apps and sell them outside the App Store.
Also, not all mobile devices don't support Flash. The HTC HD2 for example runs Flash and I think some Nokia devices do, too.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Steve Jobs doesn't like Flash. And when Steve Jobs likes or doesn't like something, the Apple lemmings line up behind him.
Jamie123
Veteran
Haha that's funny. So the majority of users are just not "ready" for the web? Why? Because the web is only for computer nerds that run Linux and are interested only in informational data with no regard for design and aesthetics?
Believe it or not but design does matter. Otherwise there wouldn't be that many mac users.
We've been through the search and indexing issue before in this thread. Not everyone needs their content to turn up in web searches. In fact, some people might even prefer their content NOT to turn up in web searches. (I'm talking about the content, not the site which is no problem for search engines if the Flash conent is embedded into html.
wgerrard
Veteran
My recommendation: Take the simplest approach that meets your requirements. That is, if HTML, CSS and a bit of Javascript can can do the job, don't add extra and unnecessary complexity with Flash.
Put aside the issue of whether Apple will or will not support Flash. Other technologies and other browsers and other phones will hit the market. They may or may not support Flash or any other platform, but it is a dead cinch they will support HTML, CSS and Javascript.
Staying simple also means updates, revisions, and debugging are that much easier.
Jamie123
Veteran
Yeah, my current design is a very simple but (hopefully) sophisticated html page with CSS and some Javascript for the drop-down buttons. I suppose I'll also need Javascript for the image loader but haven't figured out how to do that yet.
I'm also not entirely sure about the font yet, but that's a matter of aesthetics
. At the moment it's a tie between some form of Janson Italic lowercase letters or some Helvetica bold uppercase letters. I'll have to see what works better with the pictures.
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
That may be so. It's the Internets, take it with a grain. However, I just had a conversation last week with a high-level tech weenie who works with me... In fact, he was involved in developing in another life, some well-know oft-used CODECS. I was merely rehashing what he, rather athoritatively stated, about Flash. Made sense to me... As for the bugginess of Flash, I taught that program once at a college and - forget the details, but it didn't let you tween alpha data using "0" if you wanted to fade an object out... you had to use the slider, or vice versa, or something like that. Forget the details, it was years ago but it was one of those ones that wasted a lot of time troubleshooting. Macromedia (pre-Adobe, this was...) didn't mention anything about the bug, but it was well-known on in the user groups. But it was one of those ones that made you wonder how they could release SW with this kind of a bug.
wgerrard
Veteran
Yeah, my current design is a very simple but (hopefully) sophisticated html page with CSS and some Javascript for the drop-down buttons. I suppose I'll also need Javascript for the image loader but haven't figured out how to do that yet.
I'm also not entirely sure about the font yet, but that's a matter of aesthetics
I've been away from it for sometime, but I'm pretty sure some good canned image loader code is out there. No need to start from scratch.
Don't forget that users can change fonts as they see fit. The more you try to lock them in, the more you shrink your potential audience.
Someone upthread may have mentioned this, but unless you enjoy the coding for its own sake, a good number of Wordpress and Wordpress-based photo site templates can be had for gratis or very cheap.
Jamie123
Veteran
I'm sure there is one and I'll definitely try to find one as I have no intention of starting from scratch. So far I haven't found one that's simple enough, though, that it fits the style of the page. Everything I see is too *flashy* with thumbnails and all. I just need a very simple image loader that lets me navigate back and forth.
Actually, users will not be able to change fonts. I'm designing everything in Illustrator and Photoshop (and Fireworks for the buttons) so everything will be in GIFs. The only actual text will be on the contact page.
I really don't enjoy (or know) anything about coding which is why I'm trying to do most of it outside of dreamweaver. I don't want to use Wordpress or similar for anything other than a blog. Like I said, this is supposed to be a professional portfolio site, not a site for my friends and family.