Gabriel wrote:
www.gabriel-diaz.com

Your site is really good. It's extremely fast, very simple to navigate, and gets the user in the action right away. Thank you sir, thank you for you efforts.

Midnight Graphics wrote:
KathyJean: While your site doesn't have any of the "new tech" that I talked about bogging sites down, it jumps to the opposite end of the spectrum to early 90's site layouts, with a flood of banner ads reminiscient of bad porno sites.

ericphotonyc: Excellent site, but I might suggest just jumping to the portfolio right away. I don't feel like the entry adds anything. Also, the portfolio layout is nice, but it seems a little wide for my screen (1024x768). Most Web designers claim you should assume 800x600 as a minimum, but I think it's safe to assume 1024x768 these days.

Legacys 7: you're right in there with what I was talking about in my original post.

To each his or her own. I don't agree with you on this because there isn't anything really flamboyent about my site. I do have a intro. page but it gets right to the point. You click on that page and there it is. You can't get any simpiliar than that. Well yes you can, but also a boring site can have the same effect as a flamboyent site.

I've seen sites that are similar to mine and they get plenty of clients. Now unless you are talking about a long intro. slow loading time and complicated navigation then I can see and agree with you. That's not the case here.

I stop debating this sometime back because some of is also about preference than it is about what works and you're not going to satisfy everyone on here or off.

Midnight Graphics wrote:

Your site is really good. It's extremely fast, very simple to navigate, and gets the user in the action right away. Thank you sir, thank you for you efforts.

Thanks, I appreciate the thumbs up. It took me years to get it to this point, lol. And it still has plenty of room for improvement. In time...

Midnight Graphics wrote:
KathyJean: While your site doesn't have any of the "new tech" that I talked about bogging sites down, it jumps to the opposite end of the spectrum to early 90's site layouts, with a flood of banner ads reminiscient of bad porno sites.

ericphotonyc: Excellent site, but I might suggest just jumping to the portfolio right away. I don't feel like the entry adds anything. Also, the portfolio layout is nice, but it seems a little wide for my screen (1024x768). Most Web designers claim you should assume 800x600 as a minimum, but I think it's safe to assume 1024x768 these days.

Legacys 7: you're right in there with what I was talking about in my original post.

I also have to disagree with you regarding Kathy's site. While her site have certain elements that you have addressed, they aren't enough to distract the viewer from her work. My eyes don't wonder all over the place. Her site is clean with  decent size images for the viewer to see. This is what is more important than anything else. Bottomline, her site while it isn't dynamic, it's still effective. It's a portfolio and this is what the client wants to see..

In your site and I'm not saying this out of depsite, but just giving you my honest point of view, it's too busy. Seriously. If I am a client, the last thing that I want to see is the mainpage being overwhelmed with too much content. Yeah, I know how to get from point A to point B on your site, but not everyone can and may turn away do to too much content that imo isn't relevant to your work. Just my two cents.

Morgan Kennedy wrote:
I tried to make mine simple.. but now I am afraid it isnt high tech enough. I see some amazing sites out there. Its hard to compete.

www.thedarksideofnightlife.com

Another point that needs to addressed and I kind of briefed on it. You don't want a flamboyent site, but you don't want a dull static site neither. Your site makes an impression about who you are. Yes your work is very important, but people who view your work are also viewing your site and the quality of it.

It's like me going to a job interview, I may have the credentials, but I come in to the interview with a wife beater shirt on, I'm going to get turned around and sent right back out of the door. A site needs some kind of personality to tell the client who he or she is working with.

Colegrove Photography wrote:
since we're all here tell me what you think of this: http://www.santabarbaraphotographer.com

It's not a finished site, I'm testing it out (My first try at CSS)

your site is clean and to the point, but it's not a dull one neither. There is a little bit about you on that mainpage, that's important because tells the client a little bit about you.

Your CSS coding appears to be fine.

Legacys 7 wrote:
To each his or her own. I don't agree with you on this because there isn't anything really flamboyent about my site. I do have a intro. page but it gets right to the point. You click on that page and there it is. You can't get any simpiliar than that. Well yes you can, but also a boring site can have the same effect as a flamboyent site.

I've seen sites that are similar to mine and they get plenty of clients. Now unless you are talking about a long intro. slow loading time and complicated navigation then I can see and agree with you. That's not the case here.

I stop debating this sometime back because some of is also about preference than it is about what works and you're not going to satisfy everyone on here or off.

You're correct that a dull site is just as bad as a flamboyent site. You site's layout is great, but the added overhead of the Flash system is not giving you anything. You could have a technologically much simpler site that looks identical and you would be reaching more viewers, through faster loading time as well as better cross-platform support.

I would call intro screens, unless they are a warning for adult material, a cardinal sin. There is just no point to them. Your intro screen isn't very pleasant, a lot of aliasing going on, some poor transitions, and a really confusing image. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just saying that, though you may like it, it seriously detracts from your site. I've got lots of pictures that I like that most people hate, so I just don't show them to anyone anymore.

Flash is great for making animations and it's great if you want to show off your web design skill. I don't think it has any place in a photographer's or model's portfolio.

Matrix Photography wrote:
http://www.matrixphoto.ca

tried to make it clean and simple. Flashless.

I tried to do something similar to this initially (which looks nice, btw) but it was just too time consuming. I'm using a hosting service that allows you to upload your photos and they plug them into various templates. It's pricey I think, at $30/mth, there are only so many hours in a day, you know?

And I know flash isn't a favorite among a lot of people, but another downfall is it isn't search engine friendly.

Legacys 7 wrote:
In your site and I'm not saying this out of depsite, but just giving you my honest point of view, it's too busy. Seriously. If I am a client, the last thing that I want to see is the mainpage being overwhelmed with too much content. Yeah, I know how to get from point A to point B on your site, but not everyone can and may turn away do to too much content that imo isn't relevant to your work. Just my two cents.

My site (I'm wondering which one you went to) is not a photography specific site. http://www.seanmcbeth.com is a software development page, with emphasis on the history of the update process. It's also become a dumping ground lately for any goofy junk that I feel like putting up, so it is due for a cleanup. If you went to my deviantArt page, I agree, it's way too busy. I have no idea why I stay on that site, it really is all kinds of garbage.

Midnight Graphics wrote:

You're correct that a dull site is just as bad as a flamboyent site. You site's layout is great, but the added overhead of the Flash system is not giving you anything. You could have a technologically much simpler site that looks identical and you would be reaching more viewers, through faster loading time as well as better cross-platform support.

Flash is great for making animations and it's great if you want to show off your web design skill. I don't think it has any place in a photographer's or model's portfolio.

Again, that's were we disagree at again. You are speaking more from a preference than from a technical point of view. Also, what makes you think that I'm not reaching viewers? I haven't even completed the site yet. It's underconstruction, which is stated at the bottom of my site. The speed issue isn't even there because the site size isn't even big from the start. As for reaching more viewers you do know that that is going to depend on what they are using. dial up is slow even with the smallest html. Your point would be relevant if the site is a large site and takes forever to load, similar to what I've seen with some on here and off.

Outside of my choice of design and flash, the site is clean and isn't a complicated platform or design for the viewer to figure out. How we design our site minus the flamboyent crap or dullness is a matter of choice as long as it doesn't get in the way of the client and overwhelm your work. In my case there aren't any distractions that aren't there.

The only thing that I keep reading from you is flash vs html vs old vs new look, but most of your point of view is based more on preference than technical and a working effective design. Trust me, I'm trying to see if there is something else that I can see beyond that. Which is why I also addressed the model's site that you critiqued. The site isn't a dull or distracting site.

Legacys 7 wrote:

Another point that needs to addressed and I kind of briefed on it. You don't want a flamboyent site, but you don't want a dull static site neither. Your site makes an impression about who you are. Yes your work is very important, but people who view your work are also viewing your site and the quality of it.

It's like me going to a job interview, I may have the credentials, but I come in to the interview with a wife beater shirt on, I'm going to get turned around and sent right back out of the door. A site needs some kind of personality to tell the client who he or she is working with.

I the framework of your job interview analogy, I would liken Morgan Kennedy's site to showing up to the job interview in a Zoot Suit with an iPod clipped to your belt.

Here, we have not one, but two intro pages. There is also background music, which is in my top 5 of bad Web design decisions. Once I get into the site, I like the color coordination, but I find the menu difficult to read because of the background image. The use of three different font styles in the page title banner makes it appear very cluttered. I like the arrangment and the presentation of the thumbnails, but every element has its own background image, which makes things very distracting.

Midnight Graphics wrote:

My site (I'm wondering which one you went to) is not a photography specific site. http://www.seanmcbeth.com is a software development page, with emphasis on the history of the update process. It's also become a dumping ground lately for any goofy junk that I feel like putting up, so it is due for a cleanup. If you went to my deviantArt page, I agree, it's way too busy. I have no idea why I stay on that site, it really is all kinds of garbage.

I'm referring to the one on your profile MM page.

Midnight Graphics wrote:

I the framework of your job interview analogy, I would liken Morgan Kennedy's site to showing up to the job interview in a Zoot Suit with an iPod clipped to your belt.

Here, we have not one, but two intro pages. There is also background music, which is in my top 5 of bad Web design decisions. Once I get into the site, I like the color coordination, but I find the menu difficult to read because of the background image. The use of three different font styles in the page title banner makes it appear very cluttered. I like the arrangment and the presentation of the thumbnails, but every element has its own background image, which makes things very distracting.

We finally agree on something. I find this a pain too. My original (flash) site before this current one had too much going on. I tested it on here with others and off of here. I wanted a artistic point of view but I also wanted some real world consumer point of views. I took all of that mumbo jumbo shit down.


The navigation was easy, but it wasn't to the point like the way that it sbould be. I had to sit back and re-think things and get serious. Making my site a more business site but not too business. I needed to also address the everyday veiwer who will enjoy looking at my work too, because they are a potential client but in another way. It's called word of mouth.


when I had my very first site up, back in 1999, it was a html site that I created with Netobject Fusion, that site was cool back then. Although it was a  static site, it got me alot of clients and people from all over the world would come and sign my guestbook. This was during my street photography and press photography days. Most of the clients wanted work that I'm currently majoring in now at school. I had a German company email me to use one of my images for their magazine. They were doing a report on Detroit.

I have to agree with the updating a website, because the site was becoming old. Bottomline, you need balance on your website.

Legacys 7 wrote:
...You are speaking more from a preference than from a technical point of view...

For your particular site, my assertion is that you could have a nearly identical site without Flash, regardless of your preferences. For other's sites, my assertion is that they could have similar layouts as well, and that flashy transitions add nothing to the user experience.

Also, what makes you think that I'm not reaching viewers? I haven't even completed the site yet. It's underconstruction, which is stated at the bottom of my site.

All sites should be permanently under construction as a policy. You should be striving to constantly update your content, making an "under construction" message meaningless. If you're still building functionallity into the site, then you shouldn't release it yet.

The speed issue isn't even there because the site size isn't even big from the start. As for reaching more viewers you do know that that is going to depend on what they are using. dial up is slow even with the smallest html. Your point would be relevant if the site is a large site and takes forever to load, similar to what I've seen with some on here and off.

I'm not only talking about dialup, I'm also talking about people on alternative platforms. Adobe makes varius versions of the Flash plugin for the various operating systems, but doesn't come close to supporting all OSes or even all browesers on a single OS. With straight, standard HTML and CSS, it's possible to make compelling pages that will reach anyone. With the growing popularity of mobile web access, I think this is going to become extremely important. While the proliferation of 56k dialup in the home is thankfully waning, there are a lot of cell-phone users that have similar performance specs to machines from 7 to 10 years ago. The old tech is not dead.

igcollection wrote:
ooh can you give me feedback on mine? there is something missing, or something too much. can't figure it out. tell me!

I think the color choices are superb and the arrangment is good, but I find the navigation of your gallery somewhat awkward. It defaults to a slideshow which suprised me when it switched for the first time. I'd prefer a thumbnail grid to start, to give me an overall impression of what is available.

Midnight Graphics wrote:

Legacys 7 wrote:
...You are speaking more from a preference than from a technical point of view...

For your particular site, my assertion is that you could have a nearly identical site without Flash, regardless of your preferences. For other's sites, my assertion is that they could have similar layouts as well, and that flashy transitions add nothing to the user experience.

Also, what makes you think that I'm not reaching viewers? I haven't even completed the site yet. It's underconstruction, which is stated at the bottom of my site.

All sites should be permanently under construction as a policy. You should be striving to constantly update your content, making an "under construction" message meaningless. If you're still building functionallity into the site, then you shouldn't release it yet.

I'm not only talking about dialup, I'm also talking about people on alternative platforms. Adobe makes varius versions of the Flash plugin for the various operating systems, but doesn't come close to supporting all OSes or even all browesers on a single OS. With straight, standard HTML and CSS, it's possible to make compelling pages that will reach anyone. With the growing popularity of mobile web access, I think this is going to become extremely important. While the proliferation of 56k dialup in the home is thankfully waning, there are a lot of cell-phone users that have similar performance specs to machines from 7 to 10 years ago. The old tech is not dead.

Well that is my point to you, You are speaking more from a perference than from a technical perspective, that Flash isn't really needed. No Flash isn't really necessary, The flash haven't got in the way. Again, your point would make since if the Flash was just in the way. So preference is the issue and yet not the issue.

The underconstruction point of view. I can't disgree with you on that topic and have thought about this recently. so you don't have a disagreement with me on that.

I used dial up to state that this would be the only reason why my site would be slow. Meaning the site isn't even large, it's a very small site and this is do to the fact thnat there isn't really any content or hidden pages there. What you see is what you get.


Well with CSS because coding is involved, there is an advantage. As for my site, I have tested it on three browsers. IE, Firefox and Safari which is the Machintosh browser.

The last statement, while the old technology isn't dead, yet, it'll eventually disappear as far a speed issues go. Handheld wireless computers and cell phones eventually will rival what we broadband users currently have. Similar to laptops that years ago didn't have the drive size nor the the technology that desktop have. No contest. Now a laptop has gone past the typical 6 gb drives desktop from the late 90's to rivaling a desktop. And let's not forget about the wireless capabilities that it have.

Midnight Graphics wrote:

I think the color choices are superb and the arrangment is good, but I find the navigation of your gallery somewhat awkward. It defaults to a slideshow which suprised me when it switched for the first time. I'd prefer a thumbnail grid to start, to give me an overall impression of what is available.

I agree with you. That's the first thing that hit me was the navigation bottom slide. you have to go way over to the right to see the navigation buttons.

Morrison Imaging wrote:
I personally really like ultra simple sites.  I had a TA in college that preached HTML and CSS simplicity so it’s hard for me to get away from that.

www.morrisonimaging.com

This is a really, really good site. I like it a lot. It's stylish while still being "thin" on flashy tech. Just because you make a site in HTML and CSS doesn't mean it can't look good.

It's pretty ubiquitous by now, but if you folks haven't seen http://www.csszengarden.com, then check it out if you still need convincing on the lack of necessity in Flash. There are some major abuses of design on the site, but it still serves as an excellent illustration of just how much can be done.

Someone mentioned search engines earlier. Search engines are an extremely good reason why you should be making Flash-less pages, as well as adhering to Web standards. Google is your God on the Web, he will make or break you, and Google sees Webpages like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … ipedia.png

This is the Lynx Web browser. It's a relic, and a lot of people down play it because of where it comes from: UNIX mainframes and Linux servers. But it's still relevant to the Web designer because it gives us a window into how Search engines see sites. Lynx absolutely relies on such Web standards as giving all images an ALT attribute, and seperating styling from content.

Morrison Imaging wrote:
I personally really like ultra simple sites.  I had a TA in college that preached HTML and CSS simplicity so it’s hard for me to get away from that.

www.morrisonimaging.com

I like your site too, but it too suffers from the slider. You have to slide it over to the right to view the entire image which forces me to move back over to the left in order to navigate. But the site simplicity is nice without it being dull.

Midnight Graphics wrote:

This is a really, really good site. I like it a lot. It's stylish while still being "thin" on flashy tech. Just because you make a site in HTML and CSS doesn't mean it can't look good.

It's pretty ubiquitous by now, but if you folks haven't seen http://www.csszengarden.com, then check it out if you still need convincing on the lack of necessity in Flash. There are some major abuses of design on the site, but it still serves as an excellent illustration of just how much can be done.

Someone mentioned search engines earlier. Search engines are an extremely good reason why you should be making Flash-less pages, as well as adhering to Web standards. Google is your God on the Web, he will make or break you, and Google sees Webpages like this:


This is the Lynx Web browser. It's a relic, and a lot of people down play it because of where it comes from: UNIX mainframes and Linux servers. But it's still relevant to the Web designer because it gives us a window into how Search engines see sites. Lynx absolutely relies on such Web standards as giving all images an ALT attribute, and seperating styling from content.

Machintosh is a Unix system too.

Jaime Ibarra wrote:
www.ibarraphoto.com

Built it myself. All Flash and proud of it

I saw this site earlier today. I your site, it's simple and to the point. Flash isn't in the way nor does it take away from.