Forums >
General Industry >
Photographer's websites and Flash, etc.
Just a comment ...while browsing all the websites. I understand photographer's passion for Flash and other animation but this is SOOOO annoying. There are other web development technologies out there nowdays, such as AJAX (ever wondered why Google Maps are so fast?). Unline Flash they still make it very interactive but no or minimum waiting time ... Nov 23 06 01:01 pm Link If your flash is done properly it shouldn't take forever to load. Google Maps takes far longer for me to load than any well done flash site. Nov 23 06 01:03 pm Link Flash is the future of web design. It needs to be built correctly in the first place. Nov 23 06 01:11 pm Link I'll just instantly leave a flash site unless it's something I really want/need to be looking at. When I'm just browsing through things like a long list of models sites etc on a "who's got potential?" basis any site that opens up with fancy animations (and worst of all music) is likely to be more trouble than it's worth. Nov 23 06 01:43 pm Link While flash is an interesting tool, I've seldom found many good flash sites. Too often the designer is more impressed with the "wow" factor of flash, than they are with the actual content of the sight. Plus, flash breaks the normal way a browser works (no back buttons, bookmarking, etc). If I find a photo I like, I may want to book mark it to show to someone else. In flash, I can't do that... I have to send them to the entire gallery. Let's not forget unwanted music, etc. Successful websites are based on content. Sure, the first time you saw google maps (and I know it's ajax, not flash) you went wow. But when you go back to it now, is it for the wow factor, or because it really serves up the content you need? Nov 23 06 02:06 pm Link Sorry but I canot agree with you ... Flash is yesterday compare to technologies like AJAX Nov 23 06 06:19 pm Link woot! Nov 23 06 06:20 pm Link Creativity Farm wrote: Sadly, I must agree as it certainly does appear that most sites focus on eye-candy largely irrelevant to the actual content these days â but you really do have to appreciate the irony as it applies to Models & Photographers. Nov 23 06 06:55 pm Link Lohkee wrote: That's why people created AJAX... But I will not continue just stating the fact. I'll re-write a website from Flash to AJAX and bring both here for you guys to compare. Nov 23 06 07:04 pm Link I'm a big fan of AJAX/AJAH and many other Web 2.0 buzzwords, but when I recently had to completely redesign my site (moved from IIS/ASP.NET to Apache/PHP due to a server crash), I went the quick and dirty route of using expose4, a Flash+XML solution that has a great thick-client album manager (Mac and XP). It's not perfect, but I was able to get the site back up in record time and focus my attention on catching up on my retouching. Also, while I'm not a fan of Flash on web sites (I never use it in my real career, which is web application development), it does have two advantages for a photographer: - More obscurity to prevent common users and search engine bots from copying images. This also goes for unfinished proofs I post for models I work with--I don't want those photos circulated. In my old site, I still had a solution that prevented right-click saving without blocking the context menu, but it was a pain to get right with all major browsers. - Smooth resizing. My home page (www.tallent.us) uses Flash for the splash JPEG solely because I like a fluid layout and want the photo to be as large as possible regardless of the size of the visitor's browser window. Firefox and IE both do a nasty nearest-neighbor algorithm when resizing a JPEG, but Flash does a great job. Nov 23 06 07:04 pm Link my whole site is done in flash... Nov 23 06 07:08 pm Link Richard Tallent wrote: Thanks! I appreciate your reply very much. Easily convinced about more sophisiticated copywrite protection. AJAX is too young to compete here, but from technology point of view, I am sure if one will dig, he will find easy solution. Nov 23 06 07:08 pm Link StarlaMeris wrote: It's always easy just to refer to somebody esle Nov 23 06 11:46 pm Link Digital Soup wrote: Ha! My favorite thing about Firefox is the Flashblock extension. It's amazing how much web sites are improved when they don't have motion and sound... Nov 23 06 11:47 pm Link Stephen Melvin wrote: I still think the best would be to have Flash and non-Flash version of the site. In consideration of those who have to browse more than 5 heavy in graphics photographer's websites consequently. It drives people crazy !!! Nov 23 06 11:52 pm Link The Don Mon wrote: Same here Nov 24 06 12:16 am Link Flash can be nice if done well, but the ones where it feels like you're being attacked...not so nice. Also if you put music on your webpage...please please please take it off Nov 24 06 12:20 am Link TroisCouleurs wrote: man, talk about comparing apples to oranges. Nov 24 06 12:48 am Link There's a big difference between a flash site and a flash intro. I agree a flash intro is extremly annoying but I always liked regular flash sites becuase of how fast browsing through them is. Nov 24 06 12:53 am Link TroisCouleurs wrote: just hold tight! like any other trend that has captured photographers for their sites, this too shall pass. already, for example, in the last yr or so there has been a reduction in how much FLASH we were seeing, no doubt stg that will be replaced by whatever shall be considered "hot" next. (*sigh*) Nov 24 06 12:55 am Link TroisCouleurs wrote: Apples and oranges. Two different applications altogether. AJax is just a buzz word for combining existing technologies to add more interactions. Flash is for presentation, animation. Done right, both can work for their specific target audience/users. Done right, Flash can be really powerful. Done wrongly, it can be annoying, but it's just like any other "tools". You can take very bad pictures with a Hasselblad...same idea. Nov 24 06 01:00 am Link I suppose you don't really notice Flash if it's done well, only when it's annoyingly bad. Too often, the ego of the designer gets in the way of the site content. Nov 24 06 02:01 am Link lll wrote: I am well aware of what is AJAX and Flash down to the coding level. So no need to tell that these are 2 different technologies, it was clear to begin with. Nov 24 06 02:09 am Link flash doesn't break normal browser functionality or navigation controls - the people designing and implementing the technology do. flash will also load components in the background, if the developer knows how and the client has budget for it. Here's a piece I created for monster cable: http://www.mediashockcreative.com/sampl … index.html it incorporates streaming alpha-channeled video and animation synced via XML. This presentation has also been compiled into stand-alone executables for both Mac/PC as well as converted to video for tradeshow duty I dont think flash is going to be replaced by ajax any time soon. Rather, the two technologies could be synergetic. Nov 24 06 05:10 am Link I want to see a site done in AJAX. Nov 24 06 05:21 am Link Just Shoot Me Photograp wrote: Pretty much anything that google does - gmail, maps, calendar, docs & spreadsheets, etc. Nov 24 06 06:19 am Link TroisCouleurs wrote: Technically it's not a technology . . . Nov 24 06 06:32 am Link so what software does one use to generate an ajax site? Nov 24 06 07:06 am Link Christopher Bush wrote: So many frameworks available. Google uses Java - Nov 24 06 07:10 am Link BlindMike wrote: thanks - i'll check it out. if it's half as easy to use as flash, i may even try to use it Nov 24 06 07:16 am Link Christopher Bush wrote: Err, it might not be easy, especially if you don't have an OOP background . . . Nov 24 06 07:22 am Link I like Flash as long as it is just used for browsing images and not for a long drawn out intro pages. Nov 24 06 07:35 am Link BlindMike wrote: considering i don't know what oop means, it's probably over my head Nov 24 06 08:14 am Link Nov 24 06 09:10 am Link TroisCouleurs wrote: Ok? You made your points already. Here's what it really boils down to. It doesn't matter what technology that you are using, it boils down to simplicity for the veiwer(s) to be able to find his or her way around. I've seen html, which is suppose to be the smallest of the website programs, be a pain in the butt too. If a designer isn't making his images small, a html site can take just as long as a Flash site. Ajax, Comet, Mr.Clean or whatever, it boils down to knowing how to make a site not dull but not all flamboyent. Nov 24 06 09:10 am Link TroisCouleurs wrote: That's why you have 'preloaders'. Nov 24 06 09:12 am Link Just Shoot Me Photograp wrote: Yahoo is also using the technology now with their beta version maps, and beta yahoo main page. The yaoo email beta too, but frankly I found it to be more annoying and preferred the original email, so I went back to my basic. Nov 24 06 09:15 am Link TroisCouleurs wrote: Interesting read. I use Flash, but it's not Macromedia. One of the reasons why I don't use Macromedia Flash is what is stated in the link. The ease of use. Macromedia isn't a easy program to use. Even when you do get it, it takes 6 to 7 steps just complete one action or more to complete a movie. The program that I use, I can take and have done, the same design and it only takes me a few minutes to complete what it would take forever to do with Macromedia. Nov 24 06 09:36 am Link Legacys 7 wrote: and that program is......?? Nov 24 06 09:37 am Link Christopher Bush wrote: Evil grin and smile. Ha ha ha! I use Swishmax. Nov 24 06 09:38 am Link |