Creativity Farm wrote:
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?

Sadly, I must agree as it certainly does appear that most sites focus on eye-candy largely irrelevant to the actual content these days – but you really do have to appreciate the irony as it applies to Models & Photographers.

Not only does flash break the browser, but many businesses also prevent users from downloading or installing players (or any executable code) for security reasons, i.e., some users will never see your content.

Perhaps I have just never seen a well-designed flash site, but my experience has been that they are slower than shit, heavy on “special effects” that are completely unnecessary and truly annoying in their own right (I have left many a site without ever seeing what was there because of slow load-times, crappy music, etc), and really serve no purpose other than to subtract from the “real” content because they distract the user’s attention, and so the list goes on.

Seems to me that if a person wants to express their individuality perhaps two sites might be appropriate; one for friends, and one for potential clients. Doesn’t matter if you are a model or photographer, time is money, and if you want mine, then don’t piss me off by subjecting me to a lot of slower-than-molasses-irrelevant-crap: Just show me the goods!

Regards.

Lohkee wrote:
Doesn’t matter if you are a model or photographer, time is money, and if you want mine, then don’t piss me off by subjecting me to a lot of slower-than-molasses-irrelevant-crap: Just show me the goods!

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.

Richard Tallent wrote:
I'm a big fan of AJAX/AJAH and many other Web 2.0 buzzwords

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.

Not sure about resizing though. Would have to do my own project to confirm that.

Thanks again

StarlaMeris wrote:
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.

It's always easy just to refer to somebody esle

Looks like Flash and AJAX co-existence is the best choice at this moment of time ...

http://www.pasz.com/articles/FlashVsAjax.html

Digital Soup wrote:
Flash is the future of web design. It needs to be built correctly in the first place.

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...

Stephen Melvin 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...

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 !!!

The Don Mon wrote:
my whole site is done in flash...

Same here

TroisCouleurs wrote:
Sorry but I canot agree with you ...
Flash is yesterday compare to technologies like AJAX

man, talk about comparing apples to oranges.
It's impossible to tell from your comment if it's Flash or Ajax that you don't understand...
but one is neither a threat nor a replacement for the other.

TroisCouleurs wrote:
I understand photographer's passion for Flash and other animation but this is SOOOO annoying

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*)

F

TroisCouleurs wrote:
There are other web development technologies out there nowdays, such as AJAX (ever wondered why Google Maps are so fast?).

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.

lll wrote:
AJax is just a buzz word for combining existing technologies to add more interactions.

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.
AJAX is next generation. Seems it is currently used in combinations with Flash because of immaturity of the technology itself. I have to trust reputable opinion here because I am not doing websites production, however web development is part of my responsibilities. From what I can see so far using AJAX, no bells and whistles like the ones Flash has yet. But this is common for every new technology.

Concept behind AJAX is very powerful, targeted to cover areas that Flash is lacking, make websites more responsive and interactive. Unlike in Flash when you wait for the entire content to load, AJAX loads the content behind the scene, while you are browsing ...

Just Shoot Me Photograp wrote:
I want to see a site done in AJAX.

Pretty much anything that google does - gmail, maps, calendar, docs & spreadsheets, etc.

TroisCouleurs wrote:
Sorry but I canot agree with you ...
Flash is yesterday compare to technologies like AJAX

Technically it's not a technology . . .

Christopher Bush wrote:
so what software does one use to generate an ajax site?

So many frameworks available. Google uses Java -
http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/

BlindMike wrote:

So many frameworks available. Google uses Java -
http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/

thanks - i'll check it out.  if it's half as easy to use as flash, i may even try to use it

the nice thing about flash is that the design software is intuitive and easy to use by someone who is not a web developer or who speaks scripting languages.

Christopher Bush wrote:
thanks - i'll check it out.  if it's half as easy to use as flash, i may even try to use it

the nice thing about flash is that the design software is intuitive and easy to use by someone who is not a web developer or who speaks scripting languages.

Err, it might not be easy, especially if you don't have an OOP background . . .

BlindMike wrote:

Err, it might not be easy, especially if you don't have an OOP background . . .

considering i don't know what oop means, it's probably over my head

TroisCouleurs 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.
AJAX is next generation. Seems it is currently used in combinations with Flash because of immaturity of the technology itself. I have to trust reputable opinion here because I am not doing websites production, however web development is part of my responsibilities. From what I can see so far using AJAX, no bells and whistles like the ones Flash has yet. But this is common for every new technology.

Concept behind AJAX is very powerful, targeted to cover areas that Flash is lacking, make websites more responsive and interactive. Unlike in Flash when you wait for the entire content to load, AJAX loads the content behind the scene, while you are browsing ...

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.


I had to learn that lesson, when I had my old html site up, I got all types of work. My site was down for almost two years for something totally different, eventually I put it back up, but it started to look dull and my work and style wasn't what I'm currently doing. Flash, I did my site in Flash, buy there was too much content that imo, dominated my work. As some have stated above, people get caughtup in the 'wow factor' of it all. I had to change my outlook of the site because I knew that this had to be more of a business site. One way is looking through the viewer's eyes as well as companies.


I looked at other websites and some of my business graphic magazines and even PDN to see what websites are succesful, how and why. The ones that I saw that were successful happens to be the Flash websites, but not because it is in Flash, but the content, simplicity and visually interesting to keep the viewers there. And the sites didn't take forever to load. Plus I tell people time and time again, it depends on what you are using and where you are using your computer at. People forget that when you are working atyour job, the network that you are on, becomes slow because of theamount of traffic. The work is what makes it happen and not what program that you are using. Bottomline, keep it simple.

TroisCouleurs 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.
AJAX is next generation. Seems it is currently used in combinations with Flash because of immaturity of the technology itself. I have to trust reputable opinion here because I am not doing websites production, however web development is part of my responsibilities. From what I can see so far using AJAX, no bells and whistles like the ones Flash has yet. But this is common for every new technology.

Concept behind AJAX is very powerful, targeted to cover areas that Flash is lacking, make websites more responsive and interactive. Unlike in Flash when you wait for the entire content to load, AJAX loads the content behind the scene, while you are browsing ...

That's why you have 'preloaders'.

Just Shoot Me Photograp wrote:
I want to see a site done in AJAX.

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.

TroisCouleurs wrote:

It's always easy just to refer to somebody esle

Looks like Flash and AJAX co-existence is the best choice at this moment of time ...

http://www.pasz.com/articles/FlashVsAjax.html

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.

Legacys 7 wrote:
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.

and that program is......??

Christopher Bush wrote:

and that program is......??

Evil grin and smile. Ha ha ha! I use Swishmax.