Legacys 7 wrote:

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

i will most definitely check it out.  thanks.  i don't enjoy web design, but it's a necessary evil until i'm making tons of money.  anything to make it easier!

www.christopherbush.com

Christopher Bush wrote:
i will most definitely check it out.  thanks.  i don't enjoy web design, but it's a necessary evil until i'm making tons of money.  anything to make it easier!

www.christopherbush.com

Indeed. Swishmax is much cheaper and can do alot. It'll blow your mind at the ease of use and what the program can do and the less time it takes.

Btw, I like your website and the content.

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 ...

I never thought i'd find myself in the position of defending Flash, but you do NOT seem to understand it at the 'coding level'.  A large Flash site does not have to load the entire content initially, it can be designed to load in little chunks. Behind the scenes. While you are browsing.

Legacys 7 wrote:
That's why you have 'preloaders'.

Yes, both Flash and AJAX are rich interface applications and aimed to improve user experience.

However even if preloaders are there, why they are not catching up so often?
I am talking about times when you start watching the clip and it hits preloaded limit very fast and freeze there ...

AJAÐ¥ is desinged the way when more of Business logic and data distributed towards your web client side, so user experience that you are getting is much smoother.

I did not start this topic to bore everybody with technical details. Just was so annoyed browsing heavy graphics websites for the past few days. I keep thinking of how it could have been better with new staff which is out there.  And this is the only thing I am trying to say here

Combining various RIA technologies makes sense to me

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

Actually, AJAX has been around for a while... it was only when Google came up with a decent use for it (google maps) that it really caught on.

AJAX isn't a single technology, but a collection of them.  Switching to computer nerd mode, it stands for Asynchronous Java Script and XML, and uses javascript, the browser DOM, dynamic html, and server side programming to allow a web page to connect to a server and refresh only a portion of itself without having to reload the entire page.

Flash is actually better for image diplay/manipulation... try doing tweening in AJAX, you can't.  The action scripting of the later versions of flash have also gotten much better.

But... as with any website, it all comes down to content.  Making the best use of whatever technology you choose to deliver content in an effective manner.  Having an argument over which is better, Flash or Ajax is like arguing over which camera, Nikon or Canon is better... in the end, both do the job, and it's the image produced that's really important.

Richard Tallent wrote:
{snip}
- 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.

Maybe not such a great example ... after approx 20 seconds to load (on a reasonably
fast WISP connection), here's what I get to see:


I use AJAX a lot where appropriate (shopping cart software and the like) but have only
used Flash when the client insisted. As an aside, most of my business clients who
insisted on Flash have asked for HTML redesign within about six months.

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

I use a sophisticated editing environment called vi.

Creativity Farm wrote:
But... as with any website, it all comes down to content.  Making the best use of whatever technology you choose to deliver content in an effective manner.  Having an argument over which is better, Flash or Ajax is like arguing over which camera, Nikon or Canon is better... in the end, both do the job, and it's the image produced that's really important.

As long as one remembers that many busineses are starting to block executable content and streaming technologies because of ever-growing security and bandwidth issues, i.e., the very people that one hopes to attract might not ever see you (as it were).

Jimfoto wrote:
I always click on "skip intro" whenever I see that phrase on a Web site. Flash is a very cool technology, but seldom is it necessary or worth the wait, in my opinion. And if there are ways to  make it preload or whatever, I wonder why even when I go to very expensive looking sites there is waiting for the Flash to load. For my site I wanted things to be very simple, and just about the images; not fancy navigation or dissolves, etc.

Loved your work. Given the pixel size of your images you might be able to improve performance considerably (without degrading percieved image quality) by saving your images at a lower resolution. Still, all in all, a very nice website.

Jimfoto wrote:
I always click on "skip intro" whenever I see that phrase on a Web site.

Amen!

Jimfoto wrote:
Flash is a very cool technology, but seldom is it necessary or worth the wait, in my opinion. And if there are ways to  make it preload or whatever, I wonder why even when I go to very expensive looking sites there is waiting for the Flash to load. For my site I wanted things to be very simple, and just about the images; not fancy navigation or dissolves, etc.

Exactly. The analogy that always springs to mind is that a bunch of Flash cuteness on a photographer's or model's site is akin to putting a gaudy eight inch wide gold leaf frame around an elegant painting - nothing more than a distraction from the real content.

Very nice work BTW.

Lohkee wrote:
As long as one remembers that many busineses are starting to block executable content and streaming technologies because of ever-growing security and bandwidth issues, i.e., the very people that one hopes to attract might not ever see you (as it were).

Doubtful that I'll lose a client because they were blocked at work - that's not exactly the type of clientele I'm aiming for

Lohkee wrote:

Loved your work. Given the pixel size of your images you might be able to improve performance considerably (without degrading percieved image quality) by saving your images at a lower resolution. Still, all in all, a very nice website.

Thanks! Do you mean keep the current pixel size, but use more JPEG compression? Or reduce file size?

Whittley wrote:
Very interesting topic!

I find that a lot (or most) of the Flash photography sites load really slow and im on a fairly fast broadband connection. Not sure where they are located, but there are still people on dial-up connections and if it were me I would not, and do not wait for them to load. The sites listed so far load quickly and are simple in design. Im no expert but would consider myself more of an "average surfer" so I think these sites utilize Flash well and put it to good use, though I would love to see a photography site done in AJAX.

Andrew

One of the reasons I hate buzzwords ... if it were done properly you might not even notice whether AJAX methods were employed.

AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript (not Java) And XML) is a combination of technologies which allow elements of a web page to be updated individually without refreshing the whole page.

There are plenty of things about AJAX that can engender confusion:

The term itself includes the names Javascript and XML.

Javascript has nothing to do with Java beyond its unfortunate common name (it's properly named ECMAScript).

While the acronym embodies the term XML many (most?) implementations don't even use XML but do use the XMLHttpRequest Javascript object to load HTML content.

While the AJAX term was coined in 2005 or so, the method has been around since the introduction of the XMLHttpRequest object in Internet Exploder 5 in early 1999.

As someone mentioned, probably the most well known example of this approach can be seen at http://maps.google.com/ - a very sane use for this sort of thing IMHO.

Sorry if more info than you wanted {g}

Tom deL wrote:

I use a sophisticated editing environment called vi.

...lol....

Whittley wrote:
I would love to see a photography site done in AJAX.

There aren't that many yet. Also people only know of major websites with heave traffic. The only way to udentify AJAX components to browse page source for specific tags.

Anyway here is the list of heavy graphis websites based on AJAX as of 2005 (not sure what's the date):
http://www.dynamicajax.com/fr/AJAX_Exam … 1_287.html

I agree it's buzzword and the concept (not implementation!) has been around for awhile. However it is a great concept and deserve to be considered.

PS. I think nobody is not going to shoot with me after that topic ....lol....

Tom deL wrote:

Maybe not such a great example ... after approx 20 seconds to load (on a reasonably
fast WISP connection), here's what I get to see:

FWIW, it wasn't Flash's fault that you didn't see anything. That Flash file (which weighs in at only 4KB) loads and displays a single JPEG with no animation or other effects. Realistically, it's no slower than referencing the same JPEG directly in HTML.

The problem is that I host my web site over my 256kbps (upstream approx.) cable modem connection and I need to tighten down the file size of some of the home page photos. They currently range from 48KB to 264KB, I'm taking a guess that your experience was due to hitting one of the larger ones.

Like I said, I do it for smooth resampling of JPEGs. Once Firefox supports bicubic resampling, I'll drop the Flash on the home page and use Progressive JPEGs.

TroisCouleurs wrote:
PS. I think nobody is not going to shoot with me after that topic ....lol....

Well if they do, they'll use available light and not Flash.

Richard Tallent wrote:
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.

Regardless of Flash or not, you're breaking a major rule of web design--causing the main page to scroll because your file is so big. If I hadn't looked at the site specifically for the web design aspect, I never would have seen anything below your picture, which looked like it was cut off at the bottom.  You have a ton of white space that could be better utlized to the right of your name, and the 2 images at the bottom are really unnecessary (although they do provide a tpouch of elitest attitude, as if "bragging" about what OS you use. They don't add anything to the site at all, except help cause a bigger scrollbar. If you want to use Flash to make the image as big as possible, I can see that, but don't penalize the viewer with all the wasted space, or you won't have people revisiting your site.

Please take this as construcive criticism, which I only posted because you listed yor site link in a web design thread and offered reasons why your page looks that way.

Michael Kirst wrote:
Basic (yet fast) HTML baby: www.michaelkirst.com

This site also shows an example of what drives menuts with web sites: I click on links to galleries, but nothign is there. If you have no content for a section, please don't put a link to it until there's somethign to put there.  It's like opening a store and when people show up, the store is empty because you haven't stocked your merchandise yet.  Most people will NOT come back when you do this.*

*If your site is in testing mode, this, of course, doesn't count.

Jimfoto wrote:

Thanks! Do you mean keep the current pixel size, but use more JPEG compression? Or reduce file size?

I would try using adobe's "save for web" with a jpeg setting of "high" which should reduce your image size considerably. Given a typical web-sized image of 600 X 400 the degradation in quality is not likely to be readily noticable as the images are really too small for that kind of detail to be seen.  Again, very nice work.

C David Stephens wrote:
The screeching music knocked me back in my chair and I couldn't find any button to turn it off while watching the "loading please wait" sign, so I just killed it.

music on a website is a MORTAL SIN!!!

i have been unable to avoid using a preloader, though.  how does one insure smooth gallery navigation without loading everything up in the beginning?  i'd seriously like an alternative (in flash).

TroisCouleurs wrote:

Yes, both Flash and AJAX are rich interface applications and aimed to improve user experience.

However even if preloaders are there, why they are not catching up so often?
I am talking about times when you start watching the clip and it hits preloaded limit very fast and freeze there ...

AJAÐ¥ is desinged the way when more of Business logic and data distributed towards your web client side, so user experience that you are getting is much smoother.

I did not start this topic to bore everybody with technical details. Just was so annoyed browsing heavy graphics websites for the past few days. I keep thinking of how it could have been better with new staff which is out there.  And this is the only thing I am trying to say here

Combining various RIA technologies makes sense to me

I underIstood your points to why you addressed the Ajax topic. But I also made a point that it's not Flash that is the problem, but the designers. As many have said on here, to much glitsy stuff going on, even if it's a small website with the craze effects can turn people off, that can also be appleid if you are using Ajax or html. Flash is only slow if the designer is not simplifying things, like in the case with many photographers, they don't know how to get to the point.

A viewer isn't there to go, goo goo eyed over all of the Star Wars crap and too hi dpi images. You want good clean images that can be viewed, but not to the point where the dpi is at printing levels. I am speaking from experience when I say that the fancy stuff don't cut the mustard on websites as well as making it dull doesn't work niether.


You want to have something that is going to appeal and draw the viewer(s) in but don't over kill and under kill. I just recently began redoing my website early lastweek. Yes, it's in Flash, but if you loioked at what I had up before (I took it down for 4 months), it's like night and day. My main page gets to the point, it display my trademark, but without the 1 hour intro. You click on the enter page and everything appears in place. There navigation page is clean and easy to figure out. Still under construction.


I knew that I needed something simple but appealing. I decided to look at some other sites and succesful sights. I looked at two to three succesful photographers websites that worked. They didn't design the sites, but the designers made it a succesful site for the photograpers. This is what a photographers, fashion desginer and any other that have a portfolio site should be all about, your portfolio.


I did a website for two mua in the past. My first client's site is to the point. Her intro page which is also her navigation page too is eye-catching because one of her top pieces, I had suggested that she put it up, this how you catch the viewer's attention.


Anyways, as I tell others, keep it simple.

Sleepy Weasel wrote:

Regardless of Flash or not, you're breaking a major rule of web design--causing the main page to scroll because your file is so big. If I hadn't looked at the site specifically for the web design aspect, I never would have seen anything below your picture, which looked like it was cut off at the bottom.  You have a ton of white space that could be better utlized to the right of your name, and the 2 images at the bottom are really unnecessary (although they do provide a tpouch of elitest attitude, as if "bragging" about what OS you use. They don't add anything to the site at all, except help cause a bigger scrollbar. If you want to use Flash to make the image as big as possible, I can see that, but don't penalize the viewer with all the wasted space, or you won't have people revisiting your site.

Please take this as construcive criticism, which I only posted because you listed yor site link in a web design thread and offered reasons why your page looks that way.

Ditto. I know of a model on here whom had another model, a so called webdesigner, screwed her around, one by charging her this outrageous price for a website and two, the design was terrible. I had no idea that the main page was complete because the owner of the site stated that it wasn't and two, I had to scroll all the way over to the left to see the buttons. The only reason why I knew this is because the model told me. Man that site had so many flaws, I convinced her to leave that model alone and go to someone who is reasonable and knows that the heck that they are doing.


If you are going to make a site with higher resoultion, it is a must to tell others at the begining of the pape to adjust their monitors for viewing.

Christopher Bush wrote:
music on a website is a MORTAL SIN!!!

i have been unable to avoid using a preloader, though.  how does one insure smooth gallery navigation without loading everything up in the beginning?  i'd seriously like an alternative (in flash).

Music on a website is not a "Mortal Sin".  Horrible digital music should never be used!  I have visited lots and lots of musician's website that use their music and it is great!

Nelia wrote:

Music on a website is not a "Mortal Sin".  Horrible digital music should never be used!  I have visited lots and lots of musician's website that use their music and it is great!

their music launches automatically?  that's what i'm referring to.

Richard Tallent wrote:
FWIW, it wasn't Flash's fault that you didn't see anything.

I did see, just it kept freezing untill few more bytes are uploaded.
I totally understand it's a badnwidth problem too, but hey, how many of us have cool download speed or even high speed Internet if this matters? That's why people come up with nw technologies/tools to find a work around.

I also accept the fact that most of it depends on the web developer (not designer, designers take care of cool graphics), not on the tool.
However good developer would try to improve user experience, knowing major annoyance of Flash. Which essentially means to stay in sync with new technologies and while using Flash enhancing it with AJAX or whatever next thing will come up.

Also I was asked an advise on what to do if one want to improve his website presentation for users. If you already have pretty graphics in place and you are happy with everything but performance, I would go to Rent-A-Coder, pick a guy with skills on web development (Flash  or whatever existing technology you use, environment your site is developed in (java, .NET), other staff like AJAX, JavaScript in general, ....). Then make sure he has great rank and references and have him to evaluate your website for whatever work can be done to improve user experience.
If you need graphics to be redone and greatly improved, there is no other way but to go with professional web designer ($$). Graphics is totally different world in this meaning.

TroisCouleurs wrote:

I did see, just it kept freezing untill few more bytes are uploaded.
I totally understand it's a badnwidth problem too, but hey, how many of us have cool download speed or even high speed Internet if this matters? That's why people come up with nw technologies/tools to find a work around.

I also accept the fact that most of it depends on the web developer (not designer, designers take care of cool graphics), not on the tool.
However good developer would try to improve user experience, knowing major annoyance of Flash. Which essentially means to stay in sync with new technologies and while using Flash enhancing it with AJAX or whatever next thing will come up.

Also I was asked an advise on what to do if one want to improve his website presentation for users. If you already have pretty graphics in place and you are happy with everything but performance, I would go to Rent-A-Coder, pick a guy with skills on web development (Flash  or whatever existing technology you use, environment your site is developed in (java, .NET), other staff like AJAX, JavaScript in general, ....). Then make sure he has great rank and references and have him to evaluate your website for whatever work can be done to improve user experience.
If you need graphics to be redone and greatly improved, there is no other way but to go with professional web designer ($$). Graphics is totally different world in this meaning.

It's one thing to praise a technology and point out it's ease of use. Or as you state, make your site easier to use. Again, this is applied to every format when designing websites. In the case of photographers, since that was one of your main points and the slow speed issues. Flash isn't the illness nor is Ajax actually the cure. The solution is knowing how to get it right, no matter what program that you use.

Sleepy Weasel wrote:
Regardless of Flash or not, you're breaking a major rule of web design--causing the main page to scroll because your file is so big.

Even Jacob Nielsen backed down a little from this rule back in 1999. Users no longer mind scrolling (c.f. - the endless scrolls of MySpace), just don't stick the important bits below the fold. My main navigation is at the top, everything below the photo is not terribly important.

More important is having a fluid design that works at a variety of resolutions, but is optimized for 1024x768 (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/screen_resolution.html). That was my main goal with this v1 design: a screen-filling photo (resized smoothly) and some navigation.

You have a ton of white space that could be better utlized to the right of your name

This is a good point, I've been considering scrunching up that masthead into a single line and making some other changes up there (especially more obvious roll-over on the menu links). I may also remove the "tallent.us" from the top and just place a logo on each of the main page photos.

All in good time, and I have to somehow incorporate my wife's interior design work as well in the near future (hence the word "design" in the subtitle).

the 2 images at the bottom are really unnecessary (although they do provide a tpouch of elitest attitude, as if "bragging" about what OS you use.

I'm an elitist computer geek, and, Flash notwithstanding, I support web standards. I'm also currently tickled pink with my Mac Pro's hosting ability (beats the connection-limited IIS on XP Pro hands-down), so I don't mind doing a little advertising on their behalf, even though my day job is building .NET apps.

Please take this as construcive criticism, which I only posted because you listed yor site link in a web design thread and offered reasons why your page looks that way.

Taken as offered!

Richard Tallent wrote:
The problem is that I host my web site over my 256kbps (upstream approx.) cable modem connection and I need to tighten down the file size of some of the home page photos. They currently range from 48KB to 264KB, I'm taking a guess that your experience was due to hitting one of the larger ones.

I'm curious about what browser(s) you use? The only browser that I can get to render the "main" image in your front page is IE.

Richard Tallent wrote:
Like I said, I do it for smooth resampling of JPEGs. Once Firefox supports bicubic resampling, I'll drop the Flash on the home page and use Progressive JPEGs.

Seems odd to choose "smooth resampling" over the ability for visitors to view it at all?

Tom deL wrote:
I'm curious about what browser(s) you use? The only browser that I can get to render the "main" image in your front page is IE.

Firefox (OS X and XP) 99% of the time, which works great unless you are using the Flashblock extension or don't have the Flash viewer installed at all. I've also tested successfully with Safari, IE6, and IE7.

Richard Tallent wrote:
Seems odd to choose "smooth resampling" over the ability for visitors to view it at all?

Haven't seen any issues so far in rendering on major browsers. I don't test on Opera, old versions of IE/Firefox/Netscape, mobile browsers, or Lynx.