I need a lot of help on this one...how many of you use Flash, Dynamic Flash etc. in your websites? Does anyone have any statistics on whether or not we should be using this style in our new site? Is this too "Flashy" for selling services and images?
(pun intended!) HELP, PLEASE!!!!
I expect you will get a wide range of responses, but keep in mind you're posting this and getting feedback from a bunch of photographers and not the general public.
Personally, I don't use any flash although I do have a set of rotating images on my main entry page using java.
In general, way too many of the Flash slide shows and galleries are too gimicky for me - and sometimes not even intuitive (menus hide, slide, etc.) There's also the issue of load times, but that is common is most all photo sites anyway.
The bottom line is that the images should be showcased and a fancy gallery slide show won't do much to promote your work, but it does have the potential of turning visitors away if they can't figure out how to navigate the galleries.
On the other hand, Flash and/or other dynamic galleries can be great if you have a lot of images and you're not in to coding lots of html pages. So like everything, there are trade offs.
I don't use Flash on my website for a couple of reasons. First, as someone who is running my system through dialup, Flash is almost unusable as a viewer, due to load times. I'm not going to do that to someone else.
Second, it is an additional thing to learn to do. I don't consider myself a programmer/website designer/marketer and is simply doesn't hold that much appeal to me for a hobby website. Granted, it is a hobby which has run amok I deliberately set up my site as link, link, link. It is quick and easy to change or update.
Last, I largely agree with the reasons Lon outlines above. It can be great when properly implemented but often is seems to be done to show off web programming skills.
If you are looking to build a website to showcase your work, what I would do is to spend a fair amount of time looking at the websites for members here and see what you like, in terms of design. There are a lot ot really good sites that include, or exclude Flash. There are even a few sites that use flash, but let you opt out of that - a design idea I really like.
I don't use Flash and generally don't enjoy visiting sites that do. I like to keep the navigation simple and find that most Flash sites take some learning and patience from the viewer before they can navigate them effectively. Certainly there are exceptions. Just my 2c.
Flash is just like Photoshop. It's just a tool, but it can be abused (and often is). But when used appropriately, it can result in really beautiful, effective websites.
Flash does offer some major presentation benefits. One of them is the ability to automatically resize photographs to fill any screen size. Another is the certainty that your website will look the same in all browsers. And the "flashy" features can be effective, if appropriately used. For photographers ... Flash works very well for small, concise portfolio websites. It can make for an impressive presentation, especially if you need to send a portfolio to an editor - as many commercial photographers do.
But Flash has some major drawbacks. One major complaint is that Flash websites are nearly invisible to search engines - in most cases. You can't bookmark individual pages/photographs. And some people are obviously turned off by initial load times - even though you'll spend less time waiting overall in a Flash website. I could go on and on really. There's plenty of Flash vs. HTML discussion online, if you want to dig deeper.
I'd only consider Flash if search engine placement isn't that important, and you're presenting a relatively small portfolio online. Here's a great example of what I'm talking about (a great Flash website):
One thing to keep in mind ... embedded Flash elements can be very effective. One example is the slide show on my home page. Very limited use of Flash like this can really enhance a simple website.
One way around the Flash engine invisibility is to build essentially two websites - one Flash enabled and one not. If you if give the viewer the ability to opt out to the non-Flash version of the site, the web engines will find those pages.
What exactly happens on a frontpage with Flash that gives the viewer the opt out ability, I don't know. It is also a lot more work.
Posted by Bart Heirweg on March 8, 2009 at 5:19 AM
I work as a webdevelooper in an internet company. I am mainly a HTML/PHP developer so I am slightly prejudiced. I think it all depend on what you want from your website.
If you want a website that is accessible for everyone, without having to download any plugings and which offers full search indexing without any extra programming, you should go for flash.
If you want a website with nice effects, a fancy navigation, cool fonts and looking the same in every browser, you should go for flash.
As for flash and search engine indexing. Where I work, we have built a framework that is loaded underneed the flash website and that makes it possible to get the flash website fully indexed by any search engine just like a normal HTML website.
In October, 2007, Bob Steele, photo researcher/editor of National Geographic "Birding Essentials" wrote about his experience choosing images from websites:
Quote: A couple of personal notes I’d like to share, just for information. Take what you wish from this. First of all, web sites built solely on Flash technology drove me nuts. I typically avoided those sites. Also, if right-click downloading of photos was disabled, a photo may have been passed over for something else unless it was very unique. I know this is a controversial topic, but I’m here to tell you that editors and researchers need to be able to use small jpegs as comps in layouts. Time constraints often will not allow contacting a photographer for a comp version of an image. Finally, put your best work out there on your website and portfolio for buyers to see. Keep your heavily cropped images out of your portfolios unless it’s really, really unique. There’s nothing worse for a researcher than finding a great image only to find out there’s not enough pixels to use it". Unquote.
I still don't think I would like the images on my website to be able to be used by anyone who can right-click on an image. Most people can get around that and do every day. I know that the use of Flash and right-click disabling did not eliminate images from those who used them as some of the images in the book are from websites that have both those features.
So, something to ponder but not necessarily that helpful
Here's an insight for you. We're on a slow connection. And we pick our vendors based on site speed. It's just not worth it for us to sit through long loads to get where I need to be on their pages. I might save money buying from the vendors with fancy sites, but time is money for me, too. The more streamlined the site, the more likely I'm going to spend time there.
My main website (as apposed to my blog) uses Flash, BUT, it uses it without using it for the sake of it. It's subtle and not overdone as I wanted the images to be the main interest for the visitors, not how many times I could have something animate around the screen. I was worried about using it but I'm glad I did because I get regular emails from visitors asking how the site was built/designed etc as they love it - so I know something was done right lol.
I am instantly put off by Flash sites that take ages to load up (which some really do take quite some time to do) and then require me to spend five minutes trying to work out how to get around. So again that was important for me to think about when making my site.
All my galleries are updated via simple XML files so it's very fast for me to put new images on which was also important.
I do fully understand why so many people are put off by Flash but if you use it in the right way I think it's a very good way of building a website. I know there will always be the odd visitor that won't have the flash plugin, or will be using a computer with flash disabled and in those instances they are directed to a much more basic location where they can still browse some of my images.
Consider your target audience. As Hank notes, many people in rural communities do not have broadband. While we have broadband here, it comes in by satellite and the speed can vary widely on a daily basis. Many ISPs do not deliver their advertised bandwidth or may be throttling it. If I recall correctly most viewers go on to another site if a page hasn't loaded in nine seconds.
From my own viewing habits, if a site doesn't offer me the option to avoid a Flash presentation, I generally bypass it for another.
WOW, Lon was correct...there are a variety of opinions on this subject, I have pretty much agreed with everyone on considering my target audience and their use of DSL or dial-up, etc. I, too, hate the sites that take so long to load and do not have the opt out option for the flash. I have been looking to update our site and to actually start using it in our marketing plan, vs. having it only for the sake of having one. I have been looking at Dreamweaver Templates.com online to purchase a template and there are so many options I guess I might have gotten drawn in by one or two that seem to work well for my use and the way I like to view sites. I am no programmer or designer, so that would be easier for me to simply purchase a template and modify it. As always, your opinions are greatly appreciated and I respect each and every one of them, so thanks, folks.
i was one of those who hated 'flash'y websites. Particularly photo websites.
HOwever if done right they are cool.
I have since then changed my website, it is is now 70% flash and 30% static. The most important factor for me was the export from Lightroom. The whole website is done inside lightroom using couple of tools, templates for lightroom. Life has never been easier.
Posted by Steve Cole on March 10, 2009 at 11:21 PM
After reading this thread the other day, I reflected on it and decided to remove the lone flash element from my site (an intro slideshow). I can still count my parents as visitors using dialup internet and still remember my dad grumbling about the time it took to load that first page.
I guess for now I've decided to use a mosaic image of photos as a splash page for a quickier and easier user experience. This is a good discussion and food for thought..
Discussion
13 replies(pun intended!)
I expect you will get a wide range of responses, but keep in mind you're posting this and getting feedback from a bunch of photographers and not the general public.
Personally, I don't use any flash although I do have a set of rotating images on my main entry page using java.
In general, way too many of the Flash slide shows and galleries are too gimicky for me - and sometimes not even intuitive (menus hide, slide, etc.) There's also the issue of load times, but that is common is most all photo sites anyway.
The bottom line is that the images should be showcased and a fancy gallery slide show won't do much to promote your work, but it does have the potential of turning visitors away if they can't figure out how to navigate the galleries.
On the other hand, Flash and/or other dynamic galleries can be great if you have a lot of images and you're not in to coding lots of html pages. So like everything, there are trade offs.
Just my .02.
Lon
Second, it is an additional thing to learn to do. I don't consider myself a programmer/website designer/marketer and is simply doesn't hold that much appeal to me for a hobby website. Granted, it is a hobby which has run amok
Last, I largely agree with the reasons Lon outlines above. It can be great when properly implemented but often is seems to be done to show off web programming skills.
If you are looking to build a website to showcase your work, what I would do is to spend a fair amount of time looking at the websites for members here and see what you like, in terms of design. There are a lot ot really good sites that include, or exclude Flash. There are even a few sites that use flash, but let you opt out of that - a design idea I really like.
Guy
Flash does offer some major presentation benefits. One of them is the ability to automatically resize photographs to fill any screen size. Another is the certainty that your website will look the same in all browsers. And the "flashy" features can be effective, if appropriately used. For photographers ... Flash works very well for small, concise portfolio websites. It can make for an impressive presentation, especially if you need to send a portfolio to an editor - as many commercial photographers do.
But Flash has some major drawbacks. One major complaint is that Flash websites are nearly invisible to search engines - in most cases. You can't bookmark individual pages/photographs. And some people are obviously turned off by initial load times - even though you'll spend less time waiting overall in a Flash website. I could go on and on really. There's plenty of Flash vs. HTML discussion online, if you want to dig deeper.
I'd only consider Flash if search engine placement isn't that important, and you're presenting a relatively small portfolio online. Here's a great example of what I'm talking about (a great Flash website):
http://markhanauer.com/
One thing to keep in mind ... embedded Flash elements can be very effective. One example is the slide show on my home page. Very limited use of Flash like this can really enhance a simple website.
What exactly happens on a frontpage with Flash that gives the viewer the opt out ability, I don't know. It is also a lot more work.
If you want a website that is accessible for everyone, without having to download any plugings and which offers full search indexing without any extra programming, you should go for flash.
If you want a website with nice effects, a fancy navigation, cool fonts and looking the same in every browser, you should go for flash.
As for flash and search engine indexing. Where I work, we have built a framework that is loaded underneed the flash website and that makes it possible to get the flash website fully indexed by any search engine just like a normal HTML website.
Quote: A couple of personal notes I’d like to share, just for information. Take what you wish from this. First of all, web sites built solely on Flash technology drove me nuts. I typically avoided those sites. Also, if right-click downloading of photos was disabled, a photo may have been passed over for something else unless it was very unique. I know this is a controversial topic, but I’m here to tell you that editors and researchers need to be able to use small jpegs as comps in layouts. Time constraints often will not allow contacting a photographer for a comp version of an image. Finally, put your best work out there on your website and portfolio for buyers to see. Keep your heavily cropped images out of your portfolios unless it’s really, really unique. There’s nothing worse for a researcher than finding a great image only to find out there’s not enough pixels to use it". Unquote.
I still don't think I would like the images on my website to be able to be used by anyone who can right-click on an image. Most people can get around that and do every day. I know that the use of Flash and right-click disabling did not eliminate images from those who used them as some of the images in the book are from websites that have both those features.
So, something to ponder but not necessarily that helpful
I am instantly put off by Flash sites that take ages to load up (which some really do take quite some time to do) and then require me to spend five minutes trying to work out how to get around. So again that was important for me to think about when making my site.
All my galleries are updated via simple XML files so it's very fast for me to put new images on which was also important.
I do fully understand why so many people are put off by Flash but if you use it in the right way I think it's a very good way of building a website. I know there will always be the odd visitor that won't have the flash plugin, or will be using a computer with flash disabled and in those instances they are directed to a much more basic location where they can still browse some of my images.
From my own viewing habits, if a site doesn't offer me the option to avoid a Flash presentation, I generally bypass it for another.
HOwever if done right they are cool.
I have since then changed my website, it is is now 70% flash and 30% static. The most important factor for me was the export from Lightroom. The whole website is done inside lightroom using couple of tools, templates for lightroom. Life has never been easier.
I guess for now I've decided to use a mosaic image of photos as a splash page for a quickier and easier user experience. This is a good discussion and food for thought..