I am working (again) on a website relaunch and think about new ideas… and would have questions:
I hate it on my website (and on others) when there never is any change. Always the same images, never any new announcements etc.etc. (it’s just great when there is a “news” menu and you’ll find news from 3 months ago… )
So my question: For those of you who frequent other photographers sites, would it be more interesting if there are only a limited numbers (but often fresh ones)of images to be seen on a website(maybe 20 to 25 or so), instead of adding up images, but quite frequently they will be switched and others will pop up? Is it really necessary to theme images instead of just showing the thumbnails? Of course image users/buyers might be interested in having images grouped up (geographically for example), but that’s not what I’m looking for. (also I’m not looking for advices on how to make the most money with my website – I’m not looking for that either…)
Can anybody give me any insights on his viewing habits/preferences?
Many Thanks in advance!
Boy will I be looking at this thread... hope you get some good answers. I am a tiny spot of dust with my photography compared to most on this site... but I need to get an active site up an running for survival reasons.
I'm glad you redo your website. I never was a big fan of the layout - especially the greenish background. Such great images deserve a better presentation.
I guess there are as many visitor habits as there are visitors. I for example, would rather go for the Austrian/European locations because I'm interested in places that are within reach. But this will be completely different from people of other nationalities. I also like the seasonal grouping that some photographers have (like Vincent Favre).
Overall your actual grouping on the webpage is a bit overlapping and not very well to navigate. I would go for more defined sections. In an ideal case you would offer different grouping options and decide which one will come up front and which one are optional.
What I always like are the sections "New images" and "Personal favorites". I'd like to have these one in the initial display. I also like slideshow on the frontpage (like on my site) as the entry to the page always looks different (random show enabled of course) and you might see images that you haven't seen before.
There's a lot to think about when creating a new page and I always think of better ideas once I've finished a version. Just look around and try to identify what YOU like most.
Andreas, I'm not so much looking for explicit advice on my existing website but for general answers to my specific questions. anyway, thanks for the comment, I hope I get some more.
georg
Posted by Andreas Resch on June 10, 2009 at 11:47 AM
My comments were concerning the relaunch. The only comment about your current website is in the first three sentences. You wanted to know my viewing habits and I gave them to you.
Concerning updating images all the time. I would say you should keep a good base and stick with the classical approach of putting images in the "New images" section, moving them to whatever category the belong to later and from time to time remove too old or undesired images from the webpage. Sometimes people might think back to an image of yours and might want to return to your page to look at it. It would be confusing if the images come and go as you desire.
If by "themed" you mean to give a title to the image, I don't think this is necessary in the thumbnail view. It's however nice along with a little info on the full version.
yep, that helps. sorry If I sounded harsh, didn't mean it, just wanted to really get the answers I'm looking for - sometimes very probelmatic in a forum, you know.
again - thanks.
georg
Posted by Bill Brennan on June 10, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Georg, my viewing habits prefer a certain order or organization to simplify my viewing or search through a site. For frequent visitors, a new-last 30 days section would be helpful. Then locations of your shoots along with a short introductory narrative would be helpful.
Also consider that individuals searching for photo sites or images will be directed to your site by search engines that can determine what you have on your site.
In summary, order, organization and simplicity. Have fun.
Bill Brennan
Posted by Mel Ladewig on June 10, 2009 at 12:37 PM
I think you'll run into a two sided problem. I would guess that you need to have a format in which to display your broad catalog, but you also need to have a place to show what is new.
Perhaps an entry page with that limited new catalog is a good idea, with a link through to the full catalog. Or an alternative is to use a blog sort of format, where the blog uses new images from your catalog to tell a story of your recent travels.
As others have mentioned, you wat your images to be found by search engines, so swapping out the catalog and breaking those links may not be a very good idea from a business perspective.
Mel-
Posted by Steve Sieren on June 10, 2009 at 2:03 PM
You would probably be better off with survey results from non photographers.
Or photographer spouses that are not into photography as a hobby. Those might be a little more accessable here.
This is an interesting discussion, particularly since I've been thinking about my new website for myself (via the widerange guys). I really like the way Jesse Spear has his site set up so that when you click on galleries, you are not forced to a choice of which category you want - you are immediately presented with the entire gallery, starting with the most recent uploads first - so seeing new work is easy, as is just getting lost in aimless browsing (in addition to themed galleries). Furthermore, lots of photographers have started using blogs, mine gets twice as many monthly hits as my website - that's where regular visitors go, so something of that format that people can sign up for to get automatic updates seems to be pretty popular.
On another note, and this is personal preference, I'm sick of seeing galleries like 'trees, mountains, coastline, etc'... how many pictures of trees are you going to view before you move on? I'm planning on some sort of mix, based on ecological niches.. for me that works out well since I shoot landscapes and wildlife and everything in between.. but I think it's valuable to consider 'click fatigue', as well as making it easy to find stuff (a search function is essential for that IMO). Other options I like are by location - but for a big traveler that can become unwieldy if you want a nice sampling. In any case, I would suggest a gallery organization that gives enough diversity to keep viewers interested - most viewers won't go to more than a few galleries. Just read your post a little more carefully - it seems like a combination of newly added stuff, your 'portfolio of choice - perhaps updated and changed regularly - and a location or theme based browsing all together would be a good starting point.
Definitely do not let images disappear from your site - people may come back wanting to show a friend an image, only to find it's gone!
Great topic and one that I suspect a lot of people are interested in. Of course you will get a wide range of opinions, just like any image will get a wide range of critiques and responses. But I already see some common themes.
Steve eludes to a point or question I had. Who is the target audience? Are you considering photo buyers, the consumer, potential clients for workshops and prints? Keep that in mind with mine and other photographer's opinions on "viewing habits and preferences." I don't go to any other photographers site to buy anything, sign up for newsletters, etc.
Having said that, I will go to another photographer's website to see their body of work, or specific images that I want to see or may have heard about. And while I admire and follow lots of photographers, I rarely care about "what's new." I'm not signing up for a workshop and it's quite likely that I won't be going to a gallery opening in Orlando if I live in CA.
One of the common responses so far is that folks want to see "new work" and "favorites." I'm in that camp. I personally prefer to see a large number of <quality> images organized in simple, common sense categories. It doesn't matter to me if it's earth, sea, sky, etc. or "Impressionism," "Minimalism," etc. etc.
The ability to SEARCH is important and I do want to be able to return to a specific image at a later time and be able to get to it quickly. A perfect example is with Chris Chamberlain's recent post and the reference to Charlie Cramer. I've referenced his site and images on a number of occasions and have a number of favorites of his that go back to now and then.
There are a couple of schools of thought regarding how many images to maintain on a site. Personally, I want to display a large body of work, yet be able to display them in small quantities and let the visitor have flexibility in choosing how many they want to display at any given time, depending on why they're visiting. On the other hand, I see the point about not "diluting" your best work with a ton of average images. And I think that having "new work" and "favorites" is a good compromise. My "new work" is roughly based on a years time. So as I add 2009 spring images to my site, I pull off 2008 spring images. My new work gallery is chronological, where as every other gallery is a psuedo-random selection within any given category. We also must keep in mind that what we as photographer's think as "average" may in fact be awesome to the general public, so why limit the display of your work. Anyway, I digress.
I also agree with Floris in not letting images dissappear or change locations. After a major redesign last year I made the decision to disply ONLY my 4x5 work. Just recently I got a request from a former client and they wondered where the pictures of the xxxx were. They were 35mm images I no longer had on the web. Subsequently I added those images back to the website only this time with their own database and galleries so they wouldn't mix in with the 4x5. I also didn't make the old, 35mm prominent so as not to "dilute" the 4x5 work.
Personally, I don't care if the front page has rotating images or not. When I revisit a photographer's website, I don't spend any time on the front page except to start navigating to where I want to go. I do have a set of about a dozen rotating images on my front page, because maybe there are some new or returning visitors who like that. And for those that don't, they're going to be navigating off that page anyway, so it's a wash to me.
would it be more interesting if there are only a limited numbers (but often fresh ones)of images to be seen on a website(maybe 20 to 25 or so),
To answer your first question directly, my personal opinion is that it would NOT be more interesting. If I was to go to a site and viewed all the 25 images and returned again later and saw the same 25, why would I return? I would be more inclined to return if I knew there would be new work posted or I could search against a larger body of work.
Is it really necessary to theme images instead of just showing the thumbnails? Of course image users/buyers might be interested in having images grouped up (geographically for example), but that’s not what I’m looking for.
Very annoying to just have pages of thumbnails without any organization. I think they should be grouped in some fashion as I mentioned earlier. But I'm confused about the last question. You ask about whether it was necessary to "theme images" instead of just showing thumbnails - and then come back and say that's not what you're looking for.
Ok, enough rambling. Hope some of it made sense. Good luck with the relaunch.
It's a complicated set of inter-related trade-offs. Among the factors are continuity of navigation and interface, novelty, loading speed, site design and layout, and visual quality of the images. Jakob Nielsen has written a number of very helpful books on these issues. His website is also helpful if, ahem, a little difficult to navigate. His Homepage Usability, deconstructing 50 of the then-top sites on the web. It's a bit dated, but still a landmark study.
Decide who is your "customer" for the web site, and build everything for them. Look at other sites designed for those personas.
In other words, unless your real customer is other photographers, don't put too much stock in what other photographers say about the design. We all have lots of opinions; all that really matters is what the people who might actually BUY something from you will think.
All this being said, what really counts is having a site driven by metadata (keyword) search functionality. Static collections won't cut it anymore.
some great useable input here already! Many, many thanks!
Steve – it’s not my one and only survey right here, but why not ask nature photogs too?
Floris – “..I'm sick of seeing galleries like 'trees, mountains, coastline, etc'... how many pictures of trees are you going to view before you move on?” – exactly, that’s what I am thinking! Blogs? I realize they are generating hits, but no, that’s out of question for me, that’s more for people with lots of sparetime or aspiring writers or sg – not for parents of two children and busy photographers… I do some writing for magazines and book chapters and it takes me away endless time! “..Definitely do not let images disappear from your site..” ok, that seems like a common ground here. Thsnks for commenting, your opinion is valuable for me.
Lon – thanks truly for taking so much time to comment! “..Who is the target audience?” Actually I’m trying to be such an arrogant fool to NOT think about that, but just do it the way I like it. I think my target ausdience is – one way or the other - 5 billion people… yeah, the “New Work” seems to be another common ground here, and I like it and already incorporated this into our existing website earlier this year. I will stay with that. Thnaks for confirming. As for “Favorites” – I believe if influences viewers (which can be a good thing…) but it is sooo subjective and even I change my mind every couple of months or so… but, yes, probably I’ll have to stick with it, too.
“…But I'm confused about the last question.” Ok, I just meant I’m not looking for a particular buyer/user oriented scheme, if I would than, sure enough, I need to make themed galleries.
“..The ability to SEARCH is important..” YES, I think so too, but I have not yet found (or seen anywhere) a good crossbred between a showcase gallery and a searchable library.
As for the rotating images and slideshows etc . .I completey agree with you (you seem to be pretty much like me anyways…) but nowadays a good site has to have at least SOME kind of “schnickschnack”…
Nat, Jim – also 1000 thanks – all these links are truly helpful!
Excuse my erratic answering patterns – I can check this forum only between soccer games in the backyard with my daughters, coffee talks with verena or things alike – you get the picture…
This is a very helpful thread. I am glad that Georg asked these questions. Thanks, Georg!
I agree with Nat that a site needs to be 'targeted' to the customer base to which one ismarketing their product. For example, if you are using your site to sell prints directly, you should have a means to display your images and for your customer to order a print easily. If your goal is to display your work for possible acceptance by (for example) book or calendar publishers, you need to target the site for that.
Now, let's say you want to meet both of these goals; sell prints, and display for publishers.. Attempting to do this on a single site may be confusing or unwieldly. A solution might be to have 2 sites; One to sell prints, and the other to display works for possible publication. This will mean extra work at the outset, but will make life easier down the road, since maintenance would be less cumbersome. The sites would be linked to oneanother so that a potential customer who has both interests would be able to find the other site.
Nate said, "All this being said, what really counts is having a site driven by metadata (keyword) search functionality..."
I would like add a little to this. Meta tags that contain keywords are not as important as they once were. The search engine crawlers have become very sophisticated and highly capable. Having too many Key Words in meta tags and/or within the text in your pages can actually cause problems and may, in fact, lower a page ranking (or, at worst, removed from the index). It's better to keep the number of Key Words small and very specific.
In my reading on SEO, it is suggested that key words be used within the body of a web page, rather than in meta tags. Also, use a very small number of key words in the "Alt" attribute in image src tags. This is how search engines find images; they cannot "see" a jpeg, gif, or png image. Also, avoid Flash, Silverlight, and Frames. Search engines can't see them either.
Georg wrote, "...nowadays a good site has to have at least SOME kind of “schnickschnack”… "
This is not true, in my opinion. A good site is one that loads quickly, has pleasing layout and readability, has coordinated fonts and color scheme, has intuitive navigation, works with various browsers and 'viewport' sizes, and is accessible to those with physical limitations. "Snickschnack" may look cool, but that won't hold a potential customer's attention; good design and excellent content does.
".."Snickschnack" may look cool, but that won't hold a potential customer's attention; good design and excellent content does."
yes, Preston, in general I do agree. but as I said, I don not only want to think about viewers who are customers and already know in principle what they are looking for. I think websites nowadays also CAN have some entertaining purposes - inspire people and they will come back again and again and eventually turn into customers. "schnickschnack" could be little things - background music, a slideshow or sg. just a thought...
I also might add: the metadata stuff and all that I'm not so concerned about - I let others, who will eventually realize the website take care of it anyways. but I need to have a full grown concept, as of how I want it to look like - and I just can't get a clear picture for that...??
If you add music to your website, please include a way for the viewer to turn it off. I will usually leave a website quickly if I can't find a way to turn off its music.
I built my site for people [i]just like me[i] who are birders and photographers; i.e., I'm trying to serve two distinct but overlapping audiences. I went with a clean page layout that doesn't distract from the image being shown. ?Images are grouped by species (the only thing that makes sense to me), and the galleries are arranged in species order (or at least what the order was at one time). So, an experienced birder can navigate the galleries easily, but I'd guess the casual person looking for cardinal shots would have trouble finding them.
Subject matter other than birds have dedicated galleries in separate sections.
Articles have their own section as well.
Finally, I have an Updates page that looks like a software release listing, showing what I've added or changed by date with most recent at the top. So, if someone recalls when they last visited they can quickly determine what is new since the last visit (and follow the links to each new item provided).
Discussion
18 repliesI hate it on my website (and on others) when there never is any change. Always the same images, never any new announcements etc.etc. (it’s just great when there is a “news” menu and you’ll find news from 3 months ago…
So my question: For those of you who frequent other photographers sites, would it be more interesting if there are only a limited numbers (but often fresh ones)of images to be seen on a website(maybe 20 to 25 or so), instead of adding up images, but quite frequently they will be switched and others will pop up? Is it really necessary to theme images instead of just showing the thumbnails? Of course image users/buyers might be interested in having images grouped up (geographically for example), but that’s not what I’m looking for. (also I’m not looking for advices on how to make the most money with my website – I’m not looking for that either…)
Can anybody give me any insights on his viewing habits/preferences?
Many Thanks in advance!
Georg
I guess there are as many visitor habits as there are visitors. I for example, would rather go for the Austrian/European locations because I'm interested in places that are within reach. But this will be completely different from people of other nationalities. I also like the seasonal grouping that some photographers have (like Vincent Favre).
Overall your actual grouping on the webpage is a bit overlapping and not very well to navigate. I would go for more defined sections. In an ideal case you would offer different grouping options and decide which one will come up front and which one are optional.
What I always like are the sections "New images" and "Personal favorites". I'd like to have these one in the initial display. I also like slideshow on the frontpage (like on my site) as the entry to the page always looks different (random show enabled of course) and you might see images that you haven't seen before.
There's a lot to think about when creating a new page and I always think of better ideas once I've finished a version. Just look around and try to identify what YOU like most.
georg
Concerning updating images all the time. I would say you should keep a good base and stick with the classical approach of putting images in the "New images" section, moving them to whatever category the belong to later and from time to time remove too old or undesired images from the webpage. Sometimes people might think back to an image of yours and might want to return to your page to look at it. It would be confusing if the images come and go as you desire.
If by "themed" you mean to give a title to the image, I don't think this is necessary in the thumbnail view. It's however nice along with a little info on the full version.
Hope this was a little more specific.
again - thanks.
georg
Also consider that individuals searching for photo sites or images will be directed to your site by search engines that can determine what you have on your site.
In summary, order, organization and simplicity. Have fun.
Bill Brennan
Perhaps an entry page with that limited new catalog is a good idea, with a link through to the full catalog. Or an alternative is to use a blog sort of format, where the blog uses new images from your catalog to tell a story of your recent travels.
As others have mentioned, you wat your images to be found by search engines, so swapping out the catalog and breaking those links may not be a very good idea from a business perspective.
Mel-
Or photographer spouses that are not into photography as a hobby. Those might be a little more accessable here.
On another note, and this is personal preference, I'm sick of seeing galleries like 'trees, mountains, coastline, etc'... how many pictures of trees are you going to view before you move on? I'm planning on some sort of mix, based on ecological niches.. for me that works out well since I shoot landscapes and wildlife and everything in between.. but I think it's valuable to consider 'click fatigue', as well as making it easy to find stuff (a search function is essential for that IMO). Other options I like are by location - but for a big traveler that can become unwieldy if you want a nice sampling. In any case, I would suggest a gallery organization that gives enough diversity to keep viewers interested - most viewers won't go to more than a few galleries. Just read your post a little more carefully - it seems like a combination of newly added stuff, your 'portfolio of choice - perhaps updated and changed regularly - and a location or theme based browsing all together would be a good starting point.
Definitely do not let images disappear from your site - people may come back wanting to show a friend an image, only to find it's gone!
Great topic and one that I suspect a lot of people are interested in. Of course you will get a wide range of opinions, just like any image will get a wide range of critiques and responses. But I already see some common themes.
Steve eludes to a point or question I had. Who is the target audience? Are you considering photo buyers, the consumer, potential clients for workshops and prints? Keep that in mind with mine and other photographer's opinions on "viewing habits and preferences." I don't go to any other photographers site to buy anything, sign up for newsletters, etc.
Having said that, I will go to another photographer's website to see their body of work, or specific images that I want to see or may have heard about. And while I admire and follow lots of photographers, I rarely care about "what's new." I'm not signing up for a workshop and it's quite likely that I won't be going to a gallery opening in Orlando if I live in CA.
One of the common responses so far is that folks want to see "new work" and "favorites." I'm in that camp. I personally prefer to see a large number of <quality> images organized in simple, common sense categories. It doesn't matter to me if it's earth, sea, sky, etc. or "Impressionism," "Minimalism," etc. etc.
The ability to SEARCH is important and I do want to be able to return to a specific image at a later time and be able to get to it quickly. A perfect example is with Chris Chamberlain's recent post and the reference to Charlie Cramer. I've referenced his site and images on a number of occasions and have a number of favorites of his that go back to now and then.
There are a couple of schools of thought regarding how many images to maintain on a site. Personally, I want to display a large body of work, yet be able to display them in small quantities and let the visitor have flexibility in choosing how many they want to display at any given time, depending on why they're visiting. On the other hand, I see the point about not "diluting" your best work with a ton of average images. And I think that having "new work" and "favorites" is a good compromise. My "new work" is roughly based on a years time. So as I add 2009 spring images to my site, I pull off 2008 spring images. My new work gallery is chronological, where as every other gallery is a psuedo-random selection within any given category. We also must keep in mind that what we as photographer's think as "average" may in fact be awesome to the general public, so why limit the display of your work. Anyway, I digress.
I also agree with Floris in not letting images dissappear or change locations. After a major redesign last year I made the decision to disply ONLY my 4x5 work. Just recently I got a request from a former client and they wondered where the pictures of the xxxx were. They were 35mm images I no longer had on the web. Subsequently I added those images back to the website only this time with their own database and galleries so they wouldn't mix in with the 4x5. I also didn't make the old, 35mm prominent so as not to "dilute" the 4x5 work.
Personally, I don't care if the front page has rotating images or not. When I revisit a photographer's website, I don't spend any time on the front page except to start navigating to where I want to go. I do have a set of about a dozen rotating images on my front page, because maybe there are some new or returning visitors who like that. And for those that don't, they're going to be navigating off that page anyway, so it's a wash to me.
To answer your first question directly, my personal opinion is that it would NOT be more interesting. If I was to go to a site and viewed all the 25 images and returned again later and saw the same 25, why would I return? I would be more inclined to return if I knew there would be new work posted or I could search against a larger body of work.
Very annoying to just have pages of thumbnails without any organization. I think they should be grouped in some fashion as I mentioned earlier. But I'm confused about the last question. You ask about whether it was necessary to "theme images" instead of just showing thumbnails - and then come back and say that's not what you're looking for.
Ok, enough rambling. Hope some of it made sense. Good luck with the relaunch.
Lon
In other words, unless your real customer is other photographers, don't put too much stock in what other photographers say about the design. We all have lots of opinions; all that really matters is what the people who might actually BUY something from you will think.
All this being said, what really counts is having a site driven by metadata (keyword) search functionality. Static collections won't cut it anymore.
And a super-clean layout.
Steve – it’s not my one and only survey right here, but why not ask nature photogs too?
Floris – “..I'm sick of seeing galleries like 'trees, mountains, coastline, etc'... how many pictures of trees are you going to view before you move on?” – exactly, that’s what I am thinking! Blogs? I realize they are generating hits, but no, that’s out of question for me, that’s more for people with lots of sparetime or aspiring writers or sg – not for parents of two children and busy photographers… I do some writing for magazines and book chapters and it takes me away endless time! “..Definitely do not let images disappear from your site..” ok, that seems like a common ground here. Thsnks for commenting, your opinion is valuable for me.
Lon – thanks truly for taking so much time to comment! “..Who is the target audience?” Actually I’m trying to be such an arrogant fool to NOT think about that, but just do it the way I like it. I think my target ausdience is – one way or the other - 5 billion people… yeah, the “New Work” seems to be another common ground here, and I like it and already incorporated this into our existing website earlier this year. I will stay with that. Thnaks for confirming. As for “Favorites” – I believe if influences viewers (which can be a good thing…) but it is sooo subjective and even I change my mind every couple of months or so… but, yes, probably I’ll have to stick with it, too.
“…But I'm confused about the last question.” Ok, I just meant I’m not looking for a particular buyer/user oriented scheme, if I would than, sure enough, I need to make themed galleries.
“..The ability to SEARCH is important..” YES, I think so too, but I have not yet found (or seen anywhere) a good crossbred between a showcase gallery and a searchable library.
As for the rotating images and slideshows etc . .I completey agree with you (you seem to be pretty much like me anyways…) but nowadays a good site has to have at least SOME kind of “schnickschnack”…
Nat, Jim – also 1000 thanks – all these links are truly helpful!
Excuse my erratic answering patterns – I can check this forum only between soccer games in the backyard with my daughters, coffee talks with verena or things alike – you get the picture…
georg
I agree with Nat that a site needs to be 'targeted' to the customer base to which one ismarketing their product. For example, if you are using your site to sell prints directly, you should have a means to display your images and for your customer to order a print easily. If your goal is to display your work for possible acceptance by (for example) book or calendar publishers, you need to target the site for that.
Now, let's say you want to meet both of these goals; sell prints, and display for publishers.. Attempting to do this on a single site may be confusing or unwieldly. A solution might be to have 2 sites; One to sell prints, and the other to display works for possible publication. This will mean extra work at the outset, but will make life easier down the road, since maintenance would be less cumbersome. The sites would be linked to oneanother so that a potential customer who has both interests would be able to find the other site.
Nate said, "All this being said, what really counts is having a site driven by metadata (keyword) search functionality..."
I would like add a little to this. Meta tags that contain keywords are not as important as they once were. The search engine crawlers have become very sophisticated and highly capable. Having too many Key Words in meta tags and/or within the text in your pages can actually cause problems and may, in fact, lower a page ranking (or, at worst, removed from the index). It's better to keep the number of Key Words small and very specific.
In my reading on SEO, it is suggested that key words be used within the body of a web page, rather than in meta tags. Also, use a very small number of key words in the "Alt" attribute in image src tags. This is how search engines find images; they cannot "see" a jpeg, gif, or png image. Also, avoid Flash, Silverlight, and Frames. Search engines can't see them either.
Georg wrote, "...nowadays a good site has to have at least SOME kind of “schnickschnack”… "
This is not true, in my opinion. A good site is one that loads quickly, has pleasing layout and readability, has coordinated fonts and color scheme, has intuitive navigation, works with various browsers and 'viewport' sizes, and is accessible to those with physical limitations. "Snickschnack" may look cool, but that won't hold a potential customer's attention; good design and excellent content does.
-P
yes, Preston, in general I do agree. but as I said, I don not only want to think about viewers who are customers and already know in principle what they are looking for. I think websites nowadays also CAN have some entertaining purposes - inspire people and they will come back again and again and eventually turn into customers. "schnickschnack" could be little things - background music, a slideshow or sg. just a thought...
I also might add: the metadata stuff and all that I'm not so concerned about - I let others, who will eventually realize the website take care of it anyways. but I need to have a full grown concept, as of how I want it to look like - and I just can't get a clear picture for that...??
georg
If you add music to your website, please include a way for the viewer to turn it off. I will usually leave a website quickly if I can't find a way to turn off its music.
georg
Subject matter other than birds have dedicated galleries in separate sections.
Articles have their own section as well.
Finally, I have an Updates page that looks like a software release listing, showing what I've added or changed by date with most recent at the top. So, if someone recalls when they last visited they can quickly determine what is new since the last visit (and follow the links to each new item provided).