Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Website development - Flash or HTML?  (Read 15126 times)
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 699


« Reply #20 on: June 03, 2010, 05:34:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeez..........!

I go to bed, wake up, log on and see about 20 replies.

I've created a monster!  

Seriously though, looks like something that needed discussing.

Thanks for all the replies. On balance, Flash appears to be yesterday's choice it seems.

D.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2010, 05:35:30 AM by Dinarius » Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2464



WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 03, 2010, 05:55:07 AM »
ReplyReply

And that's partly because of what you asked about "does the ipad change the goalposts?" One Flash-crippled browser is enough, but add to that Jobs' recent statements and it's clear that unless the market forces them, Apple aren't going to support this part of the web. So right now you either give some of your potential customers the finger, or you have to dance to Apple's tune.

John
Logged

Kumar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 03, 2010, 06:12:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I did my site using Simple Viewer Pro and Kompozer. It was fairly easy, but I think now it's time to go HTML only.

Kumar
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #23 on: June 03, 2010, 06:22:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kumar
I did my site using Simple Viewer Pro and Kompozer. It was fairly easy, but I think now it's time to go HTML only.

Kumar
I have a question Kumar.(a little bit out of topic)

I have Ubuntu installed in one unit, and the Kompozer stuff.
I was thinking the other day of checking it (never had the time to do it so far).
How the workflow is with that tool?

Thanks
« Last Edit: June 03, 2010, 06:23:59 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Kumar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 03, 2010, 08:02:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Fred,

I used Kompozer on Windows. It's pretty easy to figure out. The browser function allows you to see the changes you're making very quickly. I'm not much of a whiz at it, but got up to speed pretty quickly. There are an amazing number of tutorials on it. I used Simple Viewer Pro for the galleries. I'm going to check out the newest version of SVPro, and then maybe do a completely HTML version.

Cheers,
Kumar

Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #25 on: June 03, 2010, 08:17:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kumar
Hi Fred,

I used Kompozer on Windows. It's pretty easy to figure out. The browser function allows you to see the changes you're making very quickly. I'm not much of a whiz at it, but got up to speed pretty quickly. There are an amazing number of tutorials on it. I used Simple Viewer Pro for the galleries. I'm going to check out the newest version of SVPro, and then maybe do a completely HTML version.

Cheers,
Kumar
Thank you Kumar.
I'll check that "beast" very soon.

Cheers.
Logged
pcunite
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #26 on: June 04, 2010, 08:45:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Now that the iPad is out all our websites are being converted to jquery for slideshows and such. Runs much nicer I think. I am a strong Windows supporter too so this is not about favoring Apple... our site looks better on Blackberrie devices as well.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 05, 2010, 02:19:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pcunite
Now that the iPad is out all our websites are being converted to jquery for slideshows and such. Runs much nicer I think. I am a strong Windows supporter too so this is not about favoring Apple... our site looks better on Blackberrie devices as well.

Let's take a reality check here: iPad has a infinitesimal market share, we're not even talking a percentage point of notebook sales even if they meet the street expectations of 5 million units - and if we add desktops it's even less. I can't see "all" or even "most" or even a "significant portion" of websites being adjusted in any way due to iPad.

It will take much more than iPad to make a change. Tablets have been around for years, so the jury is very much out on if iPad and other competing products will finally take off.
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3681



« Reply #28 on: June 05, 2010, 02:29:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Let's take a reality check here: iPad has a infinitesimal market share, we're not even talking a percentage point of notebook sales even if they meet the street expectations of 5 million units - and if we add desktops it's even less. I can't see "all" or even "most" or even a "significant portion" of websites being adjusted in any way due to iPad.
While that's obviously true, a much more important question is the degree of market penetration among your target audience, which may (only you can know) be much greater than the crude sales figures suggest.

Jeremy
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 05, 2010, 02:38:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kikashi
While that's obviously true, a much more important question is the degree of market penetration among your target audience, which may (only you can know) be much greater than the crude sales figures suggest.

Jeremy

Of course. As I ranted above, there are a million other reasons to get rid of Flash, so don't let the small market share slow you down
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7463



WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 05, 2010, 12:56:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Of course. As I ranted above, there are a million other reasons to get rid of Flash, so don't let the small market share slow you down

And one of those million reasons is that curmudgeons like me refuse to spend time jumping through the hoops that some Flash websites require. If it ain't simple, I'm not going to look at it (or buy from it, etc.)  


Eric

Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #31 on: June 05, 2010, 12:59:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Eric Myrvaagnes
And one of those million reasons is that curmudgeons like me refuse to spend time jumping through the hoops that some Flash websites require. If it ain't simple, I'm not going to look at it (or buy from it, etc.)  


Eric
And there is also this false idea that HTML is boring and flat. It just depends. There are some fantastic website in html. Greatly designed.

We don't even need html5 at that point. The fact is you can have a web in html3 or 4 and when required writing in html5.
Logged
pcunite
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #32 on: June 05, 2010, 01:36:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
It will take much more than iPad to make a change. Tablets have been around for years, so the jury is very much out on if iPad and other competing products will finally take off.

It only took one stone to kill Goliath.
Logged
pete_truman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 06, 2010, 02:14:13 PM »
ReplyReply

My advice in my day job is to adopt standards wherever possible to ensure compatibility and interoperability. HTML is a de facto standard supported by all browsers, mobile devices and the like. Of course, the version supported does differ, but at present HTML 4 is pretty universal. Whilst Flash is fairly ubiquitous, it is not universal or a de facto standard (although until recently it could be considered close), so on that basis I would recommend avoiding Flash - or at least until it does become universal.

Now if only I had followed my own advice I wouldn't be re-engineering my own sites.  
« Last Edit: June 06, 2010, 02:15:03 PM by pete_truman » Logged

Pete Truman
pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #34 on: June 08, 2010, 12:50:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Let's take a reality check here: iPad has a infinitesimal market share, we're not even talking a percentage point of notebook sales even if they meet the street expectations of 5 million units - and if we add desktops it's even less. I can't see "all" or even "most" or even a "significant portion" of websites being adjusted in any way due to iPad.

It will take much more than iPad to make a change. Tablets have been around for years, so the jury is very much out on if iPad and other competing products will finally take off.

this is not about the iPad....this is about mobile web.....there are 100s of millions of iPhone users....same goes for android, windows, symbian,....while some of them can run flash, the experience is terrible ( if it runs at all) and drains the battery for the most part.....

the way content is seen has changed dramatically in only the last 2-3 years.....the iPhone was simply the start....the iPad is a logical extension....

the iPad has smashed anything tablet related....and the iPad competition is not windows based but android based....Microsoft has a real problem because they don't even have a plan to compete at this moment....the slate is scrapped....their best bet would be to build something based on the very promising new mobile windows platform.....

I would recommend checking out the new iPhone announced today....new camera ( with a backlit sensor and not simply more mix but a larger sensor!) HD video, iMovie (!) the best screen.....same chip as the iPad.....
my canon g10 hasn't seen much use since I got the 3GS iPhone....this will completely replace it and then some....sorry to actually get sidetracked and talk about photography for a sec.....

Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 699


« Reply #35 on: June 08, 2010, 01:53:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pschefz
I would recommend checking out the new iPhone announced today....new camera ( with a backlit sensor and not simply more mix but a larger sensor!) HD video, iMovie (!) the best screen.....same chip as the iPad.....
my canon g10 hasn't seen much use since I got the 3GS iPhone....this will completely replace it and then some....sorry to actually get sidetracked and talk about photography for a sec.....

pschefz,

Lots of good points, but the last is a tad exaggerated!  

I too own a 3Gs and a G9. Despite also owning a Canon 1Ds Mklll and a Hasselblad 39MS (both work cameras), the G9 is probably the most used camera I own. I love it! And its ability to shoot superb raw files will never, ever be replaced by a phone camera. Phone cameras are great for those "I was there" moments, but I couldn't stand over them otherwise.

Waaaayyyyyyyy off topic - apolgies.  

Just my tuppence worth.

D.
Logged
pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #36 on: June 08, 2010, 06:24:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dinarius
pschefz,

Lots of good points, but the last is a tad exaggerated!  

I too own a 3Gs and a G9. Despite also owning a Canon 1Ds Mklll and a Hasselblad 39MS (both work cameras), the G9 is probably the most used camera I own. I love it! And its ability to shoot superb raw files will never, ever be replaced by a phone camera. Phone cameras are great for those "I was there" moments, but I couldn't stand over them otherwise.

Waaaayyyyyyyy off topic - apolgies.  

Just my tuppence worth.

D.

i understand....but for me the g10 just does not cut it at all....I actually prefer bringing a 5dii with a small 35 along because the files are just so ich better.....or I simply shoot with my iPhone.....because i always have that with me.....

I am just so disappointed with the low light performance of the g series....or any other camera with that size sensor....I might get one of the new sonys with the 16mm....smaller and so much better.....

but again....the camera that is always with me will take the pics....and that is the iPhone....

sorry for the off topic....i also have to say that I live in LA and most days a jacket is way to much to wear and so I only bring what fits in my pants:)....

the one thing that the g10 does extremely well is auto fill flash in full sun (which again comes in handy at 350 days of full sun a year...)
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 20, 2010, 09:23:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Quote
Support for fonts – Art Directors love typography. It is important that our users can load high quality magazine and advertising fonts in their websites. In HTML5 you can only use a handful of web safe fonts
Wrong: in html you can display every unsafe and exotic font when you know how to, but it is a bit of an hassle to do it.
it is not that you can not, it is that it is not wysiwyg.
Not being able to lay fonts out accurately/properly is exactly why people who actually care about design and typography so often use Flash. Browsers make such a pigs ear out of type, even if the font you like can be displayed. And that's without taking the difference between Macs + PCs with regard to type.
And as pro photographers will tend to show their work to art directors and similar people, this is a very important consideration. Personally, I loathe how crappy type looks in HTML with poor kerning or no ligatures. It's like looking as a poorly composed photograph.
Browser support is improving in this area, but until all browsers render HTML the same [very,very unlikely], having something like Flash which is visually consistent is a very useful tool.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 09:24:51 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #38 on: July 20, 2010, 12:32:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
Wrong: in html you can display every unsafe and exotic font when you know how to, but it is a bit of an hassle to do it.
it is not that you can not, it is that it is not wysiwyg.
Not being able to lay fonts out accurately/properly is exactly why people who actually care about design and typography so often use Flash. Browsers make such a pigs ear out of type, even if the font you like can be displayed. And that's without taking the difference between Macs + PCs with regard to type.
And as pro photographers will tend to show their work to art directors and similar people, this is a very important consideration. Personally, I loathe how crappy type looks in HTML with poor kerning or no ligatures. It's like looking as a poorly composed photograph.
Browser support is improving in this area, but until all browsers render HTML the same [very,very unlikely], having something like Flash which is visually consistent is a very useful tool.
But the dilema is simple: flash does not work on every platform. If you really want to use flash, I recommend that you also implement a pure html version. (without frames if you want 100% compatibility).

This is why (IMO) BCooter for example did 2 versions. 1 more aimed for selling "image" in flash, 1 for displaying images properly (html). (by properly I mean fast and clean)
You'll find that the J.Russell html site is way (but way!) faster than the flash one, wich also can be a very important factor.
I have a really fast connection and his flash site has slow-down more than once. Like most of flash AS3 sites. Not all the executives have time or like to deal with the flash loaders, that is a point to remember. Speed matters.
If you want speed with flash, you need to use AS2, not AS3, but then you loose interesting features. That is why if you run a flash site, it is always a good option to have an html alternative.

Commercially speaking, BCooter's site is very cleverly designed and programmed: http://russellrutherfordphoto.com/2/Artist...p;Akey=3F8X3JQW and http://www.russellrutherford.com/ and http://russellrutherford.com/fashion/

Also, http://www.adammork.dk/  this is a Lu-La member website that I like with 0% flash. I think it would please perfectly an AD or even worse in terms of estetismmaniaquism: an architect.
Fonts are perfectly rendered, design is there, usability is good, speed is perfect. Compatibility is high. So a non boring site is posible without flash.

Then, if you want an integrated control panel, nothing works better and faster than PHP+HTML, avoiding even java scripts as much as you can.
Jquery is fine but those are scripts and this is a jungle where the really stable solutions do not abund. So as much as possible, avoid scripts of any nature.

Remember that the phones and tablets are going to be the number one in internet traffic. I see here in the fashion world that they tend to use their phones quite a lot.
Even as a quick portfolio preview with the client. You need your site to be displayable on those devices, like it or not. IMO.

Cheers.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 04:17:16 AM by fredjeang » Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 21, 2010, 05:58:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
But the dilema is simple: flash does not work on every platform. If you really want to use flash, I recommend that you also implement a pure html version. (without frames if you want 100% compatibility).
But Flash did work on virtually everything until Apple decided not to support it. And I think that was for marketing and not technical reasons as they claim. Flash on iPads/iPhones means less app store sales. Apple are just a business which simply want to maximise its profits
Besides you avoid addressing the point I made and which Flash haters always avoid and that HTML does not do all that Flash does by a long way and that different browsers can display text quite differently. People also forget Flash is primarily animation software, not just a way of delivering video, which is al lFlash appears to do according to a lot of recent Flash media nonsense.
I'm not a big Flash user BTW, but there's a lot of rubbish about what Flash is and how wonderful HTML5 is. Even though HTML5 isn't even here yet.


Quote
Also, http://www.adammork.dk/  this is a Lu-La member website that I like with 0% flash. I think it would please perfectly an AD or even worse in terms of estetismmaniaquism: an architect.
Fonts are perfectly rendered, design is there, usability is good, speed is perfect. Compatibility is high. So a non boring site is posible without flash.
You are missing the point. No-one is claiming you need Flash to make sites interesting. It is the designer who does that, not the Flash or HTML.
BTW that site crashed/locked up in Chrome! Also it uses text [and everything] very minimally, plus text is all in capitals which reduces kerning and ligature issues. Looks like it was designed with the limitations in mind. I like it a lot but it's similar to some I've done myself, so I'm biased!   Don't forget photographers websites are more about the imagery they present, so are can be easily done in a non-Flash environment than other more complex design or type led websites.


Quote
Remember that the phones and tablets are going to be the number one in internet traffic. I see here in the fashion world that they tend to use their phones quite a lot.
Even as a quick portfolio preview with the client. You need your site to be displayable on those devices, like it or not. IMO.
You can do what people have done for years, have a website for computer monitors and one for small mobile devices. It is better to have a site designed for optimally for each. My new site, when I have time to finish it off, will have a version specifically for such small devices. There's nothing new about that idea.
Not sure why you think, I would design a site that uses Flash so it would not work on such devices. Don't even use Flash at all at moment on my FFF website..
« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 06:02:20 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad