Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Flash or HTML for photo web gallery site  (Read 17876 times)
MarkM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 336



WWW
« Reply #40 on: February 02, 2012, 11:26:56 PM »
ReplyReply

The arguments are really unnecessary. We all understand (I presume) that on the web quality, size, and speed are interrelated. If you have beautiful, big images that are slow to load, you may lose work to someone who has a faster site. By the same token, if you have highly compressed, small images, you might lose work to someone who has slower with more impressive files. We each need to find a balance and make a judgement call, and this requires making some assumptions about our audience and inevitably some compromises. I don't understand why anyone would think there is one right answer.
Logged

mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #41 on: February 02, 2012, 11:44:37 PM »
ReplyReply

The arguments are really unnecessary. We all understand (I presume) that on the web quality, size, and speed are interrelated. If you have beautiful, big images that are slow to load, you may lose work to someone who has a faster site. By the same token, if you have highly compressed, small images, you might lose work to someone who has slower with more impressive files. We each need to find a balance and make a judgement call, and this requires making some assumptions about our audience and inevitably some compromises. I don't understand why anyone would think there is one right answer.

Um, your opinion. In fact, the OP was asking about the merits of Flash vs open HTML standards; the fact that Flash sites are often bulky is another matter.

Re file size of images, it used to be de rigeuer to offer alternative links depending on connection speed; there is no reason not to offer that choice, if desired.

BTW, I am writing this via a wireless modem slowed to 64Kbps, so I remember how agonisingly slow surfing used to be! And is, until next Wednesday.  Cry
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
MarkM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 336



WWW
« Reply #42 on: February 03, 2012, 03:35:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Um, your opinion. In fact, the OP was asking about the merits of Flash vs open HTML standards; the fact that Flash sites are often bulky is another matter.

Re file size of images, it used to be de rigeuer to offer alternative links depending on connection speed; there is no reason not to offer that choice, if desired.

BTW, I am writing this via a wireless modem slowed to 64Kbps, so I remember how agonisingly slow surfing used to be! And is, until next Wednesday.  Cry

Considering that this is posted in the business forum, not the web ideology forum, it might make sense to look at the real world and see what is working for people and what isn't. I can find many example of big, beautiful sites (both flash and html) that would bring a dialup connection to its knees (i.e. http://danwintersphoto.com/ ). It's worth noting that Dan's site is from aphotofolio.com run by Rob Haggart who probably knows a thing or two about what photo buyers want in a website. These sites work fine on a fast connection, which most if not all of their potential customers are using.

If you are correct, that this is a bad business decision, that it hurts the bottom line, then you should have no trouble pointing out some websites of equally successful photographers with websites optimized for dial-up. I would be interested to see a website that is beating the competition by showing highly-compressed and/or tiny images.
Logged

shotworldwide
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #43 on: February 08, 2012, 06:32:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi guys, I am writing my websites over ten years now and here is my new site I ended up with:

http://shotworldwide.com

From my experience, people are lazy to click on links or images, so I put everything on one page in one stream - as I did more than ten years ago Smiley

If you catch the bottom right hand side corner of your browser and drag it to the left, you will see waht is going to happen ... design will readjust smoothly and will keep the new wide of the browser. It means, that this design is viewable on all screens without scrolling. They call it "responsive web design."
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5171


« Reply #44 on: February 08, 2012, 08:42:36 PM »
ReplyReply

What is it that makes Flash be less desirable, besides not playing on an iPad?
Extend that to not playing on most mobile devices in the near future, and performing fairly badly on many of them now. The latest news is that
1. Adobe has stop development of Flash Player for mobile devices.
2. Microsoft has said that it will not support any plug-ins (such as Flash Player) on the mobile version of Windows 8, intended for tablets
3. Google has just released a version of Chrome for Android, which looks to be a far better replacement for the current Android browser, and it has no Flash Player support, due to  item 1.

On the other hand, some desktop browsers do not support HTML5, and so might do better with Flash. To be specific, the problem browsers are Internet Explorer before the current version 9, still used mostly by:
a. People still using Windows XP and its originally installed default browser IE 6, and who never update the browser despite Microsoft pleading with people to make the free upgrade and rid the world of IE6.
b. People in a certain large Asian country running pirate versions of Windows XP which cannot be upgraded.

So, decide which group of customers you would rather miss out on: the people who buy and use the latest mobile devices, or the ones using obsolete software on aging hardware.
Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 08, 2012, 09:06:01 PM »
ReplyReply

First thing: In a way HTML is always there in some form or another, even when masquerading as XML, JS or PHP. Even if you use flash, you still need an HTML/PHP page for your index, analytics and SEO. It's not a question of Flash vs HTML.

There are two ways to look at this:

1. You have enough money to hire a professional to design and execute your site

Build your site in flash, and when flash is no more, pay to get the site redone. Flash is on its way out, but no other standard comes close to matching its 'user experience'.

2. You don't have enough money to hire a professional

Build your site using Javascript, CSS and HTML.

You might want to start with Wordpress or other CMS tools to build your site. The advantage is, they are always optimized for the latest technology. Plus you have the added advantage of adding your own Javascript code or CSS modifications to suit your needs. If you don't like a template, you can build your own, and never have to worry about the 'back-end' too much.

I fully recommend Wordpress.org for professional photographers. Hope this helps.

Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
nhvma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #46 on: February 15, 2012, 07:50:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi aaronkneile,

I was a web designer and got some prizes about what I have done. In my opinion I will go with HTML. Flash is Adobe alone (Macromedia before) idea so it would not natively support by main browsers. You need a plugin in order to view flash sites. On some devices such as Ipad or Iphone one can not views flash sites at all. In contrast HTML is something standard and all major web browsers support it natively.
In general if the flash site developers are good at their job then the site will be loaded quite fast otherwise it will take a lot more time in order to load. In today busy world no one would like to wait. What the users of your site want is information not the fancy things that need flash to performs.
At the early time I spend months in order to make my sites look cool in terms of technique. Some of my sites really inspired other developers in terms of techniques and fancy things. I also learned flash to build some cool/fancy site that HTML/JavaScript could not perform. But the real users of my sites sometime feel my sites not user friendly (usability problems). 13 years a go when you create a website you have a lot of things to consider in order to make it look right on main browsers and platforms (crossed platform). Today when design a site you still need to take care about it but main HTML tags are crossed platforms. That said, if you use simple HTML then your site will be OK on any browser/systems.
One more thought is if you are photographer then what you really would like to show is your photos not the *cool* site with lot of music and effects. IMO the more simple your site is the more pop up your photos will be. If you know a little HTML and Dreamweaver then there is a site (projectseven.com) that you can find some good pre-made html site with which you just need to input your photos and the rest are some clicks to go. You can check sample here: http://projectseven.com/products/galleries/hgmagic/insects.htm

Hope this help and good luck with your new site.
Logged

Thanks and regards,
Anh Nguyen
www.proonestudio.com
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 24, 2012, 05:39:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Revisiting this topic....

I would certainly not recommend anyone creates a new website in Flash any more, but I really miss how well Flash worked across all browsers.
My first developer actually walked away from my first Flash->HTML migration 6 months ago, because there were just so many bugs peculiar to just one browser and he couldn't work out most of them.
Now I have a new company rebuilding my site. There were plenty of browser issues again but at least these guys are slowly getting through the list. But it's a damning testament to DHTML that it takes 3 times longer to get the site working for the last 10% of visitors than it took to build the site.

At the moment, the browsers to consider are:

IE 7, 8, 9
FF 3.6, 4+5, 6+7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Chrome 18, 19
Safari 5
Opera 11
iOS4, 5
Android 2,3,4

Anyway, nearly there.

If anyone would like to try the latest test version, you can visit gmitchell.net. If you do find any issues, please report back with device, OS and browser and even a screen shot if possible Smiley


Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 922



WWW
« Reply #48 on: June 24, 2012, 09:47:08 AM »
ReplyReply

it works fine (latest firefox OSX 10.7.4), i prefer the transitions in the flash version though.
Logged
JMPhoto
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22



WWW
« Reply #49 on: June 29, 2012, 05:57:53 PM »
ReplyReply

HTML 5

/thread
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad