Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Pro Business Discussion => Topic started by: Dinarius on June 02, 2010, 09:02:07 am
-
I would be grateful for opinions regarding website development for photographers and whether or not it is kosher to use Flash now given the ubiquity of the iPhone and (more importantly) the iPad?
Put it another way, does the advent of the iPad shift the goalposts? Will it become an acceptable way of displaying one's images on the move? If so, should we accommodate it by not using Flash?
I am currently working with a web designer. My gut wants to go with Flash and all it can offer. My head is wondering if this is a smart move?
I would be grateful for any feedback.
Thanks.
D.
-
I would be grateful for opinions regarding website development for photographers and whether or not it is kosher to use Flash now given the ubiquity of the iPhone and (more importantly) the iPad?
Put it another way, does the advent of the iPad shift the goalposts? Will it become an acceptable way of displaying one's images on the move? If so, should we accommodate it by not using Flash?
I am currently working with a web designer. My gut wants to go with Flash and all it can offer. My head is wondering if this is a smart move?
I would be grateful for any feedback.
Thanks.
D.
I use livebooks. They have you site mirrored in html for computers and search engines that can view the information on the flash site. They have also recently added support for the iPhone. I'm sure if there are limitation with the iPad, Livebooks will solve it. I do have to say though, I had a bad experience with their customer service and nearly pulled the plug on it.
-
APhotofolio (http://aphotofolio.com), provides flash based sites that reformat themselves for the iPhone and for the iPad (http://aphotofolio.com/a-photo-folio-first-to-deliver-ipad-sites/). Additionally, the sites have a mirrored html component which aids in SEO.
More to your question though - Rob Haggart at aPhotofolio.com wrote a piece in APF's news section that clearly outlines the strengths of Flash and why it cannot be completely replaced by HTML5 (http://aphotofolio.com/is-flash-still-the-best-language-to-build-websites/).
I have no stake in APF other than being a happy customer.
-
Hi.
This is an interesting topic.
I've been a webdesigner and a Flash guru (until AS3 where I stopped), worked for many advertising adgencies and big companies during about 6 years. Why do I say that? because I loved flash, it was my daily rutine.
When Adobe implemented the Action-script3, I understood that it was the beginning of the end.
For reasons that have nothing to do with AS3, I stopped my work as designer at that time, but I'm still very conected with both technology and designers.
My suggestions:
1) If you have a web site already designed in flash and you are satisfy, leave it like that, save money and just built an alternative html version (reduce).
2) If you have a web site already designed that you are not satisfy with, get rid off the flash at least for galleries and replace for html
3) if you do not have already a website: CHOOSE ONLY HTML.
-------my (quick) analysis in color of the article linked in the previous post: http://aphotofolio.com/is-flash-still-the-...build-websites/ (http://aphotofolio.com/is-flash-still-the-best-language-to-build-websites/)
1. 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.
2. Scaling – The cornerstone of our design is the image scaling. It allows us to display images easily on monitors from 13″ – 30.” HTML5 does not support scaling.
Flash does support image scaling properly rendered under certain condition, so as html+java script. You can't dissociate html from scripts, like you can not dissociate Flash from action-script. Also, some java interventions in the html mother are required with certain flash effects, wich double the scripts.
3. Browser Independence – It’s important that our sites look the same in browsers built 10 years ago (IE7) and browser released today. HTML5 is not supported by most of the browsers people are using today.
Flash is browser-hassle-free (till they bloqued for reason or another the activeX), True, only if we are talking about the cousin's designer. But for a professional, Html is also hassle free because they are checked in every possible platform. I agree that it does require really serious guys, and they are not cheap.
4. Video Independence – It’s important that video on our sites displays correctly in every single browser. HTML5 requires that you encode your video in several different formats if you want it to show up in different browsers.
Yes but...What will html bring very soon, if Apple will play clean, is precisely an open platform for multimedias.
SWF can (must) not be the only possible way to integrate movies.
------------------------------------------------------------
Now, just check the wesites of Lu-La users that work under flash...in general all about the samekind of distractions and slowness (and crashes!).
Then, check the websites that use simple html. Way faster, clean, no crash, no hassle.
-Do you really miss the little thumbails that pop-up each time you pass the mouse on the back of the screen?
-Or do you really miss the arrows that are displayed OVER the pic (great design by the way...) to make you understand that you have to go next?
-Do you dramaticaly miss the fancy name that twinkle with a supermarket new-age music behind when you just want to watch the pics? (if at least the music had something to do with the work...)
-Can't you sleep because of the slowness to upload all the blooby pics, transitions, thumbs etc...? Great for your business when after a few pics the website crashes.(seen many many times here).
-Do you really need the flash features? (for an advertising campaign it is THE tool, but even there Apple demostrated recently that they can do great job without it)
I think that my asnwer is: NO FLASH except if you really will need it and uses properly.
Cheers.
Ps: Jon, your flash site actually is well implemented. Thanks the arrow key for navigation and the reasonable loading time. This is an example IMO of how, if you really need flash, things should be done. But there are many other ways of course.
Now, if you want to compare speeds, check this website: http://www.ampimage.com/ (http://www.ampimage.com/). See what I mean? Flash AS3 can not do this as fast (AS2 yes).
-
Also important to know who your target market is and what will work best for them... because you may only have one chance and less than 30 seconds of their time.
Indeed !
I've seen many flash wesites displaying great work, but just gave up because of the all waiting circus. If I give up, no need to talk about art-ejecutives.
-
Indeed !
I've seen many flash wesites displaying great work, but just gave up because of the all waiting circus. If I give up, no need to talk about art-ejecutives.
I've had my designer researching De-Flashing the site since all this came up. We're using SlideShowPro, however which depends fully on flash for the image galleries. I expect it would require a rewrite to change things. That said, I have never seen my site "crash". It loads quite fast and I think it was designed pretty cleanly. What it really needs, though are some animated gif Fairies sprinkling fairy dust over the images while a midi plays in the background.
-CB
-
Fred - I'm a bit out of element but I can reply to a few of your points.
1. 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.
And that makes it a deal breaker.
2. Scaling – The cornerstone of our design is the image scaling. It allows us to display images easily on monitors from 13″ – 30.” HTML5 does not support scaling.
Flash does support image scaling properly rendered under certain condition, so as html+java script. You can't dissociate html from scripts, like you can not dissociate Flash from action-script. Also, some java interventions in the html mother are required with certain flash effects, wich double the scripts.
Not sure what the latter part means in every day terms but I can tell you that image scaling does work on APF sites.
3. Browser Independence – It’s important that our sites look the same in browsers built 10 years ago (IE7) and browser released today. HTML5 is not supported by most of the browsers people are using today.
Flash is browser-hassle-free (till they bloqued for reason or another the activeX), True, only if we are talking about the cousin's designer. But for a professional, Html is also hassle free because they are checked in every possible platform. I agree that it does require really serious guys, and they are not cheap.
??? Fred - something may be getting lost in translation but I'm trying to wrap my head around this reply.
4. Video Independence – It’s important that video on our sites displays correctly in every single browser. HTML5 requires that you encode your video in several different formats if you want it to show up in different browsers.
Yes but...What will html bring very soon, if Apple will play clean, is precisely an open platform for multimedias.
SWF can (must) not be the only possible way to integrate movies.
If it's not here yet for html, as you say above, then your reply is a moot point. The real world is today, not something coming "very soon." When very soon arrives then one can re-evaluate.
Now, just check the wesites of Lu-La users that work under flash...in general all about the samekind of distractions and slowness (and crashes!).
Baloney! A blanket statement like that is ridiculous. Well designed flash works well, well designed html works well. Poorly designed flash is crappy as is poorly designed html.
[color="#4169E1"]-Do you really miss the little thumbails that pop-up each time you pass the mouse on the back of the screen?
-Or do you really miss the arrows that are displayed OVER the pic (great design by the way...) to make you understand that you have to go next?
-Do you dramaticaly miss the fancy name that twinkle with a supermarket new-age music behind when you just want to watch the pics? (if at least the music had something to do with the work...)
-Can't you sleep because of the slowness to upload all the blooby pics, transitions, thumbs etc...? Great for your business when after a few pics the website crashes.(seen many many times here).
Again, what you write above a generalizations. Your thumbnail point is bad design not a Flash vs. _______ issue. Your arrow point is similar though I'd put that more in the optional area. Some may want that, some may not. Music? I agree completely but to assume all Flash sites have it is wrong. To assume it can't be used well is wrong too. Look at Sam Jones' site (http://www.samjonespictures.com/). Finally, slowness is function of site design/coding and image sizes uploaded by the photographer. It's not a given that every Flash site is slow just like it is not a given that every html site is "faster, cleaner, crash proof, and hassle free."
---------
Fred - just say your comment, "your flash site actually is well implemented. Thanks the arrow key for navigation and the reasonable loading time. This is an example IMO of how, if you really need flash, things should be done. But there are many other ways of course."
Agreed there are other ways but my post was more to, here's one way with Flash that does work and does allow for iPhone/Smart Phone/iPad viewing.
-
I've had my designer researching De-Flashing the site since all this came up. We're using SlideShowPro, however which depends fully on flash for the image galleries. I expect it would require a rewrite to change things. That said, I have never seen my site "crash". It loads quite fast and I think it was designed pretty cleanly. What it really needs, though are some animated gif Fairies sprinkling fairy dust over the images while a midi plays in the background.
-CB
Hi chris,
I know your website, I visit it regularly.
It is not in the "crashed-series", yes, but see the thumbs for example? if I reach a point and then I move the mouse away, slides go up to beginning, and I've lost where I was so I have to redo the process.
See, these things are tipically flash effects. It is not a criticsm to you, I like your work and I think I expressed it several times, but a criticism to the flashmania that invaded the designers in the last decade.
Your site would run 3 times faster (I say 3 and it is really 3) even with bigger pics in an html environement.
Garantee 100%.
But your site is not a real flash site, it is an html with a flash gallery, that is why it does not crash.
-
[color="#4169E1"]-Do you really miss the little thumbails that pop-up each time you pass the mouse on the back of the screen?
-Or do you really miss the arrows that are displayed OVER the pic (great design by the way...) to make you understand that you have to go next?
.... if you have a good designer and programmer you can have that as well with html - check out the "selected works" section on my site - there is no flash on the entire site.....
/adam
-
---------
Fred - just say your comment, "your flash site actually is well implemented. Thanks the arrow key for navigation and the reasonable loading time. This is an example IMO of how, if you really need flash, things should be done. But there are many other ways of course."
Agreed there are other ways but my post was more to, here's one way with Flash that does work and does allow for iPhone/Smart Phone/iPad viewing.
Jon,
Flash is not the problem. If html5 is going to be abused the same way by designers with scripts, it will have exactly the same effect and what was supposed to be gained will be lost.
I'm fully aware that flash is NOT the problem, it is the How-to.
About video without Flash: it is not there today (more exactly not ready yet) but it will be very soon, and this is not speculation.
But if you are fine with Flash, then no need to change it.
Cheers.
-
.... if you have a good designer and programmer you can have that as well with html - check out the "selected works" section on my site - there is no flash on the entire site.....
/adam
Exactly, that is all my point. I knew your site as well.
See? it looks like flash but it is not. Difference: the thumbs loaded instantanously, almost no waiting and pics are bigs.
I can make a pdf from your pics,
etc...
-
Flash needs to die, and I'm all for Apple killing it. Whenever I get a "loading 23%" animation I quit in disgust - and I have fast broadband.
While many Flash sites look gorgeous, learning a new UI every single time I go to a site should be unnecessary. Most Flash designs have a UI which puts eye-candy over user experience, so you get nice-looking sites which are a pain to navigate. Flash also breaks many of the established UI conventions, such as back/forward buttons, right click to save images or bookmarks, and using audio is the worst (although that's admittedly rare). Finally, most Flash content is useless ads so many people like me have Flash blocked with NoScript or AdBlock Plus.
Oh and have you tried giving a link to someone of that nice picture you saw on a Flash site? You can't. What you have to do is say "go to www.crappyflashsite.com, wait for it to load, wait for the splash page to finish, wait for the UI to load, hover your mouse over the menu bar, wait for the gallery to show up, click on it, wait for the gallery to load, click on the tiny "3" for third page in the gallery, wait for the thumbnails to load, the picture I'm talking about is the second on third row. Just don't wave your mouse around too much or it will go to the next thumbnail page!"
Seriously.
Also, if you rely on google at all for your hits, SEO is very hard with Flash. I'm sure it can be done, but it much easier with HTML and you don't need a degree in IT to do it.
Finally, upcoming HTML5 will offer many of the benefits without the proprietary lockdown, limitations and expense of Flash.
/rant
-
this is not apple vs pc.....
but flash is a resource hog.....there is nothing worse then a flash only navigation website or the typical flash intro ( who ever needed that?)...I have been advising people to move away from that for years now....
I am with live book and really like what they do, I was a beta tester with their iphone/iPad site options but i would much prefer something non flash based at this point....
nobody with a clear mind would even think about designing a flash site today.....unless you really, really need it.....like some kind of advertising gimmick like those wrangler ads.....but i am sure that can all be done with something else anyway....
flash was great, it really helped advance the Internet but we are in the middle of a new aera which is drive by mobile computing and there are new needs and new technologies.....use them.....
-
Indeed !
I've seen many flash wesites displaying great work, but just gave up because of the all waiting circus. If I give up, no need to talk about art-ejecutives.
So whats the good choice for creating a web gallery in html, one that a non programmer can use and insert into an html page? In more precise terms what do I use to replace the flash galleries in my website with html that works hte same?
-
So whats the good choice for creating a web gallery in html, one that a non programmer can use and insert into an html page?
I personally like all the "lightbox" java variants - my site (amateur only, sorry) uses shadowbox (not the last version IIRC), generated via the TTG shadowbox Lightroom gallery (couldn't be easier).
The 'arrow displayed over the pic' idiosyncretism is there though - but I really find it helpful to navigate, sorry.
And BTW, does Flash finally support color management? FP10 should... but I didn't heard of such a thing in practice.
At the time of wide-gamut screens, that's a no-go for a color photographer, isn't it?
-
So whats the good choice for creating a web gallery in html, one that a non programmer can use and insert into an html page? In more precise terms what do I use to replace the flash galleries in my website with html that works hte same?
There are several options. If you already have a hosting account and know how to use FTP, just google "html photo gallery template" or similar; there are numerous free and commercial options - I have no experience with any. Another option for photographers is a software, name of which escapes me now, which claims to turn your PS files into websites - no idea how functional it is and how easy it is to use.
There are also several options which offer hosting with various photo gallery templates, from smugmug to to godaddy exposuremanager (used them, recommended although with very limited customization options) to squarespace (highly customizable, I made the site for my Mother in my sig with them).
Finally, you could outsource the website design via a service like guru.com.
-
I agree 100% with the points made by Feppe and Pschefz.
About the flash galleries replacement, there are many options available.
If you give the work to a pro, no problems, just ask what you want. Options are really extended,
see again the Adammork website as an example.
If you want to do an Homemade work, then you may need to know few things.
-If you want some "visual tricks" then I can recommend some Jquery solutions.
You need to investigate a little on the web. Some ressources here: http://jquery.com/ (http://jquery.com/)
There are hundreds of develloppers on the web, just check. You'll find of course lots of garbadge but also good solutions.
If you take time to seach you'll find. As I only worked in integrated "sur-mesure", I'm not helpfull on the current web-links.
-for the lightroom users, the html galleries are working and can help you to understand the how.
Just create a fake web gallerie in LR and then studdy how it generates.
-Now, if what you want is real power, what you need is a CMS and knowledge in html, css, php (basic) to adapt it at your aims.
If you are there, you can do almost what you want.
That's of course sur-mesure.
To give you an idea, I'm doing actually my website platform and I'm using as a base a CMS.
I got an independant control panel for each gallery I create, so I can upload at the same time and from the same computer
the pics in different locations, galleries or where I want. I don't need to finish to upload pics in a section before uploading in another.
(very usefull for private galleries for example) Then I have a general board in my desktop (like a tree).
This board can be implemented in various computers and integrates all the direccions where I'm using the CMS.
When I upload a pic, a thumb is auto-generated. The time to wait for display all the thumb is less than a second. Zero wait to diplay pics
and I always save my pics for the web at quality 12.
All that is driven by an html master and different css for the sections.
Section can be located in any host I want and commanded by more than one computer.
I can upload videos without the need of flash in a second.
But the overall website is completly minimalist. Nothing flashy, but very powerfull in terms of workflow because the last thing I want
is loosing time and hassles.
When I will finish it, probably after the summer, I'll put a link.
As pointed, there are many ready-made solutions on the web. Few are free, a lot are not.
I quite like both Photoshelter and Livebooks. Livebooks works really well in html.
If you don't want to pay, and you are tech useless in this area or want something simple, totally intuitive
and reliable, I strongly recommend you look at the weebly platform. The features available for free are indeed worth a look.
But you will need at least css knowledge to do the skin as you want and not the templates.
Weebly is completly configurable.
-
I would be grateful for opinions regarding website development for photographers and whether or not it is kosher to use Flash now given the ubiquity of the iPhone and (more importantly) the iPad?
Why is Flash necessary to show a gallery of images?
-
Since the introduction of the iPad I removed all flash from our websites.
It's been replaced with several other options and to be honest it works much faster and does the same.
So for me flash can be replaced.
-
Why is Flash necessary to show a gallery of images?
I don't think it's ever been "necessary" - more that many photographers feel the need to follow the "I'm a photographer so I must have a Flash-based web site" and "I'm a photographer so I must have a Mac" herds. Until the last couple of years, Flash did provide the only reliable way to provide an identical experience (good and bad) with a range of graphic and transition effects that appear consistently on all browsers, while appearing to offer some protection of images etc etc. I'm sure we all know the arguments for and against Flash. But now Apple have decided they'll fail to support this part of the web, the herd's moving. At least this time the move is based on a better-founded assessment of needs - ie unless you want to throw money and effort at it, design for the lowest common denominator.
[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=fredjeang)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE (fredjeang)[div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]-for the lightroom users, the html galleries are working and can help you to understand the how.
Just create a fake web gallerie in LR and then studdy how it generates.
-Now, if what you want is real power, what you need is a CMS and knowledge in html, css, php (basic) to adapt it at your aims.
If you are there, you can do almost what you want.[/quote]
I agree and for Lightroom users thinking of real power, look at SlideShowPro's Director which is a great value CMS that comes with a Lightroom export plug-in. Using its PHP API, you can build all sorts of galleries such as my main WordPress site (http://www.beardsworth.co.uk/photos/place/lake-district/) or this Google Map (http://www.beardsworth.co.uk/web-sites/google-maps-example/) or this jquery demo (http://www.beardsworth.co.uk/ssp_director_api/experiments/jq/) or this Flash parallel site (http://www.beardsworth.co.uk/flash/#num=content-3903&id=album-22). Obviously there's no need to do so many alternatives (they're more demos) and the real point is that whatever the look and feel, the CMS based site means it takes a minute to get a new picture online. In this case it is a simple matter of exporting it from Lightroom and waiting for the upload to complete.
In other words, the question shouldn't be Flash or HTML, but static or CMS driven. Stay static and you'll end up paying a fluffy graphics type to design a site that you can't maintain and change as easily as you think, regardless of whether it's Flash or the newer HTML / Javascript / CSS options. Go down the CMS route (which LiveBooks does, at a price) and you can bolt any look and feel onto your site.
John
-
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.
-
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
-
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 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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.....
-
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.
-
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...)
-
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.
-
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 (http://russellrutherfordphoto.com/2/Artist.asp?ArtistID=28142&Akey=3F8X3JQW) and http://www.russellrutherford.com/ (http://www.russellrutherford.com/) and http://russellrutherford.com/fashion/ (http://russellrutherford.com/fashion/)
Also, http://www.adammork.dk/ (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.
-
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.
Also, http://www.adammork.dk/ (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.
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..
-
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.
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.
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..
Jeremy, I think we do not disagree that much at all. I'm not a flash allergic, but times are changing. I see the same kind of abuses with Jquery in html sites. So yes, it's up to the designer to do the job properlly with flash or with anything else.
Of course html 5 and no flash compatibility is an Apple manouver, I'm perfectly aware of that and their repply to the video flash will not be open source I'm affraid, as many people seems to think. Apple is not an ONG.
Also, I'm quite a big fan of the system you applied in your website http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com/temp_site/index.html (http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com/temp_site/index.html) (I knew your website but didn't remember it was you), the horizontal scrolling is one of my favorite solution, at least for editorials and fashion.
Cheers.
-
Of course html 5 and no flash compatibility is an Apple manouver, I'm perfectly aware of that and their repply to the video flash will not be open source I'm affraid, as many people seems to think. Apple is not an ONG.
ONG?
I'm aware that Apple's BS about open source video is indeed BS.
Also, I'm quite a big fan of the system you applied in your website http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com/temp_site/index.html (http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com/temp_site/index.html) (I knew your website but didn't remember it was you), the horizontal scrolling is one of my favorite solution, at least for editorials and fashion.
That was done as a temporary site a while back. I had shelved my planned site update design [that used SlideshowPro as its CMS], due to the problems that were becoming obvious with Apple. But I [and others] really liked it, so I've delayed changing it.
But SSP now have a non Flash solution for displaying one's site on iPad/iPhones, so I'm wondering about a new design again using Director as my CMS.
-
Hi guys,
I should have illustrated my requirements from the off. Here are a few websites that I like - the first two in particular. I'm really after thumbnails to one side that the viewer can click on. Maybe a slide show option too.
The first site is clean as a whistle, which I like. No clutter.
http://www.marloh.com/index.html (http://www.marloh.com/index.html)
http://www.thomasbroening.com/#/work/portfolio/1 (http://www.thomasbroening.com/#/work/portfolio/1)
http://www.jkphotography.com/people/index.htm (http://www.jkphotography.com/people/index.htm)
Someone also said that I should look at this product........
http://www.slideshowbox.com/flash-slidesho...lates-examples/ (http://www.slideshowbox.com/flash-slideshow-templates-examples/)
.......any views? Can I achieve what I want using one of these templates? e.g. If I wanted a site just like the first link above (Wolf Marloh) could I achieve it using one of the HTML templates here?
Thanks.
D.
-
The latest beta version of SlideShowPro Director 1.5 includes the new SlideShowPro Mobile media player for iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch.
http://slideshowpro.net/news/ (http://slideshowpro.net/news/)
-
It's easier to do fancy-looking sites with Flash - but that's not necessarily better.
It's easier to do functional websites with HTML, Search Engines like it better too.
The key question is what you want your visitors to do with your website.
At PhotoDeck (www.photodeck.com), we do only HTML sites - but they're e-commerce photography sites geared towards image sales and delivery rather than portfolios. We have a partnership with A Photo Folio, as Jon mentioned they do flash for the time being, but they're clean designs and similar things could be done in HTML too.
In fact, one of our users is now planning to create another PhotoDeck website for his portfolio, it won't be fancy but there is something to be said for simplicity and performance...
J-F
-
n other words, the question shouldn't be Flash or HTML, but static or CMS driven. Stay static and you'll end up paying a fluffy graphics type to design a site that you can't maintain and change as easily as you think, regardless of whether it's Flash or the newer HTML / Javascript / CSS options.
John
A fluffy graphic type ?
Huh ?
-
The latest beta version of SlideShowPro Director 1.5 includes the new SlideShowPro Mobile media player for iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch.
http://slideshowpro.net/news/ (http://slideshowpro.net/news/)
And it's a beta product with the warning:
Please note that this is still beta software and should not be used on production websites. We cannot guarantee if it will work or when bugs will be fixed.
-
YUP. Plus, if there is more customization that you would like to do other than what is available to you, hand it to your website designer and have them tweak it. I'm very surprised no one has further commented on aphotofolio sites and your post.
APhotofolio (http://aphotofolio.com), provides flash based sites that reformat themselves for the iPhone and for the iPad (http://aphotofolio.com/a-photo-folio-first-to-deliver-ipad-sites/). Additionally, the sites have a mirrored html component which aids in SEO.
More to your question though - Rob Haggart at aPhotofolio.com wrote a piece in APF's news section that clearly outlines the strengths of Flash and why it cannot be completely replaced by HTML5 (http://aphotofolio.com/is-flash-still-the-best-language-to-build-websites/).
I have no stake in APF other than being a happy customer.
-
I'm looking at replacing my flash galleries with html ones for three reasons really.
One yes it will be read by iphone/pads, etc, two yes perhaps it will make my sites more easily searchable by google etc, but the third and main reason is simple speed.
Its hard enough keeping potential clients on your websites these days so loading image sisn't something i want any more!
My current flash galleries I build with slideshow pro which gives me the control I want over them and the simple design also.
http://www.marcwilson.co.uk/interiors/interiors.html (http://www.marcwilson.co.uk/interiors/interiors.html)
http://www.unionphotography.co.uk/gallery/gallery.html (http://www.unionphotography.co.uk/gallery/gallery.html)
All the html ones I can seem to find are more cluncky.
Has anyone come across html gallery software / templates that allow for a fluid clear design, a bit like my current one i.e. not all the image sin a grid as s start up but simple thumbnails or arrows, etc.
I'm happy to pay for the software of course but want to still be able to do it myself.
Thanks,
Marc
-
Marc
Most HTML does look clunky compared to a well-designed Flash, but HTML has other advantages.
If you're using SlideShowPro Director, then maybe just use its API to create an HTML version of your site?
John
PS on your union site "Content Encoding Error"
-
Allot of great information in this thread. I started reading it so late after beginning work on my new site and I am Glad of the timing. I might have not gone with flash based on the disadvantages of flash mentioned here. After finishing my site, however, I am very happy with the results and do see the advantages of flash.
One thing I did was to keep the pictures small for loading and make the loading section very interesting to watch. Yes you read that correctly the loading section is INTERESTING. I think its a new idea never done before and makes waiting go by so quickly. Check it out at my site by clicking on any gallery ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION (http://www.aljabri.com)
-
Allot of great information in this thread. I started reading it so late after beginning work on my new site and I am Glad of the timing. I might have not gone with flash based on the disadvantages of flash mentioned here. After finishing my site, however, I am very happy with the results and do see the advantages of flash.
One thing I did was to keep the pictures small for loading and make the loading section very interesting to watch. Yes you read that correctly the loading section is INTERESTING. I think its a new idea never done before and makes waiting go by so quickly. Check it out at my site by clicking on any gallery. www.aljabri.com
Abdul,
your flash site is fast and different from the "standard".
The really good thing, and I truly appreciate is that the keyboard arrow keys are enabled.
That facilitate a lot the navigation.
Cheers.
-
Abdul, just change "gallary" to the correct English spelling.
-
Thanks John,
I currently use slideshow pro for flash and LR not the standalone director version...but will look into it.
Thanks also for the encoding error...not sure where that comes up but I'm getting that particular site optimised over the next week or so that should fix any bugs, etc.
Cheers,
Marc
-
Marc, once you have Director set up the workflow from LR is very simple. There's an export plug-in that sends new pictures directly to an "album", and the images are immediately available to both HTML and Flash sites as well as to the mobile site they're developing for Flash-hobbled devices like Apple's phones/tablet.
-
After finishing my site, however, I am very happy with the results and do see the advantages of flash. Check it out at my site by clicking on any gallery ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION (http://www.aljabri.com)
Looks good, but please fix the doc type statement at the top, actually the lack of it. On IE 8 it creates a horizontal scroll bar that won't go away. Put this or the latest standard at the very top of each .html file:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
-
In my option i would suggest to use Flash as it has various features.
Specially for ipad. ;) ??? ??? :-* :-*
-
In my option i would suggest to use Flash as it has various features.
Specially for ipad. ;) ??? ??? :-* :-*
HTML has various features as well.
And iPad doesn't do Flash.
-
And iPad doesn't do Flash.
Get a player for both. Flash and HTML5. http://slideshowpro.net/news/archive/2010/08/slideshowpro-director-1-5-final-released.php/
Edit: A free trial is of the SSP Director v1.5 is now available at http://slideshowpro.net/account_center/trial.php