«

To flash or not to flash?

I have a current web site that is made with flash. I am debating on
whether not to use flash on a new site. All of the best photography
websites I have seen utilize flash. If anyone can pass some links to
awesome photographer websites that do not use flash, that would be
great.

Also, I would like to here what you guys think about photographer
websites in flash (pros vs. cons).


My current website (I know it has some issues, hence the re-design):
http://www.chrismaness.com

In article < .com>,
Chris <> wrote:
>To flash or not to flash?

Well, thank you for asking. Personally, I HATE Flash. I consider it to
be a security risk. When I use a web browser, I prefer that it does
something that I can understand: render text and graphics. That is
safe. Flash is evil. Apart from being a mysterious "black box" to the
user (me), it is also anti-privacy. It permanently stores "settings
files" (.SOL files) that allow websites to track my web browsing
behavior. There is a GUI in the Flash client software that allows me
to opt out of saving these files. But guess what. One day after
ticking the check box to opt out of saving .SOL files, the check box
is cleared again! This is what convinced me that Flash is evil.

My web browser has an extension that allows me to block automatic
execution of Flash. I only allow Flash to execute when I absolutely
have to.

I feel the same way about Java and Javascript. I do like to look at
peoples' creative efforts, such as yours. But since your efforts seem
to center on still photography, I see no need for you to use Flash,
Java, Javascript, ActiveX, and so forth. Any browser that renders text
and graphics should suffice to present your works.

Again, thank you most kindly for asking.

Cheers!
--
David Arnstein
arnstein+

Chris wrote:
> To flash or not to flash?
>
> I have a current web site that is made with flash. I am debating on
> whether not to use flash on a new site. All of the best photography
> websites I have seen utilize flash. If anyone can pass some links to
> awesome photographer websites that do not use flash, that would be
> great.
>
> Also, I would like to here what you guys think about photographer
> websites in flash (pros vs. cons).

I've generally been taught that using flash is a bad idea. The pictures
just come out bland. And it's useless for landscape photography...

--
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."-Asimov


/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>><<<<<<
anl

Chris wrote:
> To flash or not to flash?
>
> I have a current web site that is made with flash. I am debating on
> whether not to use flash on a new site. All of the best photography
> websites I have seen utilize flash. If anyone can pass some links to
> awesome photographer websites that do not use flash, that would be
> great.
>
> Also, I would like to here what you guys think about photographer
> websites in flash (pros vs. cons).
>
>
> My current website (I know it has some issues, hence the re-design):
> http://www.chrismaness.com

Flash websites absolutely, totally suck. They're the bane of the web.
They're slow to load, you can't link to individual pages, you can't use
the back button, you can't right-click to open links in a new window.
The whole navigation and interface don't work the way people expect
them to, and they're incredibly frustrating to view and use.

Small Flash elements are fine, but whole websites done in Flash are a
designer's masturbation, done without any regard for usability. If I
come across a site that is done in Flash I usually close it and go away
because they're so difficult to use. If you want people to actually
look at the pictures on your site, stay with HTML. There is absolutely
no reason for Flash websites to exist.

Oh, and by the way, web design and usability are parts of my job. Any
designer who actually knows anything about the web hates Flash sites.

-Gniewko

wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > To flash or not to flash?
> >
> > I have a current web site that is made with flash. I am debating on
> > whether not to use flash on a new site. All of the best photography
> > websites I have seen utilize flash. If anyone can pass some links to
> > awesome photographer websites that do not use flash, that would be
> > great.
> >
> > Also, I would like to here what you guys think about photographer
> > websites in flash (pros vs. cons).
> >
> >
> > My current website (I know it has some issues, hence the re-design):
> > http://www.chrismaness.com
>
> Flash websites absolutely, totally suck. They're the bane of the web.
> They're slow to load, you can't link to individual pages, you can't use
> the back button, you can't right-click to open links in a new window.
> The whole navigation and interface don't work the way people expect
> them to, and they're incredibly frustrating to view and use.
>
> Small Flash elements are fine, but whole websites done in Flash are a
> designer's masturbation, done without any regard for usability. If I
> come across a site that is done in Flash I usually close it and go away
> because they're so difficult to use. If you want people to actually
> look at the pictures on your site, stay with HTML. There is absolutely
> no reason for Flash websites to exist.
>
> Oh, and by the way, web design and usability are parts of my job. Any
> designer who actually knows anything about the web hates Flash sites.
>
> -Gniewko

Do any of you guys know of some great examples of sites that are not in
flash?

> > Do any of you guys know of some great examples of sites that are not in
> flash?

http://www.jbuhler.com

What stands out is the great photography, and that is what you want
your visitors to focus on.
It is simple, clean and does the job.

I agree 100% with the earlier statements regarding flash.



Patricia P.
www.canthave.com

Rolling Red wrote:
> > > Do any of you guys know of some great examples of sites that are not in
> > flash?
>
> http://www.jbuhler.com
>
> What stands out is the great photography, and that is what you want
> your visitors to focus on.
> It is simple, clean and does the job.
>
> I agree 100% with the earlier statements regarding flash.
>
>
>
> Patricia P.
> www.canthave.com

That's not too bad for html. It still lacks that competitive edge that
a wedding photog needs. Wedding photography websites need to be VERY
aesthetically excellent.

"Chris" <> writes:
> That's not too bad for html. It still lacks that competitive edge that
> a wedding photog needs. Wedding photography websites need to be VERY
> aesthetically excellent.

Huh? What does that have to do with flash?

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Chris" <> writes:
> > That's not too bad for html. It still lacks that competitive edge that
> > a wedding photog needs. Wedding photography websites need to be VERY
> > aesthetically excellent.
>
> Huh? What does that have to do with flash?

It's a little easier to make a great looking website in flash. I'm not
saying a flash website can't look bad, and a non flash website can't
look good. It just seems like I've seen more very appealing flash
websites for photographers.

Chris Maness

"Chris" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> To flash or not to flash?
>
> I have a current web site that is made with flash. I am debating on
> whether not to use flash on a new site. All of the best photography
> websites I have seen utilize flash. If anyone can pass some links to
> awesome photographer websites that do not use flash, that would be
> great.
>
> Also, I would like to here what you guys think about photographer
> websites in flash (pros vs. cons).
>
>
> My current website (I know it has some issues, hence the re-design):
> http://www.chrismaness.com
>


I really dislike flash. I immediately move to another site as soon as I see
that the web site has been uses flash. I don't know how many others are
like me, but I suspect there are many -- which could *reduce* traffic to
your site.

MaryL