C&C on New Website

[newbie builder]

Hey--
Just finished up on a new website for myself and I'd love some C&C...
I still hope to add one or two more galleries as time progresses and I have some more work in some of the other areas that I photograph, but for the time being I think I'm fairly happy with the site. Any comments on photo selection/quality/layout/colors/etc would be much appreciated, the main target of the website at the moment is next years high school seniors, which is why I tried to go for a modern look and also why the portrait one (portraits of young people) gallery is the strongest on there...but I also hope for some family portrait/other portrait type business too.
Thanks for taking the time to look:

www.evanrobinsonphotography.com

[GoneTomorrow]

Can't get your site to work on Firefox (3.0.8 ), but works flawlessly in Internet Explorer. May want a caveat about your site working best in IE (unless it's something on my end). Otherwise, it looks great, I like the simplicity of it.

[Jonta]

Nope. Doesn't work in FF 3.0.8 here either. And I won't try in any other browser, seeing as users won't try in other webbrowsers.

Also; "Please disable any popupblockers". Hahaha! Right. Not going to happen. You don't think I (the user) trust you, do you?

[Faolan]

Works in Opera 9.64 but you're doing the same mistakes as a lot of photographers here have such as ignoring emerging markets (Mobiles, consoles) by using Flash and also a landing/intro page, and also your source code is not W3C compliant.

Rethink your font colours and fonts, both lack contrast and legibility.

Menu system is a pain to use, the galleries section keeps collapsing and doesn't give a user a frame of reference. A minor issue but still...

The galleries I assume have no content? They don't load anything.

[brap]

but you're doing the same mistakes as a lot of photographers here have such as ignoring emerging markets (Mobiles, consoles) by using Flash and also a landing/intro page, and also your source code is not W3C compliant.

Mistake? Why can't it be a conscious decision? If i wanted to show someone photographs i'd print them out on some nice paper i wouldn't photocopy them onto toilet paper and hand them that.

Surprisingly i don't want people to see my work printed on loo roll, similarly i don't want people looking at my photos on a tiny little 320x240 mobile screen or on a wii.

The few users on this site hating flash and preaching accessibility across all devices is ridiculous. Have some pride in your work and show it off with as much sparkle and 'wow' as you like.

[Faolan]

The few users on this site hating flash and preaching accessibility across all devices is ridiculous. Have some pride in your work and show it off with as much sparkle and 'wow' as you like.

I do have pride in my work, however the reality of life is that people look for contact information from websites as much as they look at photographs. I know as I've had to try and access a photographers website when I was on the move as I didn't have his contact details. Most mobile phones in Europe have Internet access of some sort, in the US they are lagging by about a generation but have the iPhone...

You also have the Playstation, Xbox and Wii all accessing the web now, on TV screens.

If you check my previous posts in this fora I don't hate Flash, I don't even hate pure Flash sites. If a owner wants to use them fine, but they have to aware they will be blocking part of their audience. I know people block all forms of Flash to stop adverts bombarding them and currently my site stats show 6% block it that have Flash installed. 1% of visitors access my site with a mobile device.

Photographers using Flash is all too common, many are poorly done and thought out. There is no real brand identity in a Flash site these days and considered as much a relic as you would think of a 90s site from Geocities!

In addition to denying potential clients (and that's what they are...) you also blocking disabled visitors, which I believe is now covered under the Disability Discrimination Act in the UK though I'm not sure about the US or Europe. Interestingly the guidelines for disabled access closely parallel those for making a site more accessible to a web crawler.

Much of the effects done with Flash can now be done with any of the JS libraries these days and if carefully done degrade for older browsers.

Finally Flash sites break some browsers navigations systems; For example mouse gestures in Opera.

[newbie builder]

Thanks to all those that've taken a look. I wish I could afford an html and mobile version of the site, but since my main audience is seniors i.e. young people who want modern images as opposed to the more traditional stuff offered by most in my local area, I wanted a flash site that was edgy and modern looking because I felt that was the best way to brand myself. I wish I could have an html version and mobile version of the site, I hate to alienate any costumers, but I thought that given who my #1 audience was, it made sense to go flash.

I'll have to check with FF 3.08..i'm running 3.06 and it's fine, no idea what is going on.

The galleries are all full, they should load and I can't figure out why they aren't for anybody. Ugh!

I'll also check into some of the text to see if I can get it to be easier to read...


Thanks all!

[Faolan]

Thanks to all those that've taken a look. I wish I could afford an html and mobile version of the site...

They're one and the same, that's the whole idea behind the HTML spec.

Also it's something you should seriously consider especially if you're targetting that audience because they're the most likely group to have embraced the new technologies such as mobiles and games consoles.

A CSS/HTML site can look just as good as a Flash site:

http://bestwebgallery.com/

Mixture of everything there.

[newbie builder]

True...although from what I hear aren't they about to release flash for the iPhone? That's the mobile phone of choice of those who I know might be looking things up on their phone, and from what I have read, and I could be very long, flash for the iphone is probably not too far off. Not to say that HTML wouldn't still be a good idea, but it would make things better if flash was soon supported by iphones as I think it might be.

[brap]

I do have pride in my work, however the reality of life is that people look for contact information from websites as much as they look at photographs. I know as I've had to try and access a photographers website when I was on the move as I didn't have his contact details. Most mobile phones in Europe have Internet access of some sort, in the US they are lagging by about a generation but have the iPhone...

You also have the Playstation, Xbox and Wii all accessing the web now, on TV screens.

If you check my previous posts in this fora I don't hate Flash, I don't even hate pure Flash sites. If a owner wants to use them fine, but they have to aware they will be blocking part of their audience. I know people block all forms of Flash to stop adverts bombarding them and currently my site stats show 6% block it that have Flash installed. 1% of visitors access my site with a mobile device.

Photographers using Flash is all too common, many are poorly done and thought out. There is no real brand identity in a Flash site these days and considered as much a relic as you would think of a 90s site from Geocities!

In addition to denying potential clients (and that's what they are...) you also blocking disabled visitors, which I believe is now covered under the Disability Discrimination Act in the UK though I'm not sure about the US or Europe. Interestingly the guidelines for disabled access closely parallel those for making a site more accessible to a web crawler.

Much of the effects done with Flash can now be done with any of the JS libraries these days and if carefully done degrade for older browsers.

Finally Flash sites break some browsers navigations systems; For example mouse gestures in Opera.

You can make perfectly assessable for disabled users, and to say you are 'blocking them' is nothing short of a misguided and blatant lie.
Sure, a lot of designers don't account for them, but if properly thought out the capabilities are there to offer disabled users a perfectly acceptable experience.

You can't dismiss flash as unable to cater for disabled visitors, it is like dismissing html because an inexperienced developer makes their website in photoshop, uses the photoshop generated html and uploads their site. Leaving something comprised of ugly code and images, with no text. The developer of the site has prevented disabled users, not the technology behind it.