Can anyone tell me what engine is driving this site?

True...but here are some ugly things about full-Flash sites :
- Still slow compared to HTML. You force the entire website to be loaded on every visit.
- Users can't link to a certain page...have to navigate the entire site to get to a specific location.
- Back button in browser doesn't work.
- Many search engines cannot read information contained in Flash, so it reduces your "searchability" especially on more vague queries. (Most users won't look past page 2 of a search).
- Users with special needs are SOL.
- Sounds and moving visuals tend to distract users (or piss them off) from what is really important...THE CONTENT!

While pretty and sexy to look at (sometimes)...every implementation of Flash in a website serves to detract from another, more important function of the site; be it usability, content, page ranking, etc. For many, this is a big turnoff...especially is such a competitive market such as photography. You are much better off using a hybrid site if you are dead-set on Flash but there are still better options like PHP and CSS that will get the job done just as well. My .02.

True points but almost all are easily knocked down.

Only the inital load is slower. after that is is way faster than html. Especially with pages that have lots of graphics. Html makes you wait on EVERY page load. Flash has a slow initial then no waiting.

Unless you have a online catalog. Or a 50 page site linking is not a problem. I dont plan on having mine any more than 6 pages max. all linked off the index. So it is only 1 click to anything I have on the site. If you are to lazy to click a mouse 1 more time......

Flash does not require a back button. Just click the link in the window the cursor is already in.

Have a html landing page. Make it an over view of who and what. Then link to the flash. You can also have blind pages. Pages that link back to the flash page but there is no link TO the blind page. Put them in the site map. Problem solved.

Dont know about special access stuff. I have never even looked at what they can and cant do.

Sounds and movements are not required in flash. When I get mine up it will not have any music. However It will have a lot of motion. But as stated movement is not requirement of flash. You can do it with simple fades or even look like plain html. And the whole flash thing is just a gernishment to the content. By no merans is it supposed to replace it.

Nobody is saying flash is the only way and html is dead. Dieing mabie but not dead. It is all a personal preference. And what you are taking a chance on, to attract customers. If you are trying to impress NON photographers a bit of style will grab them. Where a plain html site may bore them to go somewhere else. We in the industry are not really swayed by the style, we only see the content. However the normal customer does.

I have yet to see a php or css site that is anyware as ( forgive the pun) flashy as a flash site. If you know of any PLEASE leave a link. It will save a lot of people a lot of money if they know they can do a lot of what flash does without flash.

I am not really a Flash advocate I just like what you can do with it better than what else i can find.

I wouldn't say knocked down per-se...but they are definitely fair counterpoints

As to not hijack the thread with a debate, I guess the biggest takeaway from the Flash/non-Flash decision is no different than pretty much any other large investment decision:

Not only fully understand every pro and every con of what you are interested in, but also how each directly affects the goals you have set out to achieve.

We are from the US where there are no bandwidth caps (yet) but someone in Australia with a 15GB/mo limit definitely wouldn't appreciate eating a 50MB pageload on each visit (especially if they have reason to frequent the site often...which is what we want). This might sound like kind of a silly example, but the linked article definitely shows that it is being seriously considered, and already deployed, over here too (which will be the day I stop paying that company for my access and go back to dial-up in protest).

Its those little things that usually sneak in to ruin the day. Here is a post from a user on our boards that ran into an unexpected complication from an issue that they never saw coming. Worst part is that if they paid someone to do the work (which they didn't...a friend helped) then they would possibly have to pay again to remedy the situation:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=536196

Here are some sites that are totally done using HTML, CSS, and probably PHP too (which is performed on the server before a page loads...so it is hard to know for sure). While they might not have quite as much movement as a Flash site, I think one would be very hard pressed to say that they were anything less than beautifully designed.
http://www.pixelmator.​com/
http://www.emerils.com​/holidaytogo/
http://www.squawkdesig​n.com/
http://variable.cz/

I wish you would let the links be links so we could click instead of copy-paste.

Hmm...they show up as links for me. Do you have something set up so that it doesn't show [.url][/URL] tagged things? Also...if you loaded the page before I edited the typo on my URL tag, that might have had something to do with it.

They show up as links now so yeah I guess it was the typo.

ilantis wrote in post #5915580
I wouldn't say knocked down per-se...but they are definitely fair counterpoints

I didnt mean it harshley at all. Glad you didnt take it that way.

As I said im not really a flash guy. However my site will eventually be flash unless I can find an alternative I like as much. Thats the only reason im all over this, as I'm in the middle of it all myself.

The sites you listed are designed very well. And look quite nice. They dont grab my attention as soon as they load like flash does. Remember we are marketing to non photographers. When I go to a fellow photographers site i dont look at anything but the gallery page. I want to see if I can learn anything from this person. A normal customer hits the gallery last ( other than contact page). You have to hold thier attention some how. And true a well designed site will do that to a point. But if something different happens each time you click a link.... well curiosity takes over and they end up clicking everything.

And I agree if you are going to spend the money, know about what you are spending it on. And I hope we did shead some light from our different opinions. IF the OP knew all of this they probably would not of posted.

Of course not. That is the cool thing about POTN...I have yet to see an uncivil post by anyone; a rarity on internet boards!

Also, while I admit that I am borderline anti-Flash it also needs to be added that (assuming the user has the plugin installed) a Flash page is going to look exactly the same no matter what internet browser is being used...something that will not happen with HTML/CSS...

Here is one template for flash. Not one I would use, but it grabs you right away. It has stuff than just cant be done with anything else. And it will hold a customer on your site longer.

WARNING it has stupid music. But you can turn it off on the intro page.
http://www.downloads-templates.com …ryAdmin/vision-portfolio/

I'm not anti-flash. I'm anti-originality. People are trying to say they're a better photographer or have new ideas compared to the rest - then they all go out and buy the same website.

cdifoto wrote in post #5915823
I'm not anti-flash. I'm anti-originality. People are trying to say they're a better photographer or have new ideas compared to the rest - then they all go out and buy the same website.

He he he its true!! Or varrients of the same template. There are places you can buy the template and they no longer sell it. Others re sell it till everybody has a copy.

Don't get me wrong...bludomain sites are nice...the first 150 times.

Personally, I chose OSC for its price (free!), its functionality, and my familiarity with its code. I knew it'd make a good proofing system with some tweaking. The design is ugly to start but you choose it for its function, not its style. It's meant to be changed to fit your style...ie it's not a template you're installing but rather a system.

That site has:

- A cursor trail that requires me to focus on it everywhere I click...even on the relatively larger images in the portfolio. The lens flare effect really throws off perception, something that I didn't even realize I used while browsing until just now.
- Autoplay music...bane of the internet since about 5 minutes after they made HTML able to play MIDI files. Music is fine...but c'mon, let the user turn it on!
- Small font that I can't read on a 22" monitor at 1600x1200 and can't make bigger.

Don't let flashy annoy your users (even the stingy ones)!

I see your all-Flash site, and raise you a site that uses Flash "properly" (imo):
http://www.jsphotostud​io.com …d/album_monica-david.html

* Done by POTN member jsanz11 no less

OOps double post.

ilantis wrote in post #5915952
something that I didn't even realize I used while browsing until just now.

FLASH IS EDUCATIONAL!!! That trumps all. Doesnt it?

That is a great combo site. A bit to plain to me. But I am not currently looking for a wedding photographer. If I was it would be great i think!.

They seem to have a technical problem. The dropdown menues are going UNDER the flash instead of over it.