Flash or HTML?

Greetings, I have been reading multiple threads and still can not decide on which way to go Flash or HTML both have + and –

Flash:
Flash auto resizes to fit browser. +
Transitions nicely fade in and out. +
Some folks despise Flash and will bail out.-
Poor menu and navigation properties. –

HTML
No auto resize to fit display –
Has good menu and navigation features. +
Can be slow to load large images 800 x 800 px. –
Support for PicLens (My fav for quick scanning) +

So I have built two LightRoom Galleries and have been bouncing back and forth:
HTML: http://gotrockets.com/​PHOTOB/

FLASH: http://gotrockets.com/​picsdir08.htm

Or should I just sign up for Flicker or other and forget it?


Looking for thoughts and feedback, yea my web site is a hobby site not professional.

Thx

For accuracy, I'll note that you certainly can resize html to browser size ("100%"), and a 800x800 image will load at the same speed in html as flash (you can pre-load flash, maybe that's what you mean, but the time should be essentially the same).

That said, the flash gallery is a bit "snappier" in terms of the user interface look/feel. I use both, actually, so for me I'd say either can make a nice gallery, the issue is to get the look correct, whichever way you go.

Dave

I hate all-Flash sites (i.e. sites done entirely in Flash) mainly because they are not intuitive. I think that is why a lot of people don't like Flash in general...it breaks commonly accepted design rules. It doesn't even really help lift your site to a higher ranking on search engines which is counter intuitive for your business/promotional needs.

Even as a hater of Flash, I can tolerate image galleries that make it easy for me to scroll between images and give me a decent sized thumbnail preview to be more picky. The more simplistic the better. I do get bugged when the image blacks out the rest of the screen or is otherwise intrusive.

I say, if you want to use it...use it nicely and sparingly.

Edit: Specifically for your galleries:

Flash:
- Scroll bar on left doesn't work with mouse wheel...a common user expectation.
- I am not really used to seeing a vertical scroll bar. A "film strip" horizontal scroll seems like the more natural approach imo. With the one you have now: next is down and previous is up... Film strip would be: next is right, previous is left...like reading.
- "Nexting" through photos requires identifying the tiny-tiny button at the bottom and then attempting to click on it. Arrows on either side of the photo would be way more intuitive.

HTML:
- Nexting through the photos is way easier, but I still think arrows on either side of the photo (in addition to the ones "embedded" into the image) would be ideal for those who aren't quite as net-saavy.
- No thumbnail previews...

I'd pick one and merge the design elements for a more superior result.

Thanks for the input. I did choose in my mind a happy medium.

http://gotrockets.com/​PHOTOB/index.php

A bit of both and works for me.

Thanks again.

ilantis wrote in post #6122344
I hate all-Flash sites (i.e. sites done entirely in Flash) mainly because they are not intuitive. I think that is why a lot of people don't like Flash in general...it breaks commonly accepted design rules. It doesn't even really help lift your site to a higher ranking on search engines which is counter intuitive for your business/promotional needs.

I completely disagree, I am a flash developer and I love flashw ebsites when done properly. Of course it takes a lot of man hours to get a great flash website. And how does it break design rules? That is totally an opinion and flash sites need should follow same rules as a common HTML site now. You can break common rules like devine property on an HTML site same as you can do on a flash based website.
As for SEO purposes, that also is now a common fib. How many people do it now is have a redirect that contains you main Meta Data and is simply common html site. If flash is not enabled it will not redierect you to the flash site. So google spiders will remain on the html page.
For example where I work our site is 100% in flash. and when you google our name it is the #1 result.
http://www.google.com/​search?q=Grandpa-George

So that is a common myth.

ilantis wrote in post #6122344
Edit: Specifically for your galleries:

Flash:
- Scroll bar on left doesn't work with mouse wheel...a common user expectation.
- I am not really used to seeing a vertical scroll bar. A "film strip" horizontal scroll seems like the more natural approach imo. With the one you have now: next is down and previous is up... Film strip would be: next is right, previous is left...like reading.
- "Nexting" through photos requires identifying the tiny-tiny button at the bottom and then attempting to click on it. Arrows on either side of the photo would be way more intuitive.

HTML:
- Nexting through the photos is way easier, but I still think arrows on either side of the photo (in addition to the ones "embedded" into the image) would be ideal for those who aren't quite as net-saavy.
- No thumbnail previews...

I'd pick one and merge the design elements for a more superior result.

I agree with the above post. With what you have now, I would probably scrap the flash website. As you have to ask, why are you going flash? Many people who go with a flash based website completly scrap the idea of having the user scroll. As it is pointless with a flash site as you should find
a way to fit your content onto the main stage.

Look into these sites for inspiration:
http://www.joshuastear​ns.com
http://www.studiokowsk​i.de/
http://www.koendemuync​k.com/

Those are just a couple of flash based I find amazing. You can see how many of the sites you do not have any scrolling.

For both your site, I would try to get more creative, the sites need some more "oomph" to them. Like if I was a client, and if i viewed your site. I would really have absolutly any reason to stay on your site. For example your html site looks like a simple pbase with a list of gallerys.
Get more creative with your design.

I agree with this and I cannot say that there haven't been Flash sites that have completely blown me away. These are Flash sites that have been done properly. However, those are the exception to the rule 9 times out of 10. Also, in addition to time, it can take more skill/creativity to develop a Flash website.

I will admit I came off too general in my quoted statement. I had intended to state that I hate many, not all, all-Flash sites for those reasons.

Ah, but I wasn't fibbing. The search engines in this case are not looking at the .swf file, they are looking at HTML just like they always have. Can this be an effective workaround? Absolutely. Could the SEO do this with the Flash file if that is all there is? Not as well if at all. Do many photogs on this site take advantage of this? I haven't checked but I would have to guess not many.

As for the bolded part...I am assuming that this means that one will have to maintain two different sites (HTML & Flash) which, depending on implementation, can be just another PITA for someone who would rather be a photog instead of a web designer. Heck, making a regular HTML site can be annoying enough for someone without the design chops (me included) and/or coding background. And unless you have a stunning photo portfolio that is not changing anymore, a photog's website is going to be very dynamic for awhile...a huge detriment to the HTML & Flash combo.

cujojpn wrote:
For example where I work our site is 100% in flash. and when you google our name it is the #1 result.
http://www.google.com/​search?q=Grandpa-George

This is true...but when I did a Google search for web developers in Minneapolis, MN or flash web developers there (G-G.com's stated place of business) G-G.com didn't even wind up in the first three pages; the farthest many users will bother to go:
http://www.google.com …neapolis,+mn&st​art=0&sa=N
http://www.google.com …neapolis,+mn&st​art=0&sa=N

In fact, Google does an excellent job of finding web sites if the search criterion are actually in the URL itself. It also does a pretty good job of "learning" from users that type in a search term and watching where they go. This is fine if you do business based on word of mouth only but that defeats one of the best advantages of having a website (for business use at least)

It may be an opinion but it is founded in usability studies. As a web developer you are likely familiar with these. If you were to watch my experience when visiting G-G.com you would have seen me sitting for 15 sec waiting for the nav structure. After never seeing it you would have seen me clicking all over the screen trying to learn how to control the site. Then I finally gave in and moused over the unlabeled icons in the lower right, and leaned forward and squinted to read the text on each one. I clicked on "a" (for About as it turned out) and struggled to read the text as the slideshow in the background kept pulling my eye away. (Though it was later that I found out I could pause the slideshow and only after I accidentally went full screen causing my computer to freak out for a few seconds).

This is the pitfall that many Flash users fall into. Just because Flash allows you to do just about anything you want to doesn't mean users are going to care enough to take the time to learn how to use it.

After navigating the rest of the site I still struggled to really grasp what it was about. George wants to talk to me about my project... Good, I need a new roof and to fix my lawnmower...maybe he can help? Not sure...reading on he tells me that he is hip to new technology: interactive/web design, user centered interface design, self promotion, social media, SEO, etc. Awesome, I might not know what half of those things are but he can keep it simple too so that is good. A few more paragraphs later I still don't know what Grandpa is all about. Is he a web designer, event promoter, logo designer, MySpace friend spammer? He dances around all of these things but with no portfolio, no testemonials, and no declaration of services I am thoroughly confused.

Please don't take this too personally, but that is not a usable site. I was in and out of it in less than 1.5min because it was just too much work to do anything on it and though I already knew you were a web designer based on the post I still don't know what the other allusions on the site were all about.

The internet has always been about getting things done faster and humans are creatures of habit. That is why these common design/usability rules are so important for businesses. I hope you don't feel like I was too much on the attack here. These are simply my opinions and I always try to refrain from posting statements that are unfounded. And I always post web critiques with the hope that I will receive the same honest criticisms when I offer up my websites as examples.

nasm wrote in post #6127830
Thanks for the input. I did choose in my mind a happy medium.

http://gotrockets.com/​PHOTOB/index.php

A bit of both and works for me.

Thanks again.

Much better, good job. I still kind of wish there was a film strip but that is mostly personal preference...not a dealbreaker.