Using Flash for your business site

I think it's a pretty safe bet when a photographer does a flash & html page to cover all angles, but I find that I click "html" when the option is given to me even though speed isn't an issue, but, that is just my choice. I don't think I'd ever to both (never say never though...) because it would take so much time, especially when you have to add new things here and there.

I would actually stick with DHTML for a photo gallery
http://www.dynamicdriv​e.com …ndex4/lightbox2​/index.htm

I think that would be a pretty good problem solver for people wanting flash-like effects w/o using flash....then again, I'm not knowledgeable about any errors people get with image gallery viewers like that one ^.

I think that there are wonderful flash sites than can be made, and really heavy crappy HTML sites too, and vice versa. Depends on the author/coder/designer.

BUT....

One big strike that flash has against it is that it cripples the browser navigation functionality. I'll bet 100% of people here at one time or another were browsing a flash site, wanted to go back one page and hit the "back" button on your browser and left the site completely. Now in order to go back, you gotta load it up again and navigate back to where you left off.

The second big strike is that it is more difficult to index your information onto search engines. Yes, you can optimize an intro page for your keywords, but as for the rest of the content on your site, that is more difficult. It can be achieved with techniques like sister html sites and whatnot, but however you look at it, it is more difficult.

I also like being unique. I don't find my website to be particularly pretty or beautiful compared to most, but potential clients always seem to comment on how much they like my website and how easy it is to use. Personally, I find it is an advantage to be unique in having an HTML site as opposed to the Flash sites all the other photogs in my area use. I like being different from everyone else. Lifestyle/wedding photogs are going for the white backgrounds now, or the frilly flowery kind of stuff with textures and patterns. Mine is plain black. Very plain, but at least it's different.

stathunter wrote in post #6859065
In all honesty-- if someone does not have high speed internet-- probably not going to be a fit for my price point anyway.

I think this sums everything rather nicely....

I'm not a fan of flash. I can usually hit the back button a lot quicker than the site can load. And don't even get me started on music...........

One should NEVER use flash when shooting certain sports like volleyball or gymnastics.... it can distract the athletes.

Oops! Wrong kinda flash!

(I just thought the thread was getting kinda harsh so this is my attempt at humor. It made me laugh anyway!)

We opted to go to flash for several reasons.
1. 99% of the people that hit the site have high speed internet.

2. Most studio's around here have really crappy html sites, and we have had several people email us and book based on our site looking far more professional then the rest, quality of photos being equal.

3. Flash seems to be creeping up to be the new standard. A lot of the best photographers in the world now use flash, or have a large portion of flash on their sites.

4. 99% of our clients are 35 and under, and are into the digital age. Meaning they like the fancy gizmo's and gadgets. They all want the latest and greatest things.

5. We use a bludomain template, which is so easy to update, upload, change, etc... a monkey could do it.

As far as music goes, I think its just personal taste. We have music, 5 songs to listen to. I see more and more flash photography sites popping up everyday with music. My thought process is this....If a potential client is to lazy to click the stop or pause button, or they are going to piss and moan about something as silly as a song, I don't want to work with them. I also don't feel I should have to hold everyone's hand and post billboards on my site explaining in great detail how to click on a gallery.

That is just my opinion though, and I do still see some very well designed html sites from time to time.

And in us going to a flash site, and potentially losing clients.....since the site went live, my visits have tripled ( went from 30 a week to 100 a week), search engines hits have doubled, and we went from getting a couple inquiries a week to couple a day. In the last 2 weeks I have booked 2 weddings, 1 family shoot, 2 baby shoots, and 2 seniors.

So, flash seems to be working for me, could just be a fluke though..... Every area is different though. What works for some won't work for others.

Wow great thoughts everyone...thanks!

If the OP posed this question to people actually looking to hire a photographer, all these comments on the technicalities of how a site is built would go out the window. Most of the comments would be on the content of the site....the actual photographs being presented!

I have both at present, and I give the option for people to go look at either one. My gallery is in flash though, however.

IMO
Flash is very cool looking. But, I am not sure its the best way to present your work. Many people are using mobile devices to surf the net now. In China that is the most common way people view the internet. One of the most popular mobile devices here, the iPhone, does not even support flash.
No music. Often people surf at work, a loud musical intro may cause them to quickly close your site and not return. In addition, many who surf myspace often have the mute on anyway. So, it just slows it down.
BTW, I have both. I have a flash gallery and a blog.

I don't know about you, but people in China will probably not be calling me for a portrait session? And if someone is really interested in viewing my work to evaluate me as a potential photographer, I would prefer they not view my work on a cell phone. Cell phones just aren't capable of showing photos as they were intended to be viewed. I would want a potential client to view my site on a regular monitor at full size.

I prefer to know my audience and design for them, which is why my other sites are pure HTML and can be viewed on a mobile device. There is a time and place for that kind of development.

I am not sure where this one point keeps getting lost. Music is not a built-in feature that is present in every flash site automatically. It's a choice and can also be implemented as part of an HTML site.

AndreaBFS wrote in post #6876973
I don't know about you, but people in China will probably not be calling me for a portrait session? And if someone is really interested in viewing my work to evaluate me as a potential photographer, I would prefer they not view my work on a cell phone. Cell phones just aren't capable of showing photos as they were intended to be viewed. I would want a potential client to view my site on a regular monitor at full size.

I prefer to know my audience and design for them, which is why my other sites are pure HTML and can be viewed on a mobile device. There is a time and place for that kind of development.

I am not sure where this one point keeps getting lost. Music is not a built-in feature that is present in every flash site automatically. It's a choice and can also be implemented as part of an HTML site.

haha, good point...
I merely point it out as a growing trend. Although I am open to fly out for a job or two.
While I agree, it would be nice to let our clients know which way to view our sites it is not likely advice that will be followed.
I have developed a few sites and clients usually request music and I usually advise against it. It is not an association of Flash necessarily but it is an association of the type of experience a client request when they use the keyword "Flash."
People tend to think clients are going to their sites, putting their slide show full screen, kicking up the volume, leaning back and absorbing the whole experience. Which I think is rarely the case.

Ya know, you raise a point that shouldn't be ignored - cell phone internet viewing. It's growing rapidly everywhere, I get several client emails from blackburrys, iphone, etc. as they do business on the road - they have downloaded images from my archive and sent them to the designer or project manager from there phone. I've shown some parents my site on there phone when they say they have internet and want to see where the gallery they have to get the images is on the site. The latter is rare in this area, only happened twice I believe, and one wasn't from this area.

The music thing has been said, don't think anyone is arguing about it can be in html as well...what keeps getting lost is designing for your client needs. You can build a site anyone and everyone can use, the more you get into it with features like music, flash, etc. the more you may alienate someone. Just have to make a choice to do so or not. I'd lose thousands upon thousands of dollars having a flash site, that I know!

Andrea,

I'm sure you have your reasons for using flash, yet I run a web development company and simply can't see any good reason for having your site in flash - everything can be done in XHTML/CSS/Javascript with the added bonus that you wouldn't have to defend a proprietary technology. Some workplaces will disable or not install flash on work computers, I actually looked at your site using my Touch Diamond because it was linked to this and I was reading this on a train - it's okay @ 640x480px on the screen, though not stunning. Having come home, your site is inaccessible to screen readers and has no keyboard navigation. Sounds like people at work may not be calling you, anyone blind won't be calling you, anyone with limited motor control etc. While you have a logic to designing a flash site, you could've told every bit of your story and recreated the site without needing flash for a little extra effort, without alienating small swathes of the population. You'd also have better search engine optimisation.

@OP

So i think you guessed I'm anti-flash for photography portfolios. I love that it automatically disables the right-click, but I'm not a big fan of the other issues with flash. It's possible to create accessible flash and non-accessible html, but my own feeling is that you just need a web developer whose talent you feel matches your own at photography (or exceeds). A good web designer will frame your photographs in a way that meets your business objectives and your design criteria, not just create a pretty border, with a forward and back button.

Froggeh wrote in post #6880662
Andrea,

I'm sure you have your reasons for using flash, yet I run a web development company and simply can't see any good reason for having your site in flash - everything can be done in XHTML/CSS/Javascript with the added bonus that you wouldn't have to defend a proprietary technology. Some workplaces will disable or not install flash on work computers, I actually looked at your site using my Touch Diamond because it was linked to this and I was reading this on a train - it's okay @ 640x480px on the screen, though not stunning. Having come home, your site is inaccessible to screen readers and has no keyboard navigation. Sounds like people at work may not be calling you, anyone blind won't be calling you, anyone with limited motor control etc. While you have a logic to designing a flash site, you could've told every bit of your story and recreated the site without needing flash for a little extra effort, without alienating small swathes of the population. You'd also have better search engine optimisation.

@OP

So i think you guessed I'm anti-flash for photography portfolios. I love that it automatically disables the right-click, but I'm not a big fan of the other issues with flash. It's possible to create accessible flash and non-accessible html, but my own feeling is that you just need a web developer whose talent you feel matches your own at photography (or exceeds). A good web designer will frame your photographs in a way that meets your business objectives and your design criteria, not just create a pretty border, with a forward and back button.

Hey I think you might be a good person to ask this...
on top of the page I gave a link that could be a good alternative for those who don't want to use Flash but want some neat way or presenting a photo,

"http://www.dynamicdriv​e.com/dynamici...box2/​index.htm"

Would you happen to know if some people that are using cell phones, or work computers might have trouble viewing that effect? I haven't heard of any accessibility issues with that sort of coding, but I don't know everything.