View Full Version : Really Good Flash Sites
Frank Petronio
4-Jan-2007, 01:06
OK, I'm Mr. Minimal... but if you're going to do Flash, try to beat this guy:
http://www.matthewmahon.com/
Gordon Moat
4-Jan-2007, 01:24
I don't often like the use of Flash in photographers websites, though I found that I did like the site of Andrea Knox (http://www.knoxpix.com). She won the PDN Self Promo award for her site a few years ago.
I think if you are a big name, then you can get away with anything, like a complicated Flash based site. However, the lesser of us who want an on-line portfolio of our images might be better served by a simple HTML based site that allows bookmarking image samples or sections.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)
Steve Kefford
4-Jan-2007, 05:40
l... but if you're going to do Flash, try to beat this guy:
http://www.matthewmahon.com/
Sorry, but this is just typical Flash. Gimmicky without any benefit. I have seen somne ok photo sites using Flash, but this ain't one of them.
Steve
Scott Knowles
4-Jan-2007, 05:56
I agree with Gordon, while great for one-time Website, Websites flash is too time intensive for on-going Website. Who wants to have to rebuild the flash every time you add sections, portfolios, text, links, etc? If you have a designer, then cool, it's their time and work not yours.
As for this Website, I don't see the coolness, it's a big bunch of small flashes (40-90KB) that take forever to quit loading, which seems to defeat the purpose of using flash. And once there, you have to keep clicking in/out to see anything. Cool, and interesting, but good? Relative to your perspective.
Personally I like Gemma Fleming's (http://www.gemmafleming.com/) Website. she's a first year photography student and had some friends build her Website.
And it's why it's called opinions.
Walter Calahan
4-Jan-2007, 06:30
Oh the dog picture with its tongue slightly out breaks my heart. That dog looks just like my dog Skylar who ran into the woods after a deer never to return two years ago.
My boy Skylar was a good, good dog.
Other than that, the design gets in the way of viewing the photos. One this my former graphics teacher always said, "The best graphic design is invisible to the message." Tthe design out should never get in the way of the message.
Frank Petronio
4-Jan-2007, 06:33
You have to find the pictures with the little head icons... then the photographer and his assistant pop out and do a video commentary... which is funny as hell.
I agree with all the tech reasons above and most of the photos are just good, not great, but the commentary is just the best. Give it 30 sec, it's great.
But yeah, if I didn't tell you how would you know to click the head? I read that I needed to do that too. Duh...
I have two confessions to make:
1. I hate Flash. Show me a site that takes more than a few seconds to load and I'm gone....(I have the attention span of a gnat).
2. I use Flash on my own websites. Actually I use a combination of HTML and Flash. The sites themselves are set up in HTML for (I hope) quick, simple navigation but the galleries of my images are Simpleviewer Flash galleries generated by iPhoto export.
Here's one of my sites (http://www.craigkoshyk.ca)
and here's another (http://www.craigkoshykphoto.ca)
Photomax
8-Jan-2007, 14:16
Nice work Craig!
But you kind of contradict yourself on the Flash though. Having the galleries open up another browser page to display a Flash loader takes time. It took three pages before I got to your work. The links to the images are not that obvious as well: the thumbnail rather than the heading.
This might be "nit-picky" but a good straight forward design with CSS would make exploring your fine images easier.
Max
adrian tyler
8-Jan-2007, 14:36
nice one frank.
Thanks for the nit-picks Photomax....valuable feedback, that. :) I will change the titles of the galleries so that they are links just like the thumbnails too. I never thought of that before.
As for opening a new page, with the version of the site template I am using, I'm afraid there is no other way.The site was built using a server based template program called SiteXpress. It comes with the hosting package I have and is simple enough that even I can use it to create sites fairly quickly. It is far from perfect, but it allows me to control the site and update the contents quickly, from any computer I may be at during the day. You can go directly to a gallery from the home page though by clicking on it in the dropdown menu. At least that saves one step.
I've tried to wade through web authoring programs before to build a site but invariably I bog down with crossed eyes and a desparate need to swallow a couple of Tylenol 3's.
Photomax
8-Jan-2007, 18:37
Craig,
You should use whatever works for you. Content is still king. Your content is really nice. So many folks get hung up on the design. There are a lot of ways of displaying a basic image gallery. Templates can be a good option. Often avoiding all the extras makes the site better. Fancy programs like Dreamweaver can be more of a hurdle than a solution IMHO.
A lot of photographers have too much code just to display a set of images. Then there is the use of Flash: more and more I see people turning their backs on Flash design. I avoid Flash...
I just finished this site: http://www.ritzconst.com/ for a remodeling company. Its a very simple site with an image gallery. Take a look at the code by using the View:View Source menu on any browser. The code is all clean, lean XHTML. It has a "Strict" Doctype and validates via the www.w3c.org standards. All the presentation is removed from the pages so they load fast, are search engine friendly and most of all are easy to update. All one needs is a basic text editor to cut and paste changes. No fancy software needed. Having all the presentation code removed from each page (via one CSS file) makes addressing the actual content much easier: its easy to see. Compare this code to the code source of just about any page out there...
The less code the better.
Cheers,
Max
Frank Petronio
8-Jan-2007, 19:08
Nice little site there Max.
Although the sidebar testimonial by "Elizabeth" might actually discourage more than a few husbands who have been cuckolded by their contractors ;)
kjsphotography
8-Jan-2007, 19:40
I cant even load the site. So slow. Geez....
Photomax
8-Jan-2007, 22:29
Nice little site there Max.
Although the sidebar testimonial by "Elizabeth" might actually discourage more than a few husbands who have been cuckolded by their contractors ;)
Now thats a consideration I have not thought of during this project! It was a fun thing to do. The lead kitchen photo was actually LF: Sinar F1 with 90/6.8 Grandagon lens...
Not sure if Kevin is kidding or not: the site works and seems snappy on my system...I even cleared my history and it still responds well?
Cheers,
Max
Photomax
8-Jan-2007, 22:38
Kevin,
I tried the "ArtSoft" link to your site...
* None of the top links/navs work.
* There is no doctype, so some browsers will go into Quirks mode and may render the site poorly.
* Clicking on the gallery gives you a small popup with thumbnails that do not respond. A lot of folks don't like popups.
* Clicking on the "View Galleries" on the links(tiny text) on the left side does nothing.
Not really a great "solution" IMHO...
Max
David Spivak-Focus Magazine
9-Jan-2007, 06:37
Actually, I happen to think that Focus' old flash (http://www.focusmag.info/flash) site is the best. So much so, that I can't find anyone to edit the code and update it for me. :(
I've had a number of sites over the years for my personal work and for my business ventures. Here is what I have learned:
1. Having a site versus not having a site makes a huge difference.
2. Having a good site versus having a so-so site makes a smaller difference.
3. As Max said, it is all about content. And I would add, it is all about the ability to change, update and modify content easily, quicky and above all, inexpensively.
I own a photography school. We need to update our site quite often. Until a couple of years ago I needed to pay someone to do the updates/changes each time. We had a great looking site, better than the current one, but it was a painful procedure to make updates. It cost time, money and grey hair.
I now do the site myself. I do not expect to win a design award for it anytime soon. I made it with the same template system I used for my persronal sites. I am able to update it very quickly at any time without having to pay a third party.
Have a look (http://www.prairieview.ca) it's far from perfect, but it gets the job done.
Jack Brauer
9-Jan-2007, 10:59
Frank, I think Mahon's site is sweet! Unlike others, I do have a slight attention span on the internet and I actually do enjoy unique, yet intuitive flash interfaces like that. The audio comments are great and really add some personality. Also, from a programming standpoint, it's really not that hard to have dynamic/updateable content in a flash site like that. The major problem with Flash sites of course is the search-engine-invisibility, though that probably is not a concern for Mahon.
Kirk Gittings
9-Jan-2007, 14:36
This is fun (not great)http://www.dirklambrechts.com/, too slow and finicky,
This is fun (not great)http://www.dirklambrechts.com/, too slow and finicky,
Wow, there are some really, really nice photos on that site.
I just wish I could get the 8 minutes of my life back that I spent farting around with the interface of the site. It was like some kind of evil cyber-rubik's cube.
I need to lay down now.....;)
Aaron van de Sande
10-Jan-2007, 06:41
"good flash"? Oxymoron...
Brian K
12-Jan-2007, 06:49
Often times I see Flash sites that seem to use Flash purely as a gimmick and do not serve the function of directing viewers around the photographs. The first sample that Frank gave, while interesting, is an extremely ineeficient way for people to view that photographers work. As new images pop up all over the place, and very slowly at that, it becomes very hard to tell which images you have already seen. This is a very time consuming way to show work.
My own site is Flash, and it's pretty minimal while at the same time I tried to make navigation fairly easy.
www.kosoff.com
Craig I really enjoyed your site, it's good to see another photographer who sometimes uses all the tones between zone 7 & 8.
adrian tyler
12-Jan-2007, 12:03
frank, heres a fun one:
http://www.mackaoui.com/
Did you know that Adobe CS2 suite application icons were created as X-Ray photos? This guy did the photos and then MetaDesign did the graphic design part - compositing and coloring.
http://www.nickveasey.com/nickveasey.html
I don't quite care for the way the site takes control of the browser, but I still find his content interesting enough to visit.
Frank Petronio
12-Jan-2007, 12:45
All you have to do is look at my websites to see I'm a big proponent of web standards, lean code, fast loading and simple accessibility. But some of the Flash sites are fun to look at as recreation -- it's like porn -- you know it's wrong but you still peak at it once in awhile (well, of course you don't...)
I certainly don't advocate building the typical big commercial photographer stupid Flash website (most ad agencies also have really stupid Flash websites). But inside and beyond all the stupid Flash crap they put is through are some pretty good photos and in the case of the first site I mentioned, some funny commentaries and behind the scenes stuff.
Not that I advocate doing it the way the guy did it. I think it is lousy marketing really. But I still enjoy the good parts.
I tell you what. Go have at look at this web site and pay special attention to the clients in their portfolio. Madonna and the Beatles just to metion a couple of minor ones. Then go tell tell them that their sites don't conform to web standards and Flash is not a good thing for marketing and see what they think of your opinion.
http://www.firstbornmultimedia.com/
Frank Petronio
12-Jan-2007, 13:37
Oh I know. Every major fashion photographer has the same sort of site, as do ad agencies with billions and billions of billings.
I'm full of shit
I tell you what. Go have at look at this web site and pay special attention to the clients in their portfolio. Madonna and the Beatles just to metion a couple of minor ones. Then go tell tell them that their sites don't conform to web standards and Flash is not a good thing for marketing and see what they think of your opinion.
http://www.firstbornmultimedia.com/
Their site just crashed my browser while trying to view their portfolio.
I'm sure Madonna looks good in there, but if I were shopping for a design studio and this happened, I think I wouldn't give it a second look.
Then again, the pop stars aren't your average client either, since their sites have much more temporary character. Probably because the typical cross section of their target demographics is of the age that could not care less about standards or rules in general.
Firefox?
see what I mean.
Firefox?
see what I mean.
No, I don't. I never mentioned Firefox. I just said "browser".
Which browser it was is entirely irrelevant, their site broke it.
Photomax
12-Jan-2007, 18:21
Flash is definitely becoming "yesterdays" technology as far as producing modern websites goes.
More and more designers are fully embracing Modern Web Standards design. Its both extremely powerful and efficient. Clients are catching on as well. They hire designers to help communicate THEIR ideas, products or services. In too many cases the use of heavy Flash design became more about showing off the 'flashy" design skills of the web designer and less about creating an efficient site for the client. The movement to web standards, CSS, and efficient XHTML is a reaction to that "problem."
There are some amazing designers working in eastern Europe, places like Poland, Croatia etc; unknown guys (and girls) just pushing the envelope with way cool, lean, efficient sites.
Larger corporations and organizations are, in many cases, being left behind: with stale code that is just so "2003."
The future looks good though: older browsers (good riddance IE6 !!!) will get dumped, better standards will emerge, better graphic files will get used, bandwidth will increase and the standards of design will continue to explode...
Cheers,
Max
and here's another new and inconsequential flash site for you. These guys obviously don't know what they are doing.
http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/
George Kara
14-Jan-2007, 11:04
Flash is excellent for controlling content from piracy. Using the on2 technology you can restrict the content to the delivery website alone.
While flash websites are questionable, it is very effective for delivering moving imagery. In other words I believe that flash is best used when embedded in a website.
George
Frank Petronio
14-Jan-2007, 11:25
Do mean it is immune from screen snapshots?
Nothing is really immune on the Web.
It is only safe so long as the effort needed to take it is equal or greater than the potential gain realized from taking it.
Aaron van de Sande
14-Jan-2007, 17:59
Yeah recording companies(sony bmg) are also the ones that were installing rootkits last year with their music cds. Just because something is popular doesn't make it good.
I tell you what. Go have at look at this web site and pay special attention to the clients in their portfolio. Madonna and the Beatles just to metion a couple of minor ones. Then go tell tell them that their sites don't conform to web standards and Flash is not a good thing for marketing and see what they think of your opinion.
http://www.firstbornmultimedia.com/
George Kara
15-Jan-2007, 07:57
Hi Frank
Yeah I use captivate for screen shots. This works fine for still images but of course motion isnt included.
Gary Suitter
28-Feb-2007, 10:19
An excellent flash site by one of my favorite photographers...
http://thomasbarbey.com/index.cfm
Justin Cormack
28-Feb-2007, 16:32
and here's another new and inconsequential flash site for you. These guys obviously don't know what they are doing.
http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/
No they dont. They should stick to photography.
Justin Cormack
28-Feb-2007, 16:45
An excellent flash site by one of my favorite photographers...
http://thomasbarbey.com/index.cfm
big splash screen that tells me that I should have a 1024x768 screen (filling up my 1280x1024 screen). Says "enter flash site". Close browser window. Forget.
If you have a flash only site you have to remember that there are huge numbers of people who will just not bother, or it will crash their browser or not work. And you can do most of the stuff you want in html+dom scripting now.
And I am not just a young fogey who remembers "Skip intro..."
Oh and the people who mentioned sound - I close any window that plays sounds at me in 4 seconds or less (if I have the sound turned on).
Photography sites have no general need for flash either, as the basic material is still images.
There are still subtle (often invisible to most users) uses of flash that work well. If you can see its flash its probably not one of them. Site navigation should never ever be flash, as that replaces the expected user interface.
An excellent flash site by one of my favorite photographers...
http://thomasbarbey.com/index.cfm
I find Flash sites truly aggravating and invariably skip to the main menu.
This one drew me in. I like the design, the sound works and I got a kick out of the montages. The site zips along and the images are fun. Would like to know more about his technique. He has one piece that he wants to sell for $72K. Has he got the following to demand those kinds of prices?
Gary Suitter
28-Feb-2007, 21:07
Justin,
I agree it may be beneficial to have a twin html site if a large number of people can not handle flash. But how many computers out there would actually have a problem loading Barbey,s site? I'm running Windows XP with a 1 gig cpu and 300k dsl connection, not the fastest system around, and for me the site loads very quickly.
As for sound on a web site, most of the time I immediately search for the mute button. Very rarely does a sites audio presentation do a good job complimenting it's visual display. But for me, with this site, it works! And for those that prefer, there's always the mute button.
If I closed the browser on every web site that has sound or because it's a flash site, I would have missed out on a lot.
"Site navigation should never ever be flash"? I say never say never, ever. Flash navigation may not be "the expected user interface" but I found the site laid out well, very easy to navigate and fun to use. As long as it loads well what more could you ask for?
I agree it may be beneficial to have a twin html site if a large number of people can not handle flash. But how many computers out there would actually have a problem loading Barbey,s site? I'm running Windows XP with a 1 gig cpu and 300k dsl connection, not the fastest system around, and for me the site loads very quickly.
As for sound on a web site, most of the time I immediately search for the mute button. Very rarely does a sites audio presentation do a good job complimenting it's visual display. But for me, with this site, it works! And for those that prefer, there's always the mute button.
If I closed the browser on every web site that has sound or because it's a flash site, I would have missed out on a lot.
"Site navigation should never ever be flash"? I say never say never, ever. Flash navigation may not be "the expected user interface" but I found the site laid out well, very easy to navigate and fun to use. As long as it loads well what more could you ask for?
There are a number of serious issues with Flash on the Web. First and foremost is the issue of controlling users' environment. It is widely expected, and also good manners, to allow the users to do the most basic web tasks, such as "page back", "page forward", print or place bookmarks using their browser's interface. Flash used as main UI denies them just that. The users should not have to re-learn anew the most basic operations with every site they visit.
Spawning new windows is bad enough, but moving them around, changing their shape, size and controls is really over the top, not even to mention sound. When I see a site that does one or more of these things, I almost always click away and never come back. The only exceptions I have ever made to this rule is when I want to check out the site of someone I know in some way, such as certain people on this board. Even then, I linger only as long as I have to.
The reason for this is not just the principle, although it plays a large role, but also because I want to be able to keep my windows arranged the way I like so I can keep track of my email, IM and anything else I may have open at a glance, without having to juggle the windows arround. I also like to work in quiet, with the music of my choice in the background or am often on the phone - nothing ruins my mood as quickly as someone's idea of "appropriate" sound effects suddenly blaring in my face while I search for the mute button. Usually, if there is any, most designers seem to consider it a game of sorts to make it as obtuse as possible.
That was all from the user's perspective. From a developer's perspective, Flash sites are not search engine-friendly, only the loader page can be bookmarked, none of the pages can be printed, their sequencing is absolutely opposed to the most basic web principle - hyperlinking and cross-linking - not to mention inability to take the most basic screenshot, etc. The main goal of good web design is attracting users to the site and keeping them there. Each of these shortcomings does the exact opposite in its own little way.
All being said, there is a place and time for Flash on the web. It was invented for the express purpose of animation and presentation and it should be used in those instances, such as a slideshow in this context, and even then only as a part of the larger page. User interface should be left to other, better equipped technologies.
Frank Petronio
1-Mar-2007, 12:57
I have a friend who is a "book artists" and his books unfold in unusual ways. They are beautiful works of art. They are one of a kind, selling for thousands of dollars.
But the textbook he wrote is produced very traditionally, with pages turning the right way and nicely typeset legible text. It costs $14.95.
I think you could make an analogy to websites based on the above.
I like a really smart, fun Flash website. I don't see very many of them though.
J Peterson
9-May-2007, 08:47
Thing is with flash...it's highly complex. Far more complex to write than HTML. But everone is giving it a bash as flash itself becomes easier to use. But it's like photoshop...the healing brush may be quick to use, but it looks awful.
Movement in flash by tweening looks crap. Movement in flash by code can look mindblowing.
Flash done well, by someone who has spent years learning it does work well, and when it's designed by someone who has a great sense of design then it works as well. But unless you have *both* it's tacky, slow, annoying and unless you're someone like Madonna - people aren't gonna come back.
To be world class at it, is the same as any other craft - it takes years.
I used to love flash. Generally now I really dislike it. It's too glossy...too commerical...BUT it works if you have a captive audience who wants to be entertained. My favourite flash site is this one http://www.beck.com It's nothing short of amazing. But it isn't really apt for what we do as photogrphers.
It's wierd also, particularly when used in regards to photography. People just seem to forget...It's all bout the pictures. You can't pollish a turd.
Hmmm,
For me this is all about user friendliness and usability.
Rant here....
Flash is one of those technologies that often detract from content. Slick but.... On the computer I use most, flash sites often load poorly or not at all. No crashes, but it doesn't matter. Plenty of people have similar issues with flash. It's my computer, I know, and perhaps I could keep "upgrading" till so and so's site works, but the argument that all of us should keep upgrading every five minutes so some designer can show off doesn't move me. I think designers should keep their sites deeply backwards compatible in the name of elemental user friendliness.
I'm a believer that ultra simple - dead standard HTML or CSS navigation and user interface should navigate you through everything in a site. No semi standard coding. No "Enter" pages. No hafta watch a bunch of flash before you get to see what you wanted to. I just close the designer's window and go to friendlier places. I don't wait.
No PDFs downloads to get to read a document - they're great evidently for printing but user abuse as a document reading device. Why should someone have to wait to load a new program to read something? Why should pdfs get such a unkind interface?
OK, I'm over it now.
C
archivue
11-May-2007, 15:45
http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2007/jeffwall/
LF and flash...
JW Dewdney
11-May-2007, 17:45
Flash is one of those technologies that often detract from content.
yeah - but (in my estimation) about 99.9% of the people get form and content utterly confused.
Brian C. Miller
11-May-2007, 22:13
Vincent Flander's Web Pages That Suck (http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/) is a great site for learning design. What he does is examine bad web sites so you can avoid their mistakes. Check out the list of design mistakes on the front page.
rbellantoni
15-May-2007, 16:08
A question for the seasoned html'ers, css'ers and javascripters in the house. Couldn't some of the simpler animations done in flash like sliding panels, slideshows, moving boxes, moving text, rollovers and so on be done in dhtml using layers, css positioning and some javascript. Couldn't the javascript can be written with a WYSIWYG program like Dreamweaver?
Justin Cormack
15-May-2007, 16:13
A question for the seasoned html'ers, css'ers and javascripters in the house. Couldn't some of the simpler animations done in flash like sliding panels, slideshows, moving boxes, moving text, rollovers and so on be done in dhtml using layers, css positioning and some javascript. Couldn't the javascript can be written with a WYSIWYG program like Dreamweaver?
Yes all those things can be done. Except the bit about writing the Javascript in Dreamweaver.
Look at things like lightbox which are javascript only.
http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox/
Jim collum
15-May-2007, 16:26
discovered http://www.camilleseaman.com today
A question for the seasoned html'ers, css'ers and javascripters in the house. Couldn't some of the simpler animations done in flash like sliding panels, slideshows, moving boxes, moving text, rollovers and so on be done in dhtml using layers, css positioning and some javascript. Couldn't the javascript can be written with a WYSIWYG program like Dreamweaver?
Yes, but why? Flash is a natural environment for animation, that was/is its primary purpose and it does it the best. If animation or a slideshow is really needed, then Flash is the right tool for it.
Another question altogether is the necessity and usability of such contraptions. All those things you mention are nothing more than embellishments which contribute nothing to the functionality of the page and take away a lot, regardless which technology was used for their creation. It is not unheard of to see a javascript such as this doubling or even tripling the bandwidth of an otherwise properly written and standardized page.
About half of my clients at least inquire about something along those lines somewhere during site creation process, often even after they have accepted more functional alternative. I always try to explain that, while I would be more than happy to charge them additional fees something like that would entail, it would be much more useful if they devoted half of the bandwidth and funds required to providing more content.
There are exceptions such as multimedia content, animated or not, and slideshows, but even then, it is, in most cases, best done as a Flash block embedded in the larger (X)HTML page instead of full-blown Flash page.
Web sites whose main purpose is presenting multimedia content are, of course, something else entirely. But that's a whole different world anyway and chances are they'll know which direction to take from the get go.
J Peterson
16-May-2007, 03:44
discovered http://www.camilleseaman.com today
This is very nice. She has a very apt name as well!
I'm working on something similar at the moment. The backend of it is highly complex and hair rippingly frustrating! So very gutted to find out it's a template site!!!
J Peterson
16-May-2007, 03:52
I always try to explain that, while I would be more than happy to charge them additional fees something like that would entail, it would be much more useful if they devoted half of the bandwidth and funds required to providing more content
This is so on the money and very well put.
Brian C. Miller
16-May-2007, 06:45
A lot of the simple embelishments can be done with CSS. There are a lot of really great CSS sites, and the basic setup doesn't take long. Then the rest of the site loads quickly, and you get to the most important part quicker: content!
scrichton
10-Jun-2007, 18:18
Frank I'll put this simply ... lets forget all the other responses that bad mouth formatting etc ... That site is beautiful.
Works amazingly fast. Combines a very natural interface with great content.
Thanks.
Brian, I'm not a fan of flash, but your site's flash-lite and a pleasure to view. Love your work.
Often times I see Flash sites that seem to use Flash purely as a gimmick and do not serve the function of directing viewers around the photographs. The first sample that Frank gave, while interesting, is an extremely ineeficient way for people to view that photographers work. As new images pop up all over the place, and very slowly at that, it becomes very hard to tell which images you have already seen. This is a very time consuming way to show work.
My own site is Flash, and it's pretty minimal while at the same time I tried to make navigation fairly easy.
www.kosoff.com
Craig I really enjoyed your site, it's good to see another photographer who sometimes uses all the tones between zone 7 & 8.
Brian K
12-Jun-2007, 03:12
Dan thanks for the kind words.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.