Re: Image Gallery Options?
If you can afford it, I'd recommend Foliolink.com. I have been using it for about 6 months and it's a great service. Many templates, both Flash and HTML, to choose from and very easy maintenance from a browser.
They have several price levels depending on how many images you wish to show. Do the trial and see how you like it. If you need more capacity you can upgrade later.
Re: Image Gallery Options?
Take a look at Todd Dominey's Slide Show Pro.
Very configurable, you can easily customize it for whatever look and style you're going for.
Re: Image Gallery Options?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marko
Take a look at Todd Dominey's
Slide Show Pro.
Very configurable, you can easily customize it for whatever look and style you're going for.
It looks nice...but navigation isn't as fast as the sites I linked to (except for the Cowart page). And it uses Flash...Did I mention I hate flash? I use Linux as my OS. I had to install some proprietary plugin to look at flash sites. At least that one scales, which is good; but it is still not standards-compliant (or rather, a proprietary standard), and doesn't interact nicely with Google.
Many people won't be able to look at anything Flash, for whatever reason. They use Linux as their OS and don't know how to setup the proprietary Flash software, or don't want to. They have a small mobile device without Flash support; etc. And it doesn't degrade nicely if it can't be used.
With Javascript around, I don't understand why people use non-standards compliant stuff like Flash.
Re: Image Gallery Options?
I'm wondering how you do other pages besides galleries with SlideShowPro. It looks to be only oriented to producing galleries. Perhaps you need to use other software to create the website itself.
One thing about Foliolink, though it's more expensive, it's all integrated. And it generates an iPhone version on it's own.
Re: Image Gallery Options?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doug Dolde
I'm wondering how you do other pages besides galleries with SlideShowPro. It looks to be only oriented to producing galleries. Perhaps you need to use other software to create the website itself.
It IS just a very specific gallery module. It is not meant to be an all-in-one, it does one thing only and it does it well, within its parameters.
The gallery module lives on a vanilla (X)HTML page, as does all the other regular content that does not need to be animated nor "dynamically presented" in any other way. That makes for lean, standards-compliant and SEO-friendly pages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Doug Dolde
One thing about Foliolink, though it's more expensive, it's all integrated. And it generates an iPhone version on it's own.
Yes, it is more expensive and it is "integrated". ;)
With a properly developed site, you don't need separate versions. And even if I did, I would never trust a program to generate it for me. Especially not one of the "integrated" variety.
I prefer BBEdit, been using it for the last 10 years or so. But that's just me, I do that for a living - your choice may depend on your expertise and your needs. There is a range of applications designed for everybody, from complete beginners to professionals.
Re: Image Gallery Options?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dh003i
It looks nice...but navigation isn't as fast as the sites I linked to (except for the Cowart page). And it uses Flash...Did I mention I hate flash?
You didn't. If you did, I wouldn't have mentioned anything... :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dh003i
I use Linux as my OS. I had to install some proprietary plugin to look at flash sites. At least that one scales, which is good; but it is still not standards-compliant (or rather, a proprietary standard), and doesn't interact nicely with Google.
[...]
With Javascript around, I don't understand why people use non-standards compliant stuff like Flash.
You mean ECMAScript? There are people who have it disabled, either by personal choice or by corporate dictum.
What exactly do you mean by "it is not standards compliant"? I suppose you're talking about W3C standards. Flash player is an external application, a media player just like Quick Time or any other. W3C standards apply to markup, CSS and ECMAScript. They only govern how an external app is integrated, but do not define the app itself. I am not too fond of Flash either, I try to avoid it whenever possible and practicable, but there are times when it is not and when it's the best solution.
If by "interaction with Google" you mean it is not search engine-friendly, it all depends on the surrounding markup, but no, individual photographs are NOT searchable and it may be a plus in some instances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dh003i
Many people won't be able to look at anything Flash, for whatever reason. They use Linux as their OS and don't know how to setup the proprietary Flash software, or don't want to. They have a small mobile device without Flash support; etc. And it doesn't degrade nicely if it can't be used.
Let's not confuse personal preference with facts, shall we?
Your choice of OS is a matter of your preference. If you choose to use an OS which was originally written for the backroom and not for the desktop, and then deliberately configure it to prevent Flash from working because you do not want to use Flash, that is the choice you are free to make, but you shouldn't blame Flash for that. If somebody bound your hands and knees together and then pushed you down the stairs, would your failure to degrade gracefully be your fault? :D
To be fair, I might probably be using Linux myself if only it could be properly color-managed and if it could run Photoshop, and if... But then it wouldn't be Linux, it would be OSX and that's exactly what I run...
Re: Image Gallery Options?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marko
You didn't. If you did, I wouldn't have mentioned anything... :D
You mean ECMAScript? There are people who have it disabled, either by personal choice or by corporate dictum.
What exactly do you mean by "it is not standards compliant"? I suppose you're talking about W3C standards. Flash player is an external application, a media player just like Quick Time or any other. W3C standards apply to markup, CSS and ECMAScript. They only govern how an external app is integrated, but do not define the app itself. I am not too fond of Flash either, I try to avoid it whenever possible and practicable, but there are times when it is not and when it's the best solution.
Fair point about my terminology. I would say, though, that Flash is, unlike Javascript, a proprietary standard. Although Adobe as tried to address those concerns.
I guess I'm not sure what you can do with Flash that can't be done with Javascript; see the MooFlow javascript/ajax stuff I linked to.
Quote:
If by "interaction with Google" you mean it is not search engine-friendly, it all depends on the surrounding markup, but no, individual photographs are NOT searchable and it may be a plus in some instances.
I'm curious why you think that would be a plus? Digital rights management? You can always put your name and website in the photo.
Or just people bypassing the rest of your site? Well, if they're coming to it from Google Image Search, they're going to either see our image that way, or not see your website at all. And Google Image does display it in the context of the site.
Quote:
Let's not confuse personal preference with facts, shall we?
Your choice of OS is a matter of your preference. If you choose to use an OS which was originally written for the backroom and not for the desktop, and then deliberately configure it to prevent Flash from working because you do not want to use Flash, that is the choice you are free to make, but you shouldn't blame Flash for that. If somebody bound your hands and knees together and then pushed you down the stairs, would your failure to degrade gracefully be your fault? :D
To be fair, I might probably be using Linux myself if only it could be properly color-managed and if it could run Photoshop, and if... But then it wouldn't be Linux, it would be OSX and that's exactly what I run...
Actually, Linux can use Flash. I have no problem using Flash on Linux. But it is a proprietary plugin. It doesn't come with any distribution by default, while javascript support may. So that may be an issue for some users.
Then there are also users out there with small mobile devices. Or handicapped users, which Flash also presents problems for.
And if users have Javascript turned off, your gallery can degrade nicely, and still display something. Flash is just a binary blob. No Flash capability, you just see a gaping hole in the website. See this article on Flash vs. Javascript. That said, one needs to plan for degradation when coding Javascript.
Although it isn't the fault of Flash per se, it seems that a lot of Flash sites are just awful. Four-Thirds.org is horrendous. Whenever I see a website, like Jeremy Cowart's, where the text does not scale and is fixed point -- or worse yet, images for links -- I think, "insensitive clod". Either that, or the person let too many buzz words get to their head.
Maybe I'll just end up going with a more simple HTML gallery.
Btw, I'm going to be writing this myself. I can't stand the over-complex code that website-design software makes. The trickiest thing will be implementing a feature for me to easily add new photos to the gallery without hard-coding them in.
Re: Image Gallery Options?
If you have never written your website with your own content management system then I can guarantee that it will take you a lot longer than you think. Unless you already know about server side scripting and possibly SQL then you are biting off more than you think.
I'd just go with a package or hosting option and spend your time on SEO for it.
have a look at: http://www.clikpic.com/
you get the option of normal html plus flash slideshows if you want but you don't have to use them. Its cheap and has online sales(no charges exept normal paypal) and can be search engine optimised. Also images will seen by google images.
And think you can add text pages. Check out the free 7 day trial to see if its what you want.
Re: Image Gallery Options?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
percepts
If you have never written your website with your own content management system then I can guarantee that it will take you a lot longer than you think. Unless you already know about server side scripting and possibly SQL then you are biting off more than you think.
I'd just go with a package or hosting option and spend your time on SEO for it.
have a look at:
http://www.clikpic.com/
you get the option of normal html plus flash slideshows if you want but you don't have to use them. Its cheap and has online sales(no charges exept normal paypal) and can be search engine optimised. Also images will seen by google images.
And think you can add text pages. Check out the free 7 day trial to see if its what you want.
Thanks for the tip, but I'd rather have something that I have more control over (i.e., I want the look of the cover-flow gallery).
Any suggestions on where to start learning?