WWW site tips and examples?

[Ed Richards]

I want to start a WWW site for images. I may want to sell images in the longer term, but at the moment I just want to get some of them online and start building visibility. I have some experience with building and runing a large text site (http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/) but not a clue about the nuances of a photo site. I use Dreamweaver for my text site.

Are there useful guides? Affordable or free software tools? I work digitally from 4x5 black and white negatives, but have no idea of the right image size and scaling for good WWW work.

[robc]

there are many free photo gallery packages out there. All have their pros and cons but the one thing I have not seen in any of them is a good interface for selling images.

selling online is complex depending on the options you want. e.g. framing or no framing. size options, shipping options, payment options, local taxes, currency conversion etc.

Mostpeople just end up saying please email for details.

Good free photo gallery packages are:

exhbit engine ( can be tricksy to install but worth it) see the EE forum for help on installation

photography-on-the.net/ee/beta/ (http://photography-on-the.net/ee/beta/)

Jalbum
jalbum.net/ (http://jalbum.net/)

Coppermine
coppermine-gallery.net/index.php (http://coppermine-gallery.net/index.php)

follow this link for a big list of free gallery software:
the first GALLERY is very popular.

sourceforge.net/search/?type_of_search=soft&words=gallery (http://sourceforge.net/search/?type_of_search=soft&words=gallery)

also see in the list SPGM which is simple as it says but if you know some php scripting then it can be configured how you like.

Nearly all the packages require your server to have PHP installed and many require MySQL database as well. Some require ImageMagick (Gallery does).

Alternatively, you could buy some software:

www.imagefolio.com/ (http://www.imagefolio.com/)

the above has both gallery and storefront options.

[robc]

Write it yourself tips:

The vast majority of people on the WWW have their monitor set at 1024x768 screen resoluton but 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 still use 800x600 screen res. Thats a big enough percentage not to be ignored.

This means you have to consider your audience: for example, if your target audience is the www in general then design for 800x600 and 1024x768. If your target audience is photo editors then they are likely to have much higher res set on their monitor so 1024x768 and up is OK.
Image pixel dimensions are therefore dictated by screen res you are designing for.

I'm getting my site near completion(after a lot of rewrites) and it is designed primarily for 1024x768 but also works at 800x600 (if you hit the F11 and are not a Mac user).

www.visualperception.net/ (http://www.visualperception.net/)

It includes online selling but has a very simple layout with nothing too fancy.
(must get some text put in it and start making prints at a size I can scan for web content)

dreamweaver and PS should be about all you need in terms of software but if want to start generating server side scripts (PHP, ASP) then having to upload to web space to test is a pain. That means installing local webserver and script interpreter and database etc etc locally. Thats several very big learning curves.

[Paul Butzi]

Are there useful guides?

Probably the best, most useful guide to web design is the Yale Web Style Guide, 2nd Edition, which you can find online at www.webstyleguide.com/ (http://www.webstyleguide.com/)

Beyond that, you should spend some time browsing the web sites of other photographers and take notes on things you like, and things you don't. When you find things you like, I'd suggest that shameless copying is the correct approach, provided that you don't infringe on copyright or other IP. But barring just cloning someone's site, there's little reason to reinvent the wheel. This is particularly true with regards to division of content.

Funny story - I'd had my web site up for some years. Finally, Ralph Lambrecht got his own website, designed by some web design outfit he'd hired for the job. Ralph's new web site was an almost exact clone of mine - it was mortifying for Ralph but extremely amusing to me. Since I had done all the work on my web site, I just viewed it as validation that I was better off not hiring a web designer.

An excellent resource for learning what NOT to do, and why, is www.webpagesthatsuck.com (http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com). Try to overlook the pointlessly antagonistic web site name.

My observation is that the web site that are the simplest are the ones I like best. I do not like animated thingies whizzing around. I do not like website that require me to learn an entirely new interface to interact. I do not like web sites that make noise. If you are considering some feature, and it requires some client side software (like Flash, or similar), I'd suggest forgetting it.

[chris_4622]

Take a look at this: http://projectseven.com/extensions/info/show_pic/index.htm

[Frank Petronio]

I agree with Paul Butzi's advice about simple sites being better and avoiding Flash and "unique" navigation schemes. Since I hadn't visited Paul's site in several months I took a gander and went to my browser's "view source" command.

I almost snorted my club soda out onto my Powerbook. All that Javascript and table cells. Com'on Paul, clean it up!

;-) of course.

[Paul Butzi]

All that Javascript and table cells. Com'on Paul, clean it up!

Yeah, it's a nightmare.

At least I changed it so that when you mouse over a menu item, it only underlines the item instead what it did before, which was change it to bold face.

That was really gacky, and in poor taste, and I'd like to apologize to all of you.

[Martin Drozda]

There is a simple implication for web design of photo web sites. If the guy isnt able to design his web site well, then he isnt able to design his photos well. Would you buy a photo from a guy whose web site looks aesthetically displeasing? A photo web site should be simple with very conservative use of color. Photos must be the center point of the web site, not the web site itsself. It should load quickly, that means no Flash and no Java. I designed my web site black and white; I kept it very simple.

A central problem in photo web design is the size of uploaded photos and their color&lightness. I found it very hard to match the color of small jpegs on my web site with the 300+MB originals. I assume that most people do not use any monitor calibration and I guess that some people can face a very mixed experience when viewing photos on a non-calibrated monitor. Nevertheless, they will mostly never realize this fact and blame the photographer for that.

The quality/value of your photos is also going to be judged by your ability to promote them. I think it is better to have no web site than a bad one (but its is better to have a good one than none at all).

Martin / www.martindrozda.com (http://www.martindrozda.com)

[robc]

And another thing...

Some of the best photography web sites I have seen from an aesthetic design point of view have been written entirely in Flash.

here's a few:

193.109.190.29/ (http://193.109.190.29/)

www.dirklambrechts.com/ (http://www.dirklambrechts.com/)

www.jorgealcaide.com/ (http://www.jorgealcaide.com/)

this one really needs broad band and fast processor:

www.eccentris.com/ (http://www.eccentris.com/)

I would have written my site entirely in flash except that flash does a really great job of hiding text embedded in it from search engines. That's a bit of a major problem if one of your design goals is good search engine position.

Flash also gets gets bad press because of designers embedding very large and complex background images in it which take a long time to download.
If its used properly then its a very good presentation tool.

One big html tip:

Don't use framesets unless you want problems with search engines. each frame gets indexed separately and anyone linking from a search engine to it, gets half a page of your web site. You can put javascript to make it check if its parent is there but that is a PITA.

[Martin Drozda]

From the four Flash sites mentioned above: one does not work with Netscape 7.2. After visiting another one the music would not switch off after leaving(!!!), isnt that annoying? On the other two I could not judge the photos because they move.

[Oren Grad]

No Flash. Please. I looked at the sites rob linked and found them all fussy to the point of distraction. Any site that forces me to sit through a tedious animation before I can get to what I wanted to see is a huge turn-off for me. Martin's design principles are much more to my taste.

[Frank Petronio]

Opinions are like ____ and everyone has one. The Flash sites can be beautiful but they operate under the assumption that the viewer has a fast connection, up to date software and platform, and that they are willing to spend a few minutes exploring and experimenting with the website. I prefer to let people know what's going on quicker than that and I don't want to penalize people that don't know their way around the latest technology. But that's a trade off. An advertising photographer trying to appeal to a coke-addled Eurotrash 24-year art director at Saatchi & Saatchi isn't the same audience as the 70-year old Fortune 500 retiree who buys large format Lightjets of sunsets over Mt. Hood. In the later case Flash and a Gameboy interface may be appropriate, but certainly not for all people.

I also like the idea of updating the website much more frequently, giving repeat visitors a reason to come back. If all you need is a gallery, Photoshop has several attractive canned ones in their automated menu. They're better than 99% of the amateur and 90% of the professional attempts I see.

My photo (http://www.frankpetronio.com) and business (http://http://www.cleanpage.com) websites.

[Jonathan Brewer]

Deciding to have a website, talking to a number of people, making the mistake of depending on people who didn't follow through, and deciding what to do next, took 2 years, and taught me quite a lot about this process, I had the choice of someone helping me and waiting for their schedule to allow that/for whenever they decided to get around to it, or hiring a professional web design out, which I shopped around for. I've been quoted up to $15,000 for what I wanted(then they woke up!!!).

I didn't want gratuitous effects, just effects to make the website flow seamlessly, that and no more, and music, the greatest movies ever made had music, so I didn't care about the 'purist' attitude regarding images w/o music, I just don't care, and since I play music while checking out various websites, 'why not?'.

So for 3 yrs. while I'm deciding on how I'm going to go about this, I'm compiling and tweaking images, and playing around with graphics, and comparing images that seem to go together w/my other images, the basic page layout of my website began to take form, and I began to assemble the parts, but still didn't quite have the tecnical 'knowhow' to link all this together the right way w/music.

What was frustrating was that these web programs are awkward and just not as seamless(at least to me) as Photoshop, but I kept probing, and playing around with all this,.......................following the advice of a fine photographer named Paul Schiliger, I basically laid out my pages in Photoshop and did most of the work in that image editing program, and I finally had a couple of lights go on w/my understanding regarding some of the vague instructions that come along w/some of these programs, and I decided to just do it myself.

I made a decision considering my stage in life, and the fact that I'd been five years wanting a website/working/tinkering around w/my images/the page layout, that I would do a minimalist non-flash website w absolutely no ornament, ...............................I ended up w/a black backround, 6 words, and three lines, and no music(because I wouldn't be able to do the music the way I wanted w/o flash), and I kept refining, cleaning up typos, tweaking, and culling images that didn't get along w/each other, and to do a flash site after learning what I needed to know if still chose to do a fancier site later .......................I'm glad it took all this time, and that praise it or condemn it, I did it, and I'm ultimately more satisfied by that, than I would've been if I'd had someone else helping me/somebody else do it. I know this for a FACT, NOBODY will have the time/inclination to give your the site the time and effort to polish up your site to the N th degree like you will.

It's been 5 years since I thought,...............'I'd like a website of my images',....................................................... it's worked out exactly the way I wanted it to, even though I didn't know this through all these detours, so try your best to learn how to do it yourself, then it will be your vision.

www.imageandartifact.bz

[robc]

flash is just as capable of being written as an updatable content managed system as an off the shelf piece of blogging software with a suitable template is.

http://www.mskgent.be (http://http://www.mskgent.be)

[robc]

corrected link

www.mskgent.be (http://www.mskgent.be)

[Kirk Gittings]

My son is a professional web site designer for a big company. I have been trying to get him to redesign my website. I have been waiting two years. I just want something simple and elegant. Here is the site he did for his company. Do you think he is able to do something simple and elegant anymore?

www.xyleminteractive.com (http://www.xyleminteractive.com)

[Frank Petronio]

Damn, I never got around to downloading Flash 8 and now I'll never be able to take advantage of the incredible advances in interactivity since Flash 7. Nice simple error page though.

[John Flavell]

I use Freeway Express for Mac. Very simple and very easy to learn. The software can be expanded if you find you want to ad features.

For design, I also keep it as simple as I can. Some of the sites I visit I consider extremely busy. Some people have made their website about website design, and not about the photographs.

www.flavellphotography.com

[robc]

first rule of software release is don't release software unless you know it'll run on your user base machines. i.e. he shouldn't have made it compatible with only the latest generation flash player.
Should always allow a couple of generations backward compatibility unless you want to lose business.

I have download of activex modules switched off(big security hole closed, especially spyware) so site won't run for me anyway. I'll never know what it looked like.

Just about everyone I know thinks that I'm going to write them a web page for nothing. Make him a reasonable offer and maybe he'll do it.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Do you think he is able to do something simple and elegant anymore?

Nope........maybe that is why you have been waiting two years.... :-)

PS. Interesting site, but I still have no idea what it was all about... :-)

[Kirk Gittings]

Jorge,
I think it is about selling their web design talents. I think. Part of the problem with Flash sites is that they distract from the subject. The subject becomes the Flash.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I thought that is what it was, since they have different projects......but then I clicked on "chipotle" since it is a Mexican pepper and it drew my curiosity and I had no idea what the site was about. While all the jumping Jack flash shows knowledge of programing......it is pretty much redundant if it leaves the visitor scratching his/her head...no?

[Frank Petronio]

One more thought: just do it. Building a website is not a final statement. The best websites change all the time.

Better to do a fast and simple one to get started and learn how to organize your images, than to sputter and plan some ultimate super site that never changes or worse, never starts. The exercise of building a small first site will teach you what you need to know to build the bigger super site...

[robert_4927]

I just purchased a domain and a five page site. It is pretty self explanatory as far as loading images. Now I just need to quit wrestling with the perfect artist statement and finish it. Frank is right if no one sees it then it doesn't matter how good or bad it is. I figure I'm just going to get something put together and publish it. Then I'll come to the forum and ask for advice. There is a wealth of knowledge here and seldom, if ever, have I been led astray when asking here. And if critques ever bothered me I would have given up photography long ago. So I will be asking all the Geeks ( I think that's what they like being called now) for advice on improvments. It's just that damn artist statement I can't seem to finish. Plus I need to learn how to stitch a photo together for loading my 8x20 work. The scanner I finally broke down and bought will only scan 8x10 but I think there is a way to do it in photoshop by scanning two halves of the 8x20. In other words....HELP!....lol

[Frank Petronio]

I hate to mention the obvious, but if you have to stitch an 8x10 why not just shoot two 8x10s instead?

[Frank Petronio]

I hate to mention the obvious, but if you have to stitch an 8x20 why not just shoot two 8x10s instead?

[robc]

What seems obvious is the result of making the mistake of thinking that you have perfect knowledge to start with.

[Michael Jones]

"There is a simple implication for web design of photo web sites. If the guy isnt able to design his web site well, then he isnt able to design his photos well."

Where does this concept come from? I don't know squat about about web design, but I'll wager I can out photograph most web designers.

Do you think photographers design their own books? There is an entire industry of book designers out there. Much commercial photography is "created" by someone other that the photographer. Why should it be significantly different for web design? There are legions of great designers out there, why should I learn web design?

Designer does not equal photographer or vice versa.

michael

[robert_4927]

"I hate to mention the obvious, but if you have to stitch an 8x20 why not shoot two 8x10s instead"....huh? Frank I have 8x20 contact print Pt/ pd work that I would like to put on my website. My scanner is only capable of scanning 8x10. Please clarify what you mean by your statement. Because I obviously don't see what you mean by the obvious. Shoot two 8x10s? I'm talking about scanning two halves of my 8x20 work to put on a web site. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Frank Petronio]

Sorry, I thought you were shooting 8x20 and scanning for digital output, which seems like a helluvalot of work. If making contact prints is your primary purpose then it all makes sense.

Depending on the size of your web image you may actually do better photographing your final prints with a digicam. Not only is it simple, but you would capture more of the texture and quality of the print itself. Considering that Pd/Pt contact printers are into that sort of thing, it might be a nice touch, especially if you show the deckled edges and slight paper curl, etc. with a subtle drop shadow.

[robert_4927]

Frank, I know the aesthetics you're refering to. And I have seen a few prints. But the papers we have available to us now are very good. You can get that look with just about any hand coated process if that is what you like. But most of my prints look as flat as any dry mounted print. I flatten my prints and hinge mount them to a good 4-ply rag board..then window mat with the same. Keep in mind there is no substrat to deal with in drying so you don't have the paper curl to deal with like silver papers. If shooting it with a digital camera then downloading would give the print more of it's true characteristics such as luminosity, mid-tonal range..ect..then I would be more than willing to go that route. I've done 8x10 pt/pd scan with pretty good success, granted.. nothing can compare to the actually viewing of any print due to the monitor factor I would guess. But I do have an older coolpix 800 that I can give it a try with. I inherited it from a friend who buys the lastest version of digital camera that comes out. So he threw this in my lap. But my question is. Is there a program in photoshop that allows you to scan two halves of a photograph and download it to photoshop then rejoin the two together? I think I heard the term "stitch" somewhere before that is why I referred to it as such.

[Frank Petronio]

The latest version of PS - CS2 has more stitching tools. But I usually do it manually, using overlapping layers and large soft brush eraser and cloning tools. Other people can probably suggest stand alone tools and PS plug-ins but I always found them more trouble than value - but I like doing things the hard way.

[robc]

stitch software is slow and changes pixels in your image.

You can do it yourself simply in photoshop.

there are 2 rules for it to work properly:

first is that you must not allow scanner settings to change between each partial scan of image so auto exposure must be off. i.e. set scan exposure etc manually and do not change anything between scans.

second is that one edge of image must be aligned. Most flatbeds have a lip at the edge of glass so if print edge is pushed up to that lip for first scan and then slid down the lip for second scan the two scans should be aligned.

make the two scans making sure that there is an overlap, i.e. part of the image is on both scans.

then load both scans into PS. Crop/tidyup scan edges leaving the duplicated area on both scans.

Create a blank image which is as wide as both the scans combined.

drag and drop each of the two scans onto new image so they are on different layers.

position layers so that they join up perfectly. Zooming in helps get this spot on.

Providng you aligned edges of print when scanning then it works every time.

tip: make the scans much bigger than you need and downsize after joining them. This gets rid of most dust and any tiny join marks.

I have done this several times and it easy, quite quick and doesn't require any special software other than what you already have.

If scanner glass doesn't have a lip then tape a ruler to scanner to provide a straight edge lip to align print.

Problems? If you need to rotate the print to get the other end on the scan bed then you had better be sure the edge of the print paper is parallel to the print area otherwise you will have to play with the image rotate option on one half of the print to align it. rotate can be done 0.1 degree at a time but it does affect quality.

[QT Luong]

I believe "Photomerge" (in File>Automate) was introduced in CS.

Back to topic, my suggestion is to find a site that you like, copy the design, and then start from there and make your own improvements. This will also force you to have a clean and simple design that you can understand. Frank makes an excellent point that unlike a print or a book, a website has to evolve. The only thing you really need to plan well in advance is your data and directory structures if you create a very large site.

[robert_4927]

Rob, Thanks, It sounds doable enough. I'm glad you picked up on the fact that Pt/pd printer usually means he has never even stepped foot into photoshop. Thank you for explaining it to a photoshop layman. The fact is...We that prefer alternative processes can benefit from photoshop too . Whether it is enlarging negatives or downloading images. Now please don't allow this to turn into the normal "alt. vs. digital " p-ss-ng contest. I'm simply stating what and how I see things and if that doesn't adhere to everyones views then so be it. Maybe I have somewhat of a uniqueness after all. But let's look at it this way. Once I publish it we will all have more to talk about than we do now. So blacking my eye or stomping on my ego...well... that's been done before and nobody is getting a cherry here, that's for sure. I just want to be able to share my work with peers . Because it is your eyes that judges what most of us accept as the pinnacle of achievement. ( pssst.....How does that sound). Anyway , thanks again.. Like I said before, rarely have I been led astray here and that holds true tonight. Thanks again, Robert

[Frank Petronio]

Back to websites and photo galleries, I am not exactly comfortable with the suggestion (implied) that you copy the code to a site you like as a starting point. First, it's as unethical as swiping a photograph or plagarizing text, although most people don't treat code as reverantly and if you have half a brain you'll be changing it anyway. But worse is the whole problem with using templates and ready-mades in the first place. The process of building something from the ground up is healthy not only for you but for the end results.

Of course we can't really build anything totally from scratch, but please don't just swipe a site and plug your photos in. That just seems sleazy to me.

That said, I like the way a lot of Flicker based sites display photos over the typical thumbnails and gallery approach most professional photographers impose on people. I also like seeing 800 pixel wide beautiful detailed images instead of little 300 pixel wide images with paranoid copyright notices overlaid on top of them.

My contridictions are obvious...

[robc]

"But worse is the whole problem with using templates and ready-mades in the first place."

but Frank your site is exactly that. It said typepad as soon as I looked at it. This a clear case of the kettle calling the pot black.

[Frank Petronio]

No, it's a case of you not knowing what you're talking about rob...

[robc]

I heard it reported that there are now as many web pages(not sites) as there are people in the world and still growing rapidly.

Someone somewhere is going to be able to acuse any one of us of plagiarising their web site unless we are capable of some very very original design. But of course, if you create a piece of truly original design then you are likely to be accused of being unfashionable or a non conformist.

You just can't win.

[robc]

don't get me wrong frank, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your site but if I'm not mistaken its created using Moveabletype which is a ready made product which is highly configurable using templates(which you can design yourself), plugins, css and a CMS. If its not then I suggest you remove the text which says powered by MoveableType.
All I'm asking is why you are suggesting other people don't do it if you are doing it yourself.

[robc]

And to get back on topic..

Ed, to add to my original list of freebie software you might consider movabletype yourself.

The benefits are you can have a site up and running very quick. It has a content management system for text. It has a plethora of free plugins and templates some of which can create a gallery/photoblog section in your site.

You can go with a free template to start and when you've got upto speed on how it all works you can create your own templates. One of MT's strong points is that having created a new template you can regenerate the site from your exsiting content so you don't have to reinput anything. Also it generates static html if you want it to which helps greatly with performance.
Its highly configurable.

And its all free until you want to start using it for commercial purposes at which point you can buy the relevant license.

server requirements are Perl and MySql and its best to have PHP as well for some functionality. Imagemagick also but I think it works with GD libraries if ImageMagick is not available.
Most Unix based webserververs have all of the above installed.

check it out

www.sixapart.com/movabletype/pricing (http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/pricing)

www.sixapart.com/pronet/plugins/photos/index.html (http://www.sixapart.com/pronet/plugins/photos/index.html)

Another one is

wordpress.org (http://wordpress.org) which is real simple to install, totally free but its pages are produced dynamically. Lots of free "Themes" for ths one too including photoblog themes. Requires PHP and MySQL

[Frank Petronio]

Movable Type is great but my sites are hand built, not from templates. And MT is only used on the front page and archive, certainly not for the photo galleries or case studies. MT or any of the database driven content management systems (or "blogging" software) is a great tool to use with a website, and it is true you can start with a Blogger or TypePad template that is a lot nicer than 99% of the other templates out there.

Sorry to be snippy but I put a lot into those "simple" sites that might not be obvious at a quick glance. The intent is to have the site design "get out of the way" but also to be seamless and do everything people need it to do. And MT makes them very easy to update on a frequent basis.

[Paul Butzi]

Here's a site that I'm sure some folks think is the bee's knees:
www.bf-collotype.com/ (http://www.bf-collotype.com/)

Several points: Immediately you browse to the 'splash' page, the site throws an ENORMOUS popup window. Despite the popup window being HUGE on my 1600x1200 screen, the window is actually filled with an enormous graphic. This graphic is really big - 700 x 1895 pixels, 266 kilobytes. Not only does it completely obscure the wonderfully irritating 'skip intro' animation, even on my huge screen, (thus irritating me even with my 3 megabit/second link) but will drive people using a dialup to just close the windows and move on. On a dialup link, this damn humongous graphic will take about a minute to download.

To top it off, the text in the graphic is rendered horribly. It's damn near unreadable on my screen. It's big, it's slow, and it's UGLY - a trifecta of defects.

Note that most people browse with a pop-up blocker, and thus will never see this big, ugly, slow to download graphic.

Once we get past the obnoxious popup, we are confronted with a slow moving 'skip intro'. Why are 'skip intro' animations bad? Because everyone who's used a browser for more than ten minutes has been ruthlessly trained to a) ignore the skip intro animation, and b) immediately start searching the browser window for the hidden text that reads 'skip intro' so they can skip the damn thing and get on with finding what they came to the website to see. That's why the damn things are called 'skip intro'!

Ok, so we've closed the popup, we've skipped the 'skip intro'. The main page we land on is another animation! Oh, no! We have to WAIT before it deigns to give us the menu of things we might do at this website. We search for the menu of options, but until the animation has rolled for a little while, we don't have a menu! Bad Website! No biscuit!

And because the whole damn thing is done with flash, it doesn't scale as the window size changes. If your window is too small, you have to use scroll bars. If it's too large, you end up with a huge, blank expanse of white with the little, bitty flash thing running in an island in the center.

If I click on 'exhibition', I get the same damn ugly huge popup I got before! Sorry guys, I've seen that!

If I click on 'book', I get treated to another window (bad website, no biscuit!) which runs another animation. It slowly, slowly shows me a book, one image at a time. I can't control the rate of frame changing. I can't speed it up, I can't search it, I can't pause it to examine something more closely. It's a little puzzle. What the hell is this? Is it more than one book? Is it all one book?

If I click on 'order form', I get ANOTHER WINDOW with the pdf order form in it.

Note that none of these new windows have normal navigation bars - oh, no. They don't want me to navigate, not even after they've opened enormous windows that obscure the main page window, even on my HONKIN' BIG 1600x1200 screen. I have to CLOSE THE DAMN WINDOW to explore more.

Meanwhile, in the background, hidden by these new, popped up windows, the main page animation is still running, sucking up resources.

Ok, let's explore more. Oh, no! When I click on the 'atelier' link, I get ANOTHER HUGE NEW WINDOW WITH AN ANIMATION! So I sit and wait, and eventually it gives me some text. It's hard to read the text, because it's sized for some little dinky low res display (unlike the other big windows, which would be impossible to read on a smaller display). Because it's flash, I can't scale the text using the browser text size control. Bad website! No biscuit!

There's no scroll bar to indicate that we can scroll this text, but if we're adventurous, we can try mousing over the two, unlabeled triangles. The scroll the text up and down - now, that's intuitive. You don't have to click on them, just mousing over them scrolls the text - an interaction model completely unlike all the websites we've ever visited before. The entire world knows what scroll bars are for, but we have to learn something NEW to use this damn website. Lots of people will never figure this out, so the rest of the text will go unread. The text is damn hard to read on my screen anyway, because it's so darn small, and the browser text size control doesn't work.

Clicking on the 'next' thingie (which is small, hard to see, and harder to read) 'turns the page'. That's nice, but it takes a frickin' eon to do it, and I have to sit and twiddle my thumbs while it happens.

Sorry, I just don't have time to wait for ten seconds just to get the next damn page. I close that window, leaving the whole saga unread. Too frustrating for me, and probably for everyone who isn't employed by or married to the person who designed the website.

Net result: I've learned nothing from visiting the website except that some website designs just tick me off. Nothing on this website is indexable by search engines, and search engines drive the VAST majority of website visits. We've got a website that's slow, requires a fast link to view, doesn't adjust for monitor size, and can't be found by search engines. Wow, that's great.

Bottom line: if your website is supposed to replace your demo tape, flash is fine. If it's supposed to actually allow people to find things, it's a bad plan. If you need flash to show people your demo tape - go ahead. Just embed the flash thingie behind a link that says 'Demo Tape' on the main page of your normal, html website.

[Oren Grad]

Well, the collotype website evidently almost didn't work at all when I went to it, perhaps because I'm blocking popups. All I got was the small frame with the main animation/menus, and none of the menus worked.

Probably just as well, given what Paul reports. But my conclusion is the same as his - hardly a way to win friends for whatever it is you're trying to promote.