• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

building a website

I would suggest that you stick with html even though many of the alternatives are done in Flash. For the most part I use Dreamweaver and think it is the best program out there. I am completely fluent in Flash as well, but I prefer to use html. It is difficult to optimize a Flash site to load well in a short time. It is doable, but you need experience. I don't recommend Flash obviously.

Look at the website in my signature. It is all html. Many effects can be used to make the site look a little better. The layout is done with frames, the whole feeling of the site (colors, fonts, links) is all controlled with css. I can change the look of the entire site in one minute. You can also look at the html of any site in your browser by using the "view code" or "view page source" in your browser.

Avoid the fluff. If you don't have something for the visitor to look at within ten seconds they will be gone. You get one or two clicks at most. Most websites ore complete crap in my opinion. I looked at some of the examples above (not all) and most of them were awful from a usability standpoint (I don't mean the content, but the layout). I have many years experience in this. Most "designers" try to make the site look slick, but it backfires unless the site is so incredible it substitutes for entertainment.

Get Dreamweaver, learn a few things about frames, tables and css and you will be 90% there. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. It really isn't that daunting.
 
Yea, just looked through some of your portfolios. Does not look pretty. Most look outdated and tacky, using cheap gradients, print fonts on the web, etc... generally look like websites out of the 90s or early 00s.
It's true that it is difficult to keep up, for those who are out of their 20s... but you have to realize that if you are running a business, many of your customers will be young and aware of good site design standards.

As a younger consumer myself, I think a lot of you need to reassess your online presence... having no site [example, just a flickr album full of images] is better than having an unprofessional site.
 
I'm using wordpress for mine, just modified a theme I found, still not done with it but there's a bunch of pictures up and whatnot. Feel free to look.
 
I started with FrontPage in 1999, then moved to Dreamweaver 4.0, dating back to 2002, has been used continuously for the webs I build non-photography clients e.g. otwaywalks.com; I'm looking to move to Dreamweaver CS4 soon. I often hand-code (html) as learned in 1999, but javascripts are "drag and drop": I hate coding them! WordPress is innovative and fast. Trellian Webpage is a little cryptic and worth experimenting with.
 
Merg Ross and Patrick Robert James, your sites are very good, simple, elegant and usable. A similar site, by a friend, that I consider to be the apotheosis of simple elegant artist's site is Dead Link Removed.

Note this is fine art photography, and not necessarily useful for a wedding photog or a commercial photog.

I also consider his work, mostly platinum paladium right now, to be awe inspiring. I'm pretty sure he had a professional designer do his, but I'm going to contact him and find out.

I have tried squarespace, zenfolio and iWeb and --- ironically --- have found it impossible to design a site with their templates that is as simple and elegant as David Johndrow's or Merg Ross's. I am not inclined to learn HTML or dreamweaver. If I could find a template-type host site where you could do a simple elegant site like David's, I would just pop. I'll look at some of the ones noted above, but I'm not optimistic.

Why is it hard to offer a template that is simple?
 
Pixelpost is photblogging software that allows you to present photos, tag them, group them, accept comments, etc. You can check out my own site for an example, although I've customized it a bit (it's open source). It works pretty well out of the box, however, and is easy to install.

Here's their website:
www.pixelpost.org
 
apconan said:
... generally look like websites out of the 90s or early 00s.

It's true that it is difficult to keep up, for those who are out of their 20s...
Click to expand...

You're hilarious. (But you may not have meant to be so.)
 

Um -- I guess since I'm nearly 50 years past the cut-off age :rolleyes: I should sit on my hands, but what the hey ...

I have observed a strain of software development philosophy, both in websites and in general SW applications that might be summarized as "Do it because it can be done." This oft times leads to designs by geeks, for geeks, which lose sight of what it's about, namely conveying information to any random member of the public who might be looking for something and who may or may not be comfortable in front of a computer. Gratuitous background music, boxes popping up tellling me I need to install at least Build xyz.3 of last month's release of some whiz-bang video player, etc. will prompt me to hit the back button. Good grief, believe it or not, there's even some people out there who are still on dial-up who might be interested in your site without wanting to download a 3 MB movie as an introduction.

I maintain a site for a local art club (that I belong to) that is coded in HTML with Windoze Notepad. I did break down and start using frames for improved navigation about 2 or 3 years ago. I do take advantage of my PBase galleries to put up photos of various club events using the gallery templates available there. I recently got a big pat on the back from the gallery director at a local college about how she went to the site to check something about the club and "it was so easy to navigate, one of the nicest I've seen." And I can tell you it's very simple, it resides on part of my personal space and is not really a "hosted" site, so it has to stay simple.

I freely acknowledge being a curmudegeonly old f@rt (and proud of it! ) but I'm not convinced slick and flashy is all that essential. One must not lose sight of the basics.

DaveT, who saw 20 in 1961!
 

Thanks for your comments, simplicity was the operative word for my daughter when she designed my site. It was her first and last attempt, although she updates it for me as her time allows, about once a year.

I have heard from my dial-up friends that it loads quite fast, which is an added plus.

www.mergross.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Now you are just assuming that I meant movies and background music. By good design standards, I mean nice, usable websites. Many of my favorite sites have one font, entirely white backgrounds, and no images other than the photos on display.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register