Sphere Magazine Launches

[dominic_.]

I have to say that I actually think the Flash works really well in this case, its actually (in my opinion), quite well done. For people with slower connections however you might want to have a non-Flash version of the site as well, many websites work very effectively with one Flash site and one non-Flash site.

 

The photography is beautiful Aaron, and from what I can tell you've put a lot of work into your magazine. The layout is very well done as well. Hope you have sucess with your new magazine.

 

--Dominic

[james_oneill]

So <b>Aaron, </b><br>

1. Everyone must wait for a massive download because the editor hates waiting between pages. Editors perogative I guess, but you're sending pages that won't be read. <p>

2. "Readers you must wait longer for everything so we can send you advertising which is MORE annoying". <p>

3. If you had HTML layout you could serve ads with magaizne pages. Not being able to jump pages (like I can with a magazine) means the adverts get in the way. If Absolut have one of their ads on the back cover of wired, then I think "hey that's cool", but if it another page which is in my way, I'm less likely to buy their product. You also can't tell advertisers how many people have viewed their ad, because in a printed magazine, most readers look at all the pages. You don't know which users didn't scroll to the end, so the advertizer on the last page is going to get fewer views than those on the first<p>

 

4. The page turning is pretty, but it doesn't add value to the site. I think that the delay watching the effect is about the same as the load time for the page done sans flash.<p>

 

5. Well, his book has sold 100,000 copies (acording to amazon). A web site which is plain but with good content (photo.net, google) will tend to do better than one which is all flim-flam, animations, flash and poorly written text. <p>

 

Still waiting to know how the use of flash adds value to the site for the viewer. <p>

 

<b> Eric</b> I'm not hostile to flash per-se any more than I am hostile to pop-up windows Per-se. It just so happens that almost everything that uses a pop-up window does so to crap on my screen. Ditto almost everything that uses flash. The last straw came when one web site served an animated flash ad, which when you moved the mouse over it played a sound track. It sat across the whole width of the page at the top, so that you couldn't click on the tool bar, address bar or menu bar without setting the damn thing off. "Right no more flash" I said - 5 clicks in IE and it is disabled. DPreview also had a motion sickness inducing bit of flash to advertise the anti-shake in the new minolta. Bye bye. <br>

hen I get a link to the something like the Polar Bears game that greenpeace had (flash content which couldn't be done with anything else), two or three clicks turns flash back on. But when faced with a site that needs flash (or a JVM) to do <i>anything</I>, my first reaction is it probably has no worthwhile content (wrong for Aaron's mag as it turns out) and if it is commercial, I conclude they don't care if they sell to me or not. So I go elsewhere. Bueh's link expands on these ideas, and the Nielsen doctrine.

[jbs]

A lot of controversy here. First Aaron I really like the site. I have cable so the download doesn't bother me. I am surprised that people want to pick on you for making an interesting site rather than bug the local isp to get a faster hookup to them. Which is worse?; a crappy site~ or a cheap internet surfer~ or the ripoff cable company? My only complaint is that there wan't music to go along with the images. I love doing that in presentations <A href="http://www.digitalreflections.biz/wmv/wakeup04movie~wmv81k_wmv.htm

">(if you have a good connection go here!!!)</A>

Or you can go <A href="http://www.digitalreflections.biz/fine-art-page.html

">here</A>or any where on the video side of my site and see images with sound. <A href="http://www.digitalreflections.biz/front-page-fast-1.html

">(video side)</A>

 

I love flash and my wife is trying to get me to buy her a copy and, I just may. Like the other site too...;)....J

[jbs]

"Still waiting to know how the use of flash adds value to the site for the viewer."

 

Without the Flash effect sphere would hold very little for me. Nice picture though and I might have bookmarked it but with flash I immediately bookmarked it so that I can see what else these people can do that is newish and refreshing by way of presentaion and content. Does that answere the question? ...;)...J

[aaron_j_ban]

oiy, keeping up with this thread is a fulltime job. Just one little note for today, we've actually achieved an 18% clickthrough rate on our ads (normal is 2% at best) and we've got a 40% bookmark rate. Both very good.

 

And actually James I can track individual impressions because I also built a custom stats and tracking application (I've been working with Flash for a long time). We got just over 1000 visits today and 85% went through the entire book. I'm happy with that.

[h._p.]

" It's linear because it prevents the ability to skip ads."

 

Thanks for the warning. That's given me an extremely good reason to avoid your site.

[tholte]

Kind of a groovy little magazine but the cover shot did'nt do much for me, a little on the boring side.

[james_oneill]

I left flash re-enabled by mistake and ended up at <a href="http://www.whitsandbaydivers.com/">a site about scuba diving</a>

Flash fans please take a look<p>

 

For non-divers the things I want to know are "What can they take me diving on ?", "What courses do they offer ?", "What does it cost?", "Where can I stay ?", and "How do I get to the place ?". None of that is there. But there is some flash to hide the fact. Their competitors have content but no flash, and so can expect to get my money.<p>

This is the sort of thing I have come to expect from a pure flash site, and why I tend not to bother do drop the barrier put up for advertising flash "Turds" when I meet one.

[patricks]

Aaron - congrats on launching a new mag! It does look tight and clean, which I like. the ability to land an interview with Sacha in your 1st # is quite impressive. i'm a long time fan of his work and his sites. </p>

 

Flash - it is not a must for a good image driven site, but it does add a powerful tool for the designers who know how to use it. it also makes it harder for viewers to right-click on images and steal them. </p>

 

Jim - you must be kidding w/ your line of reasoning! Jakob Nielsen is so 1997, and I seriously doubt anyone having spend more than 10 hours on the web, or in professional web design, pays even the slightest attention to his ideas/opinions. the fact that you have turned of flash on your browser says more than you think about yourself. </p>

 

For those who wants to see a cool flash site, visit <a href="http://www.introversion.com/">introversion.com </a>

[EricM]

James, That's fine. But to judge all flash sites from a few that are poorly written and missing content, that html users are capable of too, is just silly. I don't care what you disable in your browser, nor what great sites and creativity you miss by doing so. I would just prefer a intelligent point instead of crapping in someone's show and tell space.

[james_oneill]

Eric, you're missing my point. Because flash is the first port of call for those who have not worked out what they want to say, but have got a clever designer to say it for them, a growing number of people will turn flash off. I can turn it back on in a couple of clicks, but I need to have a reason to do so. A little HTML wrapped around the flash - or even a link to a page which tells me what I'd get if I ventured inside would be a reason. But a page with flash and nothing else - I've got plenty of ways to fill my day WITHOUT looking at the site. So Flash only = No site as far as I'm concerned.

 

As more people get the update for IE you'll find plenty turning flash off - right now I've only done it because I'm on a beta program so it's hardly the mainstram thing to do. From his posts Aaron's view appears to be such potential readers can just F--- off. Shame, really because the content isn't bad, and although flash makes it a pain to navigate without adding value for the reader, the content might be worth going there for.

[EricM]

I haven t missed your point at all. Again, you're making blanket generalizations and assumptions. I think you are naïve to think that this mag and its audiences can do without the bells and whistles of interaction. And an html site would suffice? It can't. The readers wouldn't revisit, the advertisement wouldn't follow. It would be plain, boring, and predictable. This counters the audience. This counters what most want from navigating through a site today. Internet surfing is second to television for entertainment, not research. Do what you want with your browser, it's your choices that are limited. To bad you can't check out the photos of <a href=" http://www.elliotterwitt.com/entry.html">Elliot Erwitt</a> and thousands of others.

[patricks]

james,

 

<i>"Because flash is the first port of call for those who have not worked out what they want to say, but have got a clever designer to say it for them..."</i> </p>

 

do you even believe what you are saying? of course you are entitled to your opinion but your unforgiving blanket statements about other people's work and intentions are an insult. a statement like that adds nothing good and in the long run only serves to make you look like a fool.

[patricks]

by the way Aaron, since you guys interviewd saha db, do you know if he used medium format for this 'earth pilgrim' series - those mono shots are just breath-taking!

[aaron_j_ban]

that I don't know. We were mainly focused on Eccentris because of hte fashion angle, but Earth Pilgrim is obviously excellent as well.

 

I would assume yes because that's what he shoots with (I think). I know for sure that it's not digital. That's definately for sure :)

 

AJB

[patricks]

well, i read somewhere that he went through 2,500 rolls of film for the project so it is not digital for sure! :-)

[jack_carlton]

I think James is not too far off as some might think. The problem with Flash is that it is often used for advertising in the widest sense of the word. All too often you stumble over flashed sites only to learn that their content is, well ... shallow.

 

On the other hand, those sites associated with content (useful or not) are mostly not based on Flash, they're DHTML or something. And they are actualised on a regular basis.

 

So this impression (useful content vs. dubious advertising) is there after a few years of Flash on the Internet, and Flash designers should be aware of this. I regularly see Flash in portfolio sites, in a creative context, be it a designer, a photographer et al. In this case (Aaron's magazine) I think the site is not overly flashed in it's look and feel, it's just this neat page-turning gizmo. But I don't know if this effect is enough to generally deride this site. After all, it's some sort of a portfolio as well.

[james_oneill]

Patrick. Yes. What I say is absolutely correct.

 

I DID NOT say that sites which use flash have no content worth the name. I have said repeatedly that Aarons site seems to have good content (although I was too frustrated by the Navigation to look at it all). I did say that flash doesn't add value for the viewer. Sorry, but pretty page turns aren't worth anything to me. I'm only interested in what is on the pages. Aarons use of flash stops me going back to a page, or sending a link to the page, or going straight to the article I want.

NET: even on a site with some worthwhile content flash has ended up subtracting value for the reader.

 

 

Do you accept that there are ANY badly thought out web sites ? Do you accept that are ANY sites which are all presentation and no substance ? Do you accept designers turn to one technique more than others when the client wants "sparkle" but hasn't got anything to say ? [i hold that these truths are self evident.] What's that technique if not flash ?

[jack_carlton]

"Aarons use of flash stops me going back to a page, or sending a link to the page, or going straight to the article I want. NET: even on a site with some worthwhile content flash has ended up subtracting value for the reader."

 

Agreed.

[derek_stanton2]

Patrick,

 

Regarding Sacha Biyan's Earth Pilgrim.... Yes, he does shoot Medium Format. No 35mm in

that work. But, i believe he uses/used a variety of systems. Rollei 6x6 with

Schneider lenses, Mamiya 645 and possibly Pentax 67.

 

Wonderful stuff, isn't it? I'm anxiously awaiting the book....

[phillip_ott]

Aaron, I like your magazine. It has a nice clean feel to it. Good minimalistic graphic design. I agree that it would be nice to jump directly to an article. Nice job with the SDB interview. His work is breath-taking. If you look at the section in Eccentris.com called 'At Work' under Detour, I think your questions about the type of cameras he uses will be answered. Derek, you're right on- as far as I can tell I can notice a Rollei 6x6 (6008?) and a Pentax 67. Those of you blasting Flash sites, get with the times. Perhaps you should read what SDB wrote in his site under Perspective. Work for the future- not the past. Again Aaron, don`t be put off by a few people who can't gt out of the last century. Keep up the good work. Just a suggestion... In your next issue try to hook up an interview with David Lachepple, another fashion photog I admire very much.

 

Best.

[__jon__]

>Aaron J Ban , jun 04, 2004; 04:25 p.m.

 

>lol, James, it's obvious that you don't know much about web design. Flash is a very powerful tool that can be used to create flowing, seamless interfaces which will actually increase the usability of a site when done properly.

 

So why didn't you do it properly? Forced a window larger than my screen in Mozilla. The page dragging is a nuisance. Try again.

[lucas_griego]

Nice site. The shot were good and the layout is clean - it loaded fine on my connection (broadband) and ran fine on my machine (1.7ghtz/XP Pro).

 

As for the flash - yeah no problem - nice touch.

Some like it, some don't...

 

...and then there are those that can hijack a thread and run on and on with their self importance and BS about what they do and how they've spent years designing web sites yadda yadda yadda. Give it a friggin rest already, yes we all heard you, yes we know you don't like flash. Did it really take umpteen lines and responses to say you didn't care for the site? Next time start a thread that say 'Hi everyone look at me I am important!'

 

LOL.

[phillip_ott]

Actually... can't help but feel sorry for those that choose to turn off their Flash. The most innovative and cutting-edge stuff being done on the web is done in Flash. that's probably why most photographers' sites are now being done exclusively in Flash. Just this week Jerry Aveneim re-launched his site entirely in Flash. A nice one too I may add. Do you think people like him or Biyan follow your prehistoric BS philosophy about webdesign? If you're such a web design God why don't you show us what you've done lately. Shame that these posts have to turn out like this just because of a couple of people will never get it. The guy starts out by asking nicely for people to check out his new site which he is proud of (and rightly so) and this is what some of you turn it into- a flame thread. Sheesh. Give your egos a rest dudes.

[james_oneill]

The people who turn off their flash are sick and tired of web turds carrying advertising. If you tell a browser "no sound" Flash still plays sound - it just annoys people.

 

Here's the first thing. Microsoft are just about to ship windows XP service pack 2, it is going to have a HUGE push behind it I'm beta testing it, and it blocks pop-ups by default and makes it easy to rid your browser of this crap. [That's not an attack on flash as a technology, but on the way that it is used; the good sites go out with bad]. SO LISTEN UP IF YOU USE FLASH you don't have to stop using it, but in the next few months more and more people will come to your site with flash off - SO you need to give them a reason to turn it back on. Otherwise you will lose visitors.

 

Second thing. Most people don't give a tinkers cuss about "cutting edge design" sometimes it is just plain annoying. Many can't tell the difference between "Cutting edge design" and "the latest fashion". There are a lot of sites where cutting edge design is a substitute for content, and more where the "cutting edge design" gets in way of content. WHO IS A WEBSITE FOR ? VISITORS OR DESGINERS ? The uncomfortable truth is most times flash is used it doesn't serve the viewer.

 

So the reader arriving at a new site with flash turned off and getting nothing but a little red X feels they have been saved another rotten experience and moves on. This reinforces the first point you MUST give people a reason to come in.

 

Now. The last two posters. before accusing me of being pre-historic or of spouting bullshit, why not read what I actually said.

(1)The reader is king. Pleasing the reader (not the designer)is crucial. Is that bullshit ? Is that being self important ?

 

(2) Flash is a very able technology, but people are getting fed up with it, because it is used badly. (I've never said it was a bad technology) The ability to turn it off easily is just round the corner so those working in flash must make the reader feel that this is more than a site for the designer's ego. Is that bullshit ? Is that being self important ? Or maybe, just maybe I have struck a nerve with some people who produce sites which use all the trediest tricks without asking "What I am trying to give the consumer ?"

 

Oh, and do try to find somewhere that I have said anything that wasn't positive about the content. Being european I don't buy into this "only give positive feedback" thing, if people don't want honest feedback they shouldn't ask.