fade in/out with flash

[jgrim8]

Hi all. I'm very new with Flash. My main page to my website has a

flash show, which is good. But I would like to fade the photos in

and out for a smooth transition. Does anyone know how to do this in

Flash? Thanks!

[jimstrutz]

Just say, "No."

 

Flash is too slow. It ticks people off. When 95% of your audience has a fast version of broad band, then use flash. Right now too many of us either don't have broadband, or have a slow version of it. As soon as I click on a flash site, I look for a "skip" button. If I don't see one right away, I go some where else.

[lex_jenkins]

Jennifer, I don't have an answer to your question but I just visited your site and like it. I don't mind Flash when I'm on DSL. It's quick enough and a good design with smallish photos can be very appealing. Even on a fast dialup I don't mind a well designed Flash site as long as the photos aren't oversized.

 

However, you might consider adding an HTML option for folks on dialup or those who simply don't care for Flash. When I'm on a slower connection I appreciate sites that offer this option.

 

Also, a couple of minor nits:

 

1. There's no obvious way to navigate back to certain sections on your site. You should include a "Home" and "Back" option on every page. You might be surprised at the number of folks using the web who don't know how to use the back button on their browser.

 

For example, from the "wedding.htm" page, once an option is selected (Anticipation, Ceremony, Celebration, Details), there's no obvious way to navigate back to this main page.

 

Granted, you'd think most folks would understand how to do this without it being spelled out in huge screaming letters. But after years of watching my grandmother, mom and cousin struggle with web browsing, I'm convinced the best solution is to make things as easy as possible for viewers. Personally, I'm comfortable with tabbed browsing using Firefox, but no matter how hard I try I can't convey the concept to my mom.

 

2. The Portraits section loads pretty sluggishly, even over DSL. I thought the site had frozen or something. The Wedding and Commercial sections are sprightly over DSL and I like the way the thumbs bubble up.

 

3. Finally, a fairly minor nit - I kinda like mouseover thumbnails. It's a cool feature when it works properly. And, heck, if you're gonna use Flash, why not. Instead of clicking on a thumb you just mouse over it and the full size photo appears. The problem with this option on some sites is that the trigger is too twitchy. Not a big deal, especially if it's difficult to design. My mom would probably hate this option, tho' - her hands are shaky so maybe mouseovers aren't such a hot idea. Okay, never mind, now I'm just rambling...

[gary evans]

Honestly, I really don't get all this Flash-bashing. If it improves the aesthetics of your site, go with it!

 

Anyone without broadband is probably not someone you want to haggle with over price anyway.

 

Most people I know are completely unsaavy (is that a word) about computers. They all use I.E., and when they come across a website that they purposefully meant to go to, they will download the latest Flash plug-in, with no regard to viruses.

 

It may be sad with the amount of jerks out there trying to spread viruses, but it's the way things are.

 

Sure, anyone involved with computers may feel the same way about Flash, but if they are getting married and trying to book a photographer, if they're going to your site in the first place it's because they somehow became interested. Other than a blind Google search being that reason, even the most hard-core systems security experts will download the Flash plug-in to see your work. Those like Jim, who will go elsewhere, keep in mind that they are not interested in purchasing your services anyway.

 

Jim, if B&H and/or Adorama installed some un-skippable Flash on their homepages, would you stop shopping there, assuming you do currently?

 

Disclaimer: My statements only apply in areas where either DSL or Cable access is widely available. If everyone's still on dial-up because it's that or the ridiculous prices of DirecTV's web dish in your area, then maybe Jim has a point. But if high-speed access is readily available, most people that don't have it are just too cheap to worry about. Hell, my parents (both 67) have a cable modem, and all they do with the Internet is e-mail and play Yahoo! Gin Rummy!

[jgrim8]

Thanks for all your advise! I'm actaully tring to add my normal menu buttons on the bottom of the pages for the wedding options. The problem is I'm using simpleviewer (flash) and the html buttons don't do anything when I add them in dreamweaver. It's very frustrating. I want everthing to be simple to navigate through and have consistancy, and I'm not sure how to make anything faster. I'm designing everything on my own because I can't afford to pay and I already know so much about html.

[think27]

Interesting opinion Gary... I have dial-up and I'm not cheap. Kind of a broad brush statement you made there.

 

My UPS store was on cable modem and when there was a storm (lightening/thunder) it fried their computer beyond repair. They

said a surge protector is useless with cable. It's possible there

is a way to protect the comptuer that they didn't know about and

I haven't looked into it.. But I decided I wouldn't take that chance and stayed with dial-up.

[gary evans]

Mary, you stay with dial up for your own reasons, which I'm sure have to do with using your computer for work purposes, owning your own business, and possible loss of income related to losing files and productivity due to your computer getting fried.

 

But you are definitely in the minority there. Think about it, people who only use their computers for home surfing and for e-mail don't have anything too valuable on their machines, and all they really care about is not sitting there waiting for a page to load for 45 seconds. Or that they don't have to wait 30 minutes to download each picture that their sister Nancy e-mailed of the nephews and nieces because she e-mailed the super fine JPEGs and has no clue how to downsize the image. Anyone that falls in to this category, unless they're cheap or it's unavailable, is on some sort of high speed connection.

 

Then let's take the people who do do a lot of work on their computers, such as you and me. The majority of us, myself included and yourself excluded, need fast internet speeds to access our office networks to get work done. Hell, the security alone on your average mid-sized companies network would eat up 90% of your band width on dial up. We're all on high speed connections.

 

The only people who are still on dial up are people such as yourself, who use their computers for work extensively, but do not extensively use the internet for work, outside of e-mail. Everyone else on dial up is either too cheap to switch, doesn't have high speed available, or does not use their computer enough to make it worthwhile. But that leaves, I would think, the vast majority of her target audience using high speed. I know the vast majority of your target audience is on high speed Mary, since I probably live within 10-20 miles of you...

[jka]

Jennifer, my advice (for what it's worth) is to target your site towards people with dial-up service. That way, your not shutting out half of your target audience and potential customers. I'm from a pretty rural area and most people are lucky to have dial-up. I'm blessed that I fell within the area that had cable available, although I did have to run the last 1,000' myself because I live too far off the road.

 

John

[jgrim8]

Thanks! I think I will just try to do the whole site in HTML (not both). It's just a little bit more difficult to set up the galleries.

[jimstrutz]

<i>"But that leaves, I would think, the vast majority of her target audience using high speed."</I>

<P>

I mean no disrespect Gary, but where do you get the "vast majority" statistic? Last I read 20-30% of residential internet customers in the US were still using dial up. I know it's going down, but it's just not there yet. Besides, there are some of us on slow DSL, running at about 1/3 gigabit. Sites that are heavy into flash are a pain with this version of DSL. I know this is partly based on where one lives, but also partly based on how much one wants to spend for such things. That doesn't mean a person on such a medium speed line would not be willing to spend more than average on wedding photography. That's a totally different catagory.

<P>

If a photographer is exclusively going after the high end, or upscale market, flash is fine. But if you are looking for the average customer too, why dismiss 20% of your potential clients for no good reason? Flash ain't that good.

<P>

You make a good point about B&H or Adorama & flash. I might still shop there, but only for very specific items. A flash site (at least one heavy into it) would stop me from browsing there. I do notice that neither B&H nor Adorama has decided to reduce their internet sales by incorporating flash in their site.

<P>

I also don't universally bail out of flash sites. There are sometimes things I want to see bad enough to overcome my impatience. But I have to really want it.

[patuphotographykenya]

Jennifer, there is tutorial on http://www.webdevelopersnotes.com/tutorials/flash/index.php3.

You might try it if you like. Keeping the site loading problem, you might want to limit your usage.

I personally really like sites with flash esp photography ones!!!

[gary evans]

Jim, last I read, there are actually more dial-up users than broadband. But you have to look at what those markets consist of. I am 33 years old. I figure that the vast majority of those getting married for the first time (from what I've read, not many second or later marriages go whole hog on the day) are my age or younger, maybe even up to 35 if you're in the north. If you look at 35 and younger, you've probably got 90% of your first time wedding market. My generation is really not very tolerant of slow internet speeds. It's just the way it is.

 

Are there exceptions? Certainly. But not everyone is going to like your photography-style either. Should you learn styles that really aren't "yours" just so you can please everyone as well? Or is it better to stick with your vision and what sets you apart?

 

The point is, if you're in an area where broadband is readily available, and you think Flash is really going to make your site more aesthetically pleasing than html, as long as it's done well, go ahead and use Flash. Hell, on my cable modem, I came across a photographer's site done in Flash just last night, and even with a good connection, I bailed on his site prior to his Flash gallery loading, it just took too long. But that's part of "doing it well", not Flash's fault.

 

I think a lot of the problem people have with Flash sites comes from the person putting every photo they've ever shot in their gallery. Not enough selection going on.

[jgrim8]

Thanks. I'll try that. Do you think I should stick with one or the other and not use HTML and some flash together?

[lex_jenkins]

Jen, you've got a personal style. I've looked at your photos several times over the past few months. So I think you should at least offer Flash as an option, because you can use it to convey your personal sense of style.

 

The mere appearance and design of Flash can be so varied it's an effective tool for creative expression. HTML tends to be more straightforward and may say less about your style.

 

Even before someone looks at your photos the design of your site will say something about you. Flash is good for that. So I'd say offer both. If that's not practical, I'd say go with Flash. But check it via dialup to evaluate the speed. It ain't just the younger generation who want fast fast fast. Over the years I've noticed my older family members became impatient as they aged.