LScottPht@aol.com wrote/replied to: > ><< Does Ami Vitale have one? I'd bet she does... > >> > >Actually, I don't think she does. She does have a button to skip intro, but >the whole site uses flash and it's a shame you can't view it. Ok, I've been and seen Ami's site. Nice site. She does have a button to bypass the intro, and the entire site is in Flash and it's well done. Likely a bear for dial up so she's ahead of her time but likely she'll get website awards. With her photos I don't think she has to worry about losing a customer. She has an awesome array of incredible photos and it's presented very nicely, at least here with fast ADSL. But I think Ami's photos would also be darned striking if presented well without Flash. Also, I've heard it said that simple Javascript can do most of these things. I must say that this site has given me a real urge now to create something similar :-) It certainly does highlight and make the photos seem even more fantastic than they would otherwise be, and perhaps this edge is all I need to make it big too :-) While my IE has all the bells and whistles such as Flash installed, my regular browser Mozilla does not. So I simply loaded up IE, risked it all, and view the site. I haven't used IE for ages, forgot about it, Mozilla is that good. The best part is no more pop-ups without the need to install another program, Mozilla has that built in. Yes you can install Flash into it. I chose not to. I'd be interested in how this site of Ami's works for a 56k dial up person if anyone checks it out. I did notice it took a few seconds for all the image to load on each section before any image could actually be displayed. This could be several minutes of more depending on the connection and machine. I'm also now interested in discussing whether this type of displaying gallery would work for a more artistic type of photo. I mean, these photos are whack you in the face type, whereas my subtle but sublime duck images for example take some time viewing to really get the feel for. I really like having them display on a page a little more permanently and perhaps with slightly less punch in the face too. My thoughts are the thumbnail type of gallery is too easy to quick click through without really savouring or appreciating the image. This suits Ami's images well, some images are not that type to examine closely. I really like displaying full sized images on a page without thumbs, about 8 to the page, and in categories. But the first image starting displaying right away even for dialup so they get something to look at while the rest of a large page loads. But other things I've perhaps learned from this site, is to maybe cut down on the quantity of images I show, and just show the really great ones. The idea being to impress people, not show them every image you ever took. I've heard it said though that ultimately every smart website tries to cater to every browser, from hand held to laptop to workstation, Mac to older Windoze, etc. I wonder how this site would display on a 486 in 16 colours or a tiny handheld Windoze CE machine. I'd like anyone else's thoughts on this, or what type of gallery suits what type of photography because I'd really like to hear everyone's opinion. Maybe I can have bird sounds open up my Flash page... Jim Davis Nature Photography http://jimdavis.oberro.com Replies in plain text only please!
