mdude85 wrote:
If someone is worried about people stealing their images, then that person should not be uploading their images to the Internet in any fashion whatsoever.
THat was sort of the point I was trying to make.
pipspeak wrote:
flash sites have one other huge advantage IMO -- all the code is pre-compiled and standardized, so the site will look the same on every computer with a flash player installed.
The big problem with non-flash sites (which I'm wrestling with now) is that every browser and every version of every browser can render some aspects of html, css, js, php etc. slightly differently, so what works nicely on IE7 and Moz, for example, might not work as planned on IE 6 or Safari. It can be a royal PITA when designing a site using all those coding elements together.
If you code your sites to be compliant with HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0 strict and leave out coding elements that aren't fully compatible with certain browsers, you can make your websites very homogeneous among browsers. I designed my website using plain CSS divs to be XHTML 1.0 compliant (and the W3C validator acknowledges as much). Essentially, if you're mindful of what you use and try not to use any exotic HTML markup elements, you'll be fine for the most part.
When it comes down to it, I take the simplicity approach to web site design. The site should be more about information than presentation: Substance over style.
you have nice pics but not the best medium to show them off.
If the pics were bigger that would rule.
What everyone else has said is spot on- the dark grey fails completely in making the site easy to navigate. Scrolling down on pages is a big no-no and just pisses me off since 99% of other photographers websites I don't have to.
The font just plain sucks. It looks like a 1980s font when screens had about 20 pixels on them.
There's a big bar of black space at the top that takes up about an inch or so on my screen, lose that and you'll fit a lot more on and your pictures are so so so small.
