Web Image gallery layouts?

Reverend · Jul 15, 2006

I need your opinions. Which layout do you like better? Both options are free web-based software. Post up and tell me why.

Option 1: Flash animated,;SimpleViewer
http://www.alsphoto.com/gallery/Weddings/

Option 2: Static, HTML; Gallery Software
http://www.alsphoto.com/gallery/v/Weddings/

Thanks in advance.

omeletteman · Jul 15, 2006

definately flash, it looks more professional.

Orrin · Jul 15, 2006

Keep in mind that some people can't or won't run FLASH for security
reasons!

Your best bet would be to provide an HTML link on the flash site to
the HTML version of the site so that everyone can see your work.

malweth · Jul 15, 2006

I'm against flash for anything that can't be done in HTML. Not everyone uses broadband, but the entire flash app would need to be downloaded. Additionally, you can't save pictures to your hard drive (which may be a positive, but generally there's no threat in having a customer download low-res images).

Flash looks nice, but there's a lot that can be done with simple HTML and Javascript now too... and as "professional" as it seems, an entire website written in flash is very unprofessional... search engines cannot read it.

Even without a professional designer/coder simple HTML and CSS looks good. Professionally designed and database driven with Ajax will make it look even better.

markc · Jul 15, 2006

A lot of people seems to be using Flash galleries these days, but I find them rather annoying; mainly because they tend to be slow. I also don't like being required to have software installed in order to view something on the web. I'd have HTML as a minimum, and add Flash as an extra.

BTW, HTML doesn't have to be static.

Reverend · Jul 15, 2006

Its not really HTML. Its actually PHP

markc · Jul 15, 2006

PHP is the server language that tells the server how to create the HTML on the fly for output. The browser still sees HTML, it's just dynamically created; usually drawing on a database.

usayit · Jul 15, 2006

I'm in the same boat. I prefer HTML for its simplicity and it can reach the largest audience. There's no reason why pure HTML can't mimick the look, feel, and organization you have implimented in the Flash version.