Re: FN-FORUM: Sitecheck - Updating my website - using CSS

date posted 13th March 2008 20:03




Well that=B9s your point of view - but I have been working with top level
advertising and editorial photographers since 2000, and the vast majority o=
f
them use sites that would probably fail the golden accessibility rules, and
I stand by what I say that they care more about the visual aesthetics of
their site rather than google links - google mostly does not rank in their
marketing strategy - they have agents for that.


Why are so many photographic portfolios built in flash - what has always
been termed as poor in terms of google ratings, because when you are at the
top of your game, you don=B9t need google, you get an agent, they deal with
the ad agencies and get you work, and the ad agencies can then access your
website, if it does not visually cut the mustard, you don=B9t get the job.
I've been doing it for years and, with respect,I am not talking about
wedding photography - do you think photographers like Rankin and agencies
like Saatchi want ordinary Joe Bloggs enquiring into their work - I think
not.



I said this in response to the idea that accessibility is paramount, my
enquiry is different as I am relying on people searching google, that is wh=
y
I am experimenting with CSS.

I appreciate your position - and as I said, accessibility is important, but
not above everything else and it should be tailored to your audience. I had
a discussion on here years ago where one user was trying to convince me tha=
t
photography portfolios should be made accessible to the visually impaired

Question 1 - how

Question 2 - why


If you are trying to market yourself as the zenith of creativity are you
honestly going to compromise your design to align yourself to other peoples
ideas and standards. Please understand that I am only talking about a small
niche group - and please don=B9t say I am talking nonsense, because I probabl=
y
have a lot more experience of this business than you do.

With Respect and Best Regards - John







On 13/3/08 8:54 pm, "Ben Johnson F (Neogic)" [EMAIL REMOVED]
wrote:

> It is nonsense to suggest that the majority of pro photographers on the w=
eb
> "probably don't give a toss about google" (i.e., search engines). Qualifi=
ed
> click-throughs translate to enquiries - my partner is a Pro and enjoys mo=
st
> of her wedding/commercial photography enquiries from Google users.
>=20


You are getting the idea here :

> Obviously, if the purpose of your website is not to attract new enquiries=
,
> but simply to act as an online brochure for potential clients that you
> explicitly invite to visit your website, then you don't need Google.
> However, this is still missing a trick IMO: ad-hoc enquiries are usually
> welcome too?
>

For me, yes, for them, no


=20
> There are very few businesses on the web to whom search engines are
> unimportant, therefore accessible, semantic HTML+CSS is the tool of choic=
e
> for most business websites. I'm surprised you're suggesting otherwise, gi=
ven
> the original topic of your posting!

Different scenarios though