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

date posted 13th March 2008 23:27



My argument was that a small selection of website owners will rate visual
impact over 'accessibility' which from what I have seen always compromises
the design aesthetic

Have a look at the websites of some of the top fashion designers - complete
nonsense I accept, but that I show they want to market themselves so ...

My niche market is that small selection - I accept that it is the exception
to the rule, but I understand the industry I work in, but your last email
says I am talking 'nonsense' and you back your arguement up talking about
wedding photography ...



Perhaps all filmmakers should start to dumb down to be more accessible to
the f**kwits who have an attentionspan of 15 seconds?























On 13/3/08 11:56 pm, "Ben Johnson F (Neogic)" [EMAIL REMOVED]
>
wrote:

>=20
> John Deaville wrote:
>> 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.=20
>=20
> We're saying the same thing in different ways. As we have both said, if y=
ou
> don't need Google traffic, then Accessibility is not going to be importan=
t
> to you - fair enough.
>=20
> This opens up the ability to have a more visually dynamic Flash-based sit=
e,
> at the cost of SEO performance, as testified that not one of the top 20
> sites in Google for "uk photographer" are Flash-based (1 uses a Flash
> banner).
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> What was confusing was your statement "the vast majority of pro
> photographers [..] probably don=B9t give a toss about google". This may be
> true for agency and "big name" photographers, but your average freelance
> photographer (handling weddings, events, etc) relies on enquiries from th=
e
> public, hence SEO is vital to their business.
>=20
> I quite agree that more visually dynamic sites can be built using Flash
> (although this is not always exploited enough to justify it over a DHTML
> equivalent). However, your message implied that SEO is not relevant to "t=
he
> vast majority of pro photographers", which just isn't true based on those=
I
> have worked with.
>=20
> Good luck with the re-design; I've had great success with
> www.BrowserShots.org, it's probably overkill to buy a PC just to check a
> single site.
>=20
> Cheers, Ben
>=20
> --
> Ben Johnson, Neogic Web Solutions
> // design =95 development =95 managed hosting
>=20
> w | http://www.neogic.com
> t | +44 (0)1242 808 262
> e | [EMAIL REMOVED]
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> Freelancers, contractors earn more with Prosperity4
> Call 0870 870 4414 or visit www.prosperity4.com
> and benefit from Inland Revenue approved expenses today.
>=20
> To advertise here: http://www.freelancers.net/advertising.html
>=20
>