Who does your Website???
 

Just an informal poll here...How many people here design/build launch their own websites? And for those who do, what is the best web authoring software available at a decent price? Is the do it yourself route the way to go or should I just hire someone to do it professionally?

I built mine using Notepad.

I do.
 

Frontpage 2000. Even I can do it!

RB

I'm a webdesigner and I do web contracts on the side as well as for my day job. Does that answer your question? :)

I do mine too and would be happy to do yours.

And yes, I do it for a living.

I think it was Ben Franklin who said that he who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client. In other words, just because you CAN do your own site, doesn't mean you SHOULD, if you're going for a professional grade look and feel to what you're product or service is.

I'm only saying this because from your question it sounds like it would be too much of an uphill battle for you and the end result may probably be something you won't be proud of. Marketing is where most otherwise brilliant people make fatal flaws - so do yourself the favor and hire a professional. You could be the best at what you do, but if the face on it is buggered, nobody will ever know.

Also, I'm in no way hocking my services. Yes I make websites chug for a living, but I don't do side work so my advice is just that - advice, having seen many make this mistake before.

If budget is your issue, usually the best thing is to find a person who does this as a day job, and see if they can do it as side work. Going with 'your nephew' or 'friend who can do it' can leave you no better off than doing it yourself.

I think an effective approach would be to use something like Dreamweaver (anything but frontpage!!) and build your own site. Get all the text and words the way you want, page navigation, etc. Then find a graphic designer to do a new design, and incorporate that back into your site. This way, the designer has a very clear picture of what your site is about (the biggest issue), you don't have to pay them for copy or simple typing, and you can maintain it for quite a while into the future at no cost.

FWIW, if you look at my site, you will find a "pre-designer" version. I will rework it as soon as cash flow from the business allows. But it works for now, while I refine my message and leanr more about my market. I bought some business cards for $3.99, and used the eyeball logo on those to make the website consistent. SO I did not even need any graphic skills (which I do not have). If I did weddings, I would probably hire a graphic designer sooner.

you can find really good looking templates for about 20$ and if it even to expensive, you could be "suggested" by the many you will find on the web.

I can't fathom why so many wedding videographers have such poor websites and low quality sample videos. But then this is indicative of the market, isn't it?

I'd expect a good videographer to be both creative and techie - the ideal blend of skills to build your own website perhaps? If you don't have the time, I'd thoroughly recommend getting a professional to do it though...

...after all, your clients want the best and hire you over uncle bob, so you should do the same!

<<< I can't fathom why so many wedding videographers have such poor websites and low quality sample videos. >>>

What I find even more amusing is high-end videographers who hire someone to do their web site and end up with something so overwhelmed with Flash animations that you can hardly navigate the site. Personally I think the web would be a better place if we banned Flash altogether, but I have seen a few rare uses of it that were entertaining without being annoying.

I did my own web site for a while until my wife convinced me to spend a few bucks to hire someone who designs web sites for a living. We got some nice graphics and a good page layout which I then modified to suit my tastes, plus my brother is now working on improving the navigation setup and other small touches. I personally dislike Dreamweaver for simple changes because it isn't as straightforward for some things as FrontPage, but I still use the former for most of my web work.

No matter what you do, be sure to have people who aren't web geeks take a look at your site to see if it makes sense to them. Remember that the ultimate point of a web site is to convey information and help people learn something about your services, not to show off someone's ability to use fancy web features.

<<<-- Originally posted by Kevin Shaw: Personally I think the web would be a better place if we banned Flash altogether -->>>

Can't fault your logic with regards to over-designed sites - they can be just as bad for business as an amateur looking one. But remember your website is your online representation of your business: you wouldn't film a wedding dressed in jeans, so why lose potential business by not investing in your site (and by investment I mean your own time as well as money spent)?

Well there's no point in arguing about whether or not Flash is good or bad. Every single development language has had specific focus in the past couple of years on further integrations with Flash. Flash is here to stay, and as its possibilities of data integration continue to develop, it's usage will be synonymous with web development within a couple of years.

That said, it's blind usage without concern for basic usability is, of course, unforgivable. But that goes without saying in any medium. I myself despise overzealous usage of any technology just for the sake of using it, but Flash's future really isn't up for discussion - it's one of those inevitabilities, like color TV.

Also, for beginners and hobbyists, Front Page may be the thing to use, but really, it's a joke application in the real world, like using iMovie to cut a feature. Yes I know there was some movie that made it into Sundance last year that was cut on iMovie, but you get my point. Either way, though, you don't design in an HTML application anyway - you design in something like Photoshop, or heck, a sketchpad, as many extremely good designers I've worked with in the past do. Like storyboarding...

<<<Flash is here to stay, and as its possibilities of data integration continue to develop, it's usage will be synonymous with web development within a couple of years.>>>

I was kidding about banning Flash, but I can't think of any example of it that added any functional value for me as a web site visitor, and many Flash animations actually interfere with navigating a site.

Out of curiosity, what do you have in mind when you refer to integrating Flash with data? What practical application could that have?

Flash and data integration has to do with content management, ecommerce etc. Normal Flash applications are inherently difficult to work with from a maintenance perspective because they're usually created and compiled one way, and only the developer can edit or update them. However, when integrated with database technologies and all the programming that requires, the content can be updated, modified, added or deleted on the fly, by non-Flash developers.

This kind of stuff is pretty much a requirement for reasonably sized sites, and definitely a requirement for ecommerce friendly sites.

Anyway, Flash MX has made great strides in making this sort of thing do-able, and the developer communities for all web scripting environments (JSP, ASP, ASP.Net, PHP) are all hard at work at making these things even more plausible.

The reason for Flash isn't just design widgets, etc., though creating a rich user experience is one of it's great pluses - from a development perspective, it allows concurrent development of the engine of the site and the design of the site. Also, going a little deeper, when you have a flash front-end to a site, the brain-work involved in the display is done by your PC in your web browser, taking the load off the server. Meanwhile, in the background, the server is busy working on what's important for it - crunching numbers, extracting and presenting data, and whatever other 'business rules' you have for your site.

There's a lot more to it, but this is the nutshell.

Now, all this is probably meaningless to most consumer or pro-sumer type sites, but it'll all be feeding into the way you do anything online in the coming years. In addition, Flash is also hard at work making it possible for Flash interfaces to be added to cellphones and such. It'll become so prevalent, the nearest comparison would be to that of a color vs. black and white magazine. Just remember, Flash doesn't have to mean whizz-boom-bang sites that are impossible to navigate and just seem to throw sparkling thingies at you as eye candy. Same design and usability rules should apply.

The ultimate goal is to provide people with rich, interactive experiences that are not only attractive to look at, but intuitive to use, informative or useful in purpose, and confidence-inspiring to the visitor. As broadband internet access increases, technologies are going to change to accomodate and capitalize on that to the fullest. Plain ol' HTML can only provide that to a certain degree. HTML was just a silly little text-based easy-to-use semi-language made for people to communicate easily over ridiculously slow phone lines. Gone is that day, and we're all just basically playing catchup.

And believe me, as a person well versed in the old technologies, I'd love it if all that knowledge didn't eventually become redundant, but we're all having to learn new tricks to keep from being exactly that - redundant.

Of course, no need to drop everything just yet - this is just all stuff coming in the very close horizon.

Now here's a very early example of what I'm talking about. In trying to work through some of these burgeoning technologies, my company (day-job) recently prototyped some of these ideas in a brochure-ware type site for an architectural firm. This site has very limited animation, and very limited general zing, but the point of it is that there is a lot of flash bits here and there throughout it, and the entire content on the site, from the images to the navigation to the featured projects, are all flash and database integrated, so that completely newbie non programmers maintain it.

It's just an early trial on our part, but here's the URL. We actually got a developer's award for it, for the heavy and seamless integration between Flash and database content and traditional HTML. But again, it's admittedly not exactly a fancy 2advanced.com site.

http://www.huntonbrady.com

I've gotta stick up a little for the non flash sites. I think it's kind of like buying a Jaguar X type when a slightly modified Taurus is in essence the same thing, would I take one if it was given to me sure but I would not buy one. I just thought I would put my 2 cents in.

P.S. I use the site studio that I get with my infinolgy site.

People are concentrating on the technology and the software when you can do wonders with just plain GOOD DESIGN. It can be done in Notepad and can be plain jane HTML as long as it has good navigation, looks handsome and provides the proper messaging.

All very interesting. I think the point Imran is trying to make is that Flash can have important practical ramifications, especially for larger and more elaborate sites. In the context of advertising wedding video services I'd call it unnecessary and excessive for most people, and a potential nuisance for customers.

For example, I went to the URL that Imran mentioned and the first thing I got was a screen saying I needed the latest version of the Flash plugin to view the site. This screen contained no other information about the company, not even their phone number, so you couldn't even find out how to contact them without installing the plugin. So I clicked on the link to install the plugin, clicked a couple more things to complete that process...and then I found myself sitting on the Macromedia web site. At this point, if I was shopping for a wedding video I would simply go somewhere else out of irritation, and I gather that I'm not the only person who feels this way.

To each their own, but for my business I figure my site should be visible to anyone on any computer with any kind of connection, without having to install any plugins. That won't change any time soon based on any trends I see occurring.

You're right, the workflow through the Macromedia site has never been smooth for that remaining percentage die-hards that don't have the flash plugin. This particular site is a business-to-business site, and an architecture firm site at that where this sort of thing is almost required, so all is good there. But we're all saying the same thing I think.

To top it off, I thought I'd mention that the site I recently just made to hock a short film, doesn't have a drop of Flash in it except for a popup video sample thingie. It isn't a totally Flash world yet, and I think we all agree on that, and that it's not the technology, it's the basic human thinking behind it (i.e., design, usability, etc.).

i have student buddy of mine whos taken my challenge and hes done quite well i think.

i pay him for every change to the site, and i also let him advertise his details on my site as well.

its wholly flash driven, however not only is it for the eye candy element, but its also used to control the information panels, gallery, background, intro, everything....

the language war is endless and silly.
As already pointed out, you can create very complex interface using flash, dhtml, java, javascript, pure html, it is just a matter of mastering properly the subject.
I agree with people who think that the message is more important than everything else that can nicely pop up from your screen.
The problem with most specialist is they know only one product and heavily depends on what their tool is able to produce.
(It is well known that when you got a hammer , you see nails everywhere.)
Additionally the put in front what they are able to do , more than what you eventually need, so the reason why so many web sites with useless flash everywhere.
Nastier is the fact that a compiled java or flash page, does not allow easy modification, and make sure a continuous business since there is nothing more changing than a web page.
The best design you can do is with a pen and a paper, designing your screen the way you want (you can do this in powerpoint too)
and then put the right thing at the right place , should it require a plain html form, a java applet or any thing else.
When i go for a website design, i go the designer for the color, shape and look and i fill the rest for the programming stuff (i am in computer sciences business).

Haha I love that - when you've got a hammer you see nails everywhere. So true.

I built my own website and just redesigned it because I saw that when people first looked at the website they couldn't immediatly tell what business we are in. that was a design flaw that I made and corrected.

If we are building websites to attract new business, then we have to design and build websites for our targeted audience and we need an understanding on what those decision makers will need in deciding to choose one company over another.

That means that content is still KING.

Next comes navigation because those decision makers need to find the key selling points in three clicks or less.

Then comes the ability to offer more than an online brochure. samples of work, testiomonials from clients, and definately how can you be reached.

I'm amazed at the number of websites that won't offer a phone number as alternative contact.

<<< You're right, the workflow through the Macromedia site has never been smooth for that remaining percentage die-hards that don't have the flash plugin. >>>

Imran: as far as I know I had a recent version of the Flash plugin on the computer I was using to try to access your site, and that still wasn't sufficient to keep me from hitting a brick wall in trying to view the site. This is an excellent example of how inappropriate use of web site technology can be a turn-off to potential customers, especially in an industry like event videography where customers aren't likely to have much patience for this sort of thing. And I don't know about you, but if I lost even a few percent of my potential customers due to avoidable web site design issues, I wouldn't be too happy about that.

According to some statistics my brother dug up, something like 10% or so of web surfers don't even have Javascript enabled, let alone the latest version of the Flash plugin. In this context, making your site dependent on Flash to get basic information isn't conducive to attracting the most customers.

You're somewhere in the ballpark with the stats (thought it depends who you trust), but really, if you're using the web with Javascript disabled, you're going to hit a LOT of brick walls, so nobody really caters to those folks save the Amazons of the world.

As far as the Flash - the client gets what the client wants! It's an architect thing I suppose. Our magic was getting them technological solutions to their desires.

It also goes further to illustrate my point, that you will be hitting more and more and more and more brick walls if you insist on not having the Flash plugin, as time goes on. It's like how software keeps requiring more RAM and processing power and hard drive space. Yes it alienates some, but it just keeps moving forward whether the holdouts like it or not. That's my only point. The web is technological medium that is driven by techies.

<<<The web is technological medium that is driven by techies. >>>

That's an interesting statement which makes sense in some ways but not in others. For my business, the web is a medium which is driven by the needs of customers, which has little to do to what techies and designers want. For purposes of conveying basic information, most technology beyond simple HTML is arguably just "window dressing," and if that in any way interferes with the end user experience then it's counter-productive.

I can see how having a nice-looking web site is important for an architectural design firm, and maybe using Flash is okay for that intended client base, but to me having a home page which requires Flash to run properly is just asking for trouble. Then again, I'd encourage all of my competitors to use lots of Flash on their web sites, because it makes my web site seem more user-friendly by comparison! :-)

see its also a marketing thing.

"the latest and greatest" so to speak...

i didnt just want flash to be an yee candy element, i wanted it to be an integral element of the site.

Content can be easily updated without having to rebuild or redesign the site, as i can just add to what i already have there.

i also use it in a different method, and i am yet to see a Flash site which uses it the way its being used here.

www.studio-d.com.au

im still working on afew content issues but in all, its a finsihed comprehensive page. Its laid out in this way as there is alot of info im wanting to convey, and this seems teh most stremalined without havin gth eneed to go through extensive menus, screens, elongated pages etc etc

Its simple.. :)

lemme know what you think!

Can I ask you all a question about the Flash. Is your text content picked up by Google?

Using Google to Google the Google web site I found this web page that lists Flash files as one of the file types Google searches. That's interesting. I hadn't known that could be done.

I build my own sites. I am currently using Visual Studio.NET 2003 Enterprise Architect but I have used several editors including Notepad. I think it's just personal preference and where you are on the learning curve of HTML/DHTML/Scripting. I try to stick with pure HTML/DHTML/ASP(.NET)/JavaScript pages with a tilt towards IE rather than the other browsers so I favor text type editors. I stay away from using plugins to display my pages. Not saying thats bad but I just prefer the more simplistic approach of not having to deal with third party software between the browser and what is viewed.

I've been building websites since 95 and I don't care for the WYSIWYG editors. After a short foray with Netscape Gold I switched to HotDog 3 and stayed with Hotdog through version 7. You have much more control over the look of your page if you write the 'code' yourself. For a given page I found that most WYSIWYG's add a ridiculous amount of extra 'code' that is really not required and they're typically limited in the attributes and styles that you can use. That being said, it is more time consuming to type the pages yourself. You can make a decent web page quickly and efficiently with a good WYSIWYG editor if you are willing to stay with in the editor's bounds. I used Drumbeat 2000 for a while and loved it. It worked well and was top of the line for it's time. I really don't know what the best WYSIWYG is now but I'd stay away from FrontPage. I've used it and don't like it........ I hear good things about Dreamweaver.

I've used Dreamweaver since version 3 and in its current incarnation it is very light on extraneous code. I always end up going into the code to make it the way I want it but it's a good way to quickly mockup a page.

DIY web site
 

I built my own using the ISP's templates. It's not the snazziest site on the web, but it gets the job done. Until I get a broadband Net connection at my home office, my site is as media-rich as it's going to be. For example, to upload my demo videos, I took them to my day job on CD and uploaded them to my site via T-1. It's a helluva lot easier than uploading 20MB at 33.6 Kbps.

TJB

Not bad considering it's based on free templates Tim. My choice of layout was dictated by my existing site design - not exactly the standard "cutesy" page, but then perhaps that's what makes it stand out.

On the subject of videos, you might want to de-interlace you videos to improve the quality.

Templates
 

There's a lot of inexpensive templates online. Last week I bought a flash and web template (total $45.00) to rebuild my http://www.magoomedia.com website. I love the flash interface. The website is more of an online business card than a content driven site so I need it to look as creative as possible.

I modified the templates to use php language and created a video interface which I'm going to use to drive the site. Too many people marketing their video skills DON'T use video on their own sites which I find ironic. In the next month, I'll have a lot of video posted on my site.

It was a little bit of work to modify the flash since I'm not a flash expert but I like the end result.

I'm not only suprised at the lack of videos, but the lack of well encoded videos.

I just finished the website this week and will be adding the video in the next month. I'm still testing my code interacting with the embedded video using different formats. The encoding will also be tweaked.

Jim, that was a comment in general about event videographer's sites and certainly not aimed at you in particular!

Thanks for the clarification Marc. I agree with you 100%.

I did my own...
 

I did my own, though I'm not a web designer I used to design artwork for gaming machines. I am going to get some video on there soon.

<<<-- Originally posted by Marc Peters : On the subject of videos, you might want to de-interlace you videos to improve the quality. -->>>

I agree. It's been on my to-do list for a while. I'll probably tackle that this week.

Thanks for the feedback.

RE: Google and Flash

Google can search only the file name, but will be blind to the text within it, or any other type of image. So, if say, you've got the super important keywords Wedding and Video within the Flash image, those keywords will do you zero good in rankings and people finding your site via search engine. They can only read text that shows up within the code of the site itself.