My New Website for weddings

It appears my thread has started a highly sensitive debate which is good I suppose.

The site is aimed towards weddings customers in the main. I am not sure where the blind and deaf issue comes into this website. Like most sales and marketing the product needs to be aimed towards main stream customers. TV adverts could be regarded as not very deaf/blind friendly as few have subtitles etc.. However they are aiming to capture the market amongst the majority. For the blind we could have talking websites but how many of those do we see?

I think my website is pretty much like most others except it is flash based overall.

Pete

blind computer users have text readers, these programs read out the text on the web page in a computer generated voice.

If web sites are too complex the text reader can't find where to start.

there are some web pages that have music that is irritating at worst or a waste of bandwidth at best. some even have voice overs that explain things that there is no text for.

Point taken AJ but dont think Im going to lose or gain many clients with a wedding buisness having this feature or not.

Cheers anyway

PS I will be designing a none Flash site soon anyway

maybe your website should also be multi-language and show other couples as well as heterosexual couples.

My point is you can't please everyone but the majority is what in this situation is reasonable to aim for.

I have experience with deaf organisations as I designed print work for typetalk (a telephone service for deaf users) for about 3 years.

If this site was designed for visually impaired and deaf users then it would not be designed to attract the majority of people. Like good photography design is about the slightest element being in the right place.

As I said a non flash version makes sense but

This site should be designed to be usable by photographers regardless of disability.

I'm tired of this debate. True you can't please everybody, but I say we all ask Celine Dionne to critique it. I'd love to hear what her lawyers think of the music. Sounds like about $12 million dollar lawsuit to me....

petekd..

I like your site and most of the images, it's the kind of format used a lot over here for wedding photographers and it sells.

Loved the music, I guess some of the critics on this site don't know where to turn off the sound ! Simple solution for those who don't like the music.

It loaded real fast on my Mac, typical speed for other similar sites.

Just remember when one asks for comments on this site, one may get a lot of negative responses, or one may even get ignored altogether. I suspect some of the negatives come from those who couldn't set up a website themselves, or handle the stress of wedding photography and brides from hell.

The only thing you have to be concerned about is making you and your prospective clients happy. If the site gets you plenty of business, I guess the nay sayers have their heads up where the sun don't shine.

Good luck.

RG.

This is true, but before the music starts playing, it's already downloading and slowing things down. But this aside, there is the matter of whether Pete is using copyrighted material without the owner's consent. This computer doesn't have sound, so thankfully I can't tell if it's Celine Dion or not, and don't therefore have to worry about the need to gouge my eardrums out.

Just tried it on the connection at work. Took 30 seconds from clicking on the 'Enter' link to seeing pictures. This is a (poor) broadband connection. I would consider it too long, that's why I said before that a non-flash alternative, not replacement, would be good.

I've just re-read the thread, and over all, I felt the comments were positive. Plenty of good wishes for Pete's success too. There were two sticking points, the flash issue, and accessability. Pete asked for comments, and these have been given, and the first couple of pages were mostly positive.

And that was a sentiment that was expressed a few times. Along the lines of "I'm not keen on this, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, hope it works for you."

If people ignored Pete, it's probably because of this. Pete's been here for about a year. Many of his posts were because he sought advice. Advice was offered, and Pete ignored it. He would post the same question the following week, or a follow-up saying that what he tried (contrary to advice given) didn't work, and did anyone have an idea why. Some people felt he ignored them, so they stopped replying. K10D sharpness springs to mind. Also, Pete would ask for criticism on his photos, then if someone felt there were areas for improvement, a reply along the lines of "well I don't see any of your pictures here, what makes you think you can comment" was given.

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's how it seemed to me. It may have been different from other's perspectives.

I really do wish Pete all the best with his photography, I hope he continues to learn at the staggering rate he has done over the last year. His thick skin should serve him well in the business world. He keeps bouncing back, but I don't think he takes criticism too well in the first place, and a lot of his initial replies to criticism are retaliatory. Other than that, I think he's got the enthusiasm to make a go of it.

And no, I wouldn't touch a wedding with a barge pole! But I have designed a website or two.

Dan

one of my earliest posts was a compliment on his determination, and rapid improvements..I believe I said something to the effect of not wishing to have him as a competitor once he gets his skills up.

I think it's a huge mistake on his part to infringe copyrighted music and said so.

I personally have good eyesight, and a fast internet connection, so didn't notice any problems there...

I'm a fan of Benjikan's work and like his site... take note where he gets his music from!!!!!!!

on my site and in my (somewhat late) podcasts I use music that I create.

He won't listen. He may get sued. A mother in the US got sued for 12 million by the record industry for file sharing with bit torrent, and she wasn't using it for commercial gain!!!!

That was an extremely well worded and a very accurate description of past events and reflects my feelings exactly that I could never have been able to put to words. I might add that I had actually learned a lot about my people skills during Pete's prolific days here and I actually am grateful for that. (Hopefully I can remember them. )

I also am quite impressed with how far Pete has come in just one year but if I do have any advice for him it would be to give up on asking what other people think here. He should go forward with confidence that he is doing what he likes to do and if his customers are buying it then he is doing it right. Virtually no one here at P-UK will EVER be buying anything from Pete so this is the last place to be asking what we think about his sales techniques. Feedback from his customers or members of wedding photography forums would be a much better source of advice for him.

Regards

Drew

Highly unlikely to get sued, there is so much of it going on.

If however one is worried about that remote possibility, then just use Royalty Free Music from websites like buyoutmusictracks.com. Big selection of tracks from all over the world.

RG.

doesn't make it right.

I know that publishers, ad agencies, and creative pros from many fields won't do business with somebody that violates copyrights.

Don't forget, all those albums, record companies, actors/actresses, movie execs and graphic artists, ad agencies, make up a HUGE body of photography BUYERS!
If we don't respect thier copyrights, they won't support us either!

OOPS!! Except of course from the few wedding photographers here. Sorry Don.

Drew

http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/creating/licensecovers.html

Go to above site and you may understand why many small businesses, such as part time wedding photographers don't bother. Too much BS to go through.

Same goes for the artist having to locate the person using the song. Not impossible but hardly worth all the BS to take an individual to court over one tune on a small wedding photographers website.

If one is going to circumvent the law (I am not condoning it) and have music on their website, I do believe it would be a great idea to give credit on the website to the artist.

RG.