Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

D3SIGN3R · Jan 16, 2006, 01:00 AM

I'm a print designer looking to develop a portfolio site. I have Flash MX, Dreamweaver MX, and GoLive CS2, but don't know which one to teach myself on. I'm familiar with both Macromedia and Adobe layouts. Will someone with experience on the above applications give me adive and insight on which one to use? Pros, cons, benefits?

yugyug · Jan 16, 2006, 01:28 AM

I find the simplest way to make a website is to use photoshop and imageready for design/interactivity. Export to dreamweaver or golive for additional content, scripts and upload.

On the other hand, you can construct amazing website just using flash, or dreamweaver/golive with flash elements. but if you haven't work with animation/interactivity before the learning curve is steeper.

godzookie2k · Jan 17, 2006, 07:09 AM

Well you can't compare Flash to the other two, different beast different tool.

DW and golive are probably going to be a taste thing. I'm a bit partial to DW, but I only use it in code view so it doesn't really matter, but its WYSIWYG generated code has gotten alot better. If you're new to it though, golives smart objects and adobe integration might be better for the short term if you're making alot of changes.

yugyug · Jan 17, 2006, 08:51 AM

Why shouldn't you compare Flash with HTML editors like GoLive - they both create websites don't they? In fact a side by side comparision of the two technologies is exactly what d3sign3r needs to know about as a starting out web designer. As a print designer myself I still struggle with the decision to go with one or the other when I have to do web stuff. I prefer flash and what it can do but its a blackhole for me - I get sucked into spending far too much time with it and in the end an imageready/golive combo site can be made much more quickly. my own site is a example of what I mean - it would be heaps cooler in flash but I only had a few days to work on it and so html it is.

godzookie2k · Jan 17, 2006, 09:11 AM

Well, speaking from the perspective of someone who uses flash all day, every day, flash *can* make websites, but its a hell of a lot more robust a tool than that. So much more, that you can't really compare it to html editor. It'd be like comparing photoshop to director. Sure you can create a bitmap in director, but it can't really be compared to photoshop.

The flash/html internal debate is solved pretty quickly. "What does using flash add to this site, beyond just making the type pretty?" because inexperienced designers do not use the flash technology, effectively, is the reason it gets a bad rap with the intro-screens/10mb website schtick.

The poster being a novice to web design, I'd put dollars to doughnuts that the "What does flash add" question can be honestly answered with "nothing."

D3SIGN3R · Jan 17, 2006, 09:55 AM

So basically what I'm hearing is this...if flash ads to the strength of my interactive design, then use it? Otherwise, sounds like it's up in the air over DW and GL.

How complicated is this site shiftglobal, and what program would you guess it was built in?

godzookie2k · Jan 17, 2006, 10:00 AM

pretty simple, and in flash. (just control clicking on it will tell you whether its flash or not)

So basically what I'm hearing is this...if flash ads to the strength of my interactive design, then use it? Otherwise, sounds like it's up in the air over DW and GL.

not necessarily, you aren't bound to doing a site in *just* flash or *just* html(/php/etc), you can always combine.

yugyug · Jan 17, 2006, 11:27 AM

don't forget to take advantage of image ready - if you're used to working in photoshop you'll find it very useful.

if you do want to learn flash tho, you can add it to the html as gadzookie said - an animated banner or something done in flash would be a simpler introduction to it than designing a whole site.

andi*pandi · Jan 17, 2006, 01:28 PM

take into account the learning curve--do you want to do a crappy flash site quickly, or an ok html site? How soon do you want something up?

there are lots of templates etc, even just a photoshop gallery will work if you're not billing yourself as a web designer.

then again, I have nothing up so I'll shut up now.

godzookie2k · Jan 17, 2006, 01:34 PM

meh, by CS2 Photoshop has so much of the imageready functionality built in. (then again, this is me scoffing at imageready generated html)

production_coordinator · Jan 17, 2006, 02:04 PM

Just adding another perspective...

You may want to consider a blog like wordpress (or whatever). It's not nearly as flashy (har har), but considering you are a print designer, you may want to use something that you can update easily, looks clean, and won't be as challenging.

again... just my 2¢

himself · Jan 18, 2006, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Just adding another perspective...

You may want to consider a blog like wordpress (or whatever). It's not nearly as flashy (har har), but considering you are a print designer, you may want to use something that you can update easily, looks clean, and won't be as challenging.

again... just my 2¢

I second this. If you have no experience with building a web site, and you want it to look decent, go to opensourcecms.com and look under the "image galleries" section. Most of these solutions are easy to set up, easily update-able, and are fairly customizable.

If you really want to build your own site, the curve is fairly steep either way. With html, you have to deal with things like css, optimizing images (you'll probably have to do this anyway) and creating compact code that loads quickly and renders properly on multiple browser on multiple computer platforms.

In order to create a decent site in flash, you'll need to learn at least a little basic actionscript (Flash's scripting language), although it is entirely possible to build a site without any. But then file size becomes a major consideration with Flash because it is very easy to create a Flash site that will take five minutes or more to download (on a broadband connection). The learning curve for Flash is much steeper.

For someone who hasn't built a web site before and is used to print design, the GoLive/ImageReady/Photoshop combo is probably the way to go, because it is more geared to these designers (as opposed to Dreamweaver). Otherwise, I'd suggest avoiding the hassle altogether and looking at the first option I presented.

D3SIGN3R · Jan 18, 2006, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

take into account the learning curve--do you want to do a crappy flash site quickly, or an ok html site? How soon do you want something up?

there are lots of templates etc, even just a photoshop gallery will work if you're not billing yourself as a web designer.

then again, I have nothing up so I'll shut up now.

I'm not in any big hurry. And no, I'm not billing myself as a web designer. Just looking to design a convenient portfolio site. Seems like more and more job posts I see these days are requesting a link to your work. Currently I'm sending out a PDF of resume and work samples. Besides, I typically have some time to kill between freelance gigs. Thought it'd be good to learn something new. Who knows, maybe I'll love it and leave print....