Site check required pls

[avelives]

Hi all, ive just completed a site for a client and have just launched the main version last night.
I checked it and it seems fine on my pc so was just wondering if people could give it a quick test to see if theres any obvious problems on other browsers and PCs.

LINK HERE (http://www.lowpriceplasmas.co.uk)

Ive noticed many error page displays on the site stats and im wondering if this is the site or if its purely cause i only updated it last night from the old version and it might not have fully propogated/updated yet ?
(Also as an aside ive noticed that the pictures which load in on the plasma/lcd sections on mozzila firefox the picture preloader doesnt display and it shows the wrong picture while loading the correct one in.
If this is the case for you all as well can anyone tell me why those picture loaders work fine in IE ?)


Cheers for any comments in advance :)

[bluegel]

its looking good

i had no problems atall

everything workedfine

[avelives]

How weird on my pc there are strange little quirks when the site first loads up displaying the products ive found on mine it sometimes misses out displaying the first two products.

Once it has cached on my pc it works fine its just a problem with loading it first time.
Although my pc is old and withered now so it may just be that...

Cheers for checking :D

[Dylan Marvin]

Nice site. Works smooth in my Mac running IE 5.2.

[snapple]

Yes, nice work. I couldn't find any problems. Might want to add some basic error checking on that email form though.

Why is this site in Flash?

Regards, snapple

[avelives]

Why is this site in Flash?

well firstly i prefer flash to static html and originally the beta version had swanky horizontal scrolling menus and other various gubbins but people had problems navigating etc so i toned it down to this version.
Basically for a site this complex my html etc is to rusty to make the site in the time the client wanted where as in flash im fairly quick doing something like this.
Once its fully finished i am doing a HTML version to though.

Its that old argument of flash or html isnt it....
Personally if i get an option of FLASH or HTML to view a site i NEVER ever choose the html one.
however i totally understand that plenty of people dont hold this opinion. It stems from when i first started learning web design skills and making basic html sites, it really bothered me that after i went to all the trouble of making the site look a particular way that some one with funky browser settings or the like could end up seeing a werid version of it. I like the way that with flash more often than not your gauranteed that everyone who has flash player sees exactly what you designed.
To be honest the main reason im doing a html version is for serach engine rankings.
Im currently getting to grips with PHP so hopefully i can make the site even more dynamic and easier to update at some point.

Anyways thanks for the comments and i hope that answered your question..

[Flash Gordon]

looks good to me
XP, FF, 2.6Ghz, broadband.

[snapple]

avelives,

There is no need for it to be in Flash and it's not really about what you prefer, you're not the one using it. It's unfair for a company to miss out on potential customers and users, just because the developer is going to develop a site that requires a plug-in to view it, and because they find it easier. If you're concerned about it not looking the same for everyone then you should be more concerned that some people, with the current site, won't see it at all. Everything in that site is just plain old HTML looking, nothing in that site warrants Flash, in fact the antithesis is true.

But if you're going to make an HTML version and automatically detect the plugin and take appropriate action then you're taking good steps to remedy it. I appreciate what you're saying about it being quicker in Flash, i am the same, but if was to build a site like you have, i'd ask my self some serious questions as to wtf i was doing using Flash for this particular project.

Good luck.

Best regards, snapple

[avelives]

I totally appreciate what your saying, and yes i am doing a html version as well.
And really if youd seen the original youd understand why it was in flash.

Also i dont see flash as simply a tool for making swanky animations, i honestly see it and things like it as the future.
Even right down to silly things like when you click a button or navigate within the site the browser window doesnt have to reload everything like it does with html and personally i find THAT REALLY jarring.

For instance snapple look at this site
http://www.habitat.net/uk/main_uk.htm
note - It isnt by me (obviously)
This chain of shops is very well known in the uk and they have done their entire site in flash.

When i originally took this project on i discussed with the client the options and he agreed that he wanted in flash and then a HTML version added afterward.
To say that theres no need to put in flash is essentially true but also a tad short sighted. Theres no NEED to do it in HTML either.
For the few times some one visits and doesnt have the flash player (bearing in mind how it comes packeaged with most pcs now) is probably as many times as some one would have not viewed the site in HTML cause of browser issues.
So to me flash is not some poor cousin of html who is only used for flashy effects i prefer sites done in it (like the one i posted which i think is a very well made and lovely to navigate site)

As a final point on this subject thought id post this -
http://64.78.25.46/dynamic/web-credibility-report-evaluate.cfm
Its very interesting it shows that the majority of people make up their mind about the credibilty of a website based purely on looks....which suprises me tbh

Oh and for anyone whos interested i found these stats on the flash player and how widespread it is.
http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/
http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetration.html