Great post
I Agree
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

Thank you,

Lem

Definitely agree with your points. The fact that well-designed, easily navigable sites exist now and are becoming more prominent makes older, less user-friendly sites stand out, instead of the old expected norm.

When I started a redesign of my online portfolio site a few months ago, I wanted to get rid of any of these kinds of obstacles and make it as clean-yet-functional as possible. My new website (http://msawyerphotography.com) features

- no vertical scrolling (images are resized to fill the viewer's screen
- the content is immediately visible and the most prominent visual element
- navigation requires almost no brain power or hand-eye coordination (simply uses the scroll wheel on the mouse or the arrow keys on the keyboard)
- no music (how do you ever know if your users will agree with your musical taste?)

Anyhow, I haven't announced this new site yet to clients or prospects, so I'd love any critically constructive feedback any of you guys are willing to offer.

You certainly hit it right on the nail when you emphasized the importance of "ease of navigation" when viewing online portfolios. As an amateur web designer/photographer, "ease of use" is one aspect that I constantly had in mind when I designed and developed my website.

So yeah, if you can balance aesthetics with site usability then you have it made. I'm still learning though.

Thanks Jason. It's a simple java script gallery, no flash. I struggled with the music issue, but opted out because I know how annoyed I get sometimes with it on sites I visit.

Thanks for the follow on Twitter, will do the same.

Thanks, yeah no music on my site. I know some sites use it effectively, but I decided not to since I am not focused on weddings.

@Ken Hamlett

I think you made good choices on your site design. It's simple, but the slideshow is fancy still. It all loaded fast enough for my short attention span too. I followed you on Twitter.

Thanks for the article. When I was re-designing my website, I labored for months over its new look. I studied tons of other websites and while many were very edgy and cool, most lost the basic concept of showcasing the images.

When I finally decided on my new look I often thought it may have been too "simple", but in the months following the launch I've received nothing but positive comments about its ease of navigation, simplicity and "user friendly" content.

The website, my new business identity collateral and physical portfolio all reflect the same brand and that is something that was previously inconsistent.

Web presence for photographers by digitaltechparis:
http://www.digitaltechparis.com/

Unfortunately it seems quality in design and quality of content are often assumed to be the same thing. (If you fail to understand the difference, go spend some time on myspace)

We (and I include the reader here also, not just the web designers) all encounter site after useless site that, while very expressive, highly imaginative and creative and quite technically astounding, are also:
highly difficult to navigate to important data efficiently,
have layouts that while impressive detracts severely from the product (something I imagine that would be all to easy for photography)
or, in the truly drastic cases, are entirely and completely irrelevant.

And I don't think it is to much to ask to have it all. I'm sure Ford would be perfectly pleased to face a fancy overdone site, if it had say, a small but easily found link to a simple (but of course stylistically consistent) Professional portfolio. I've already stated that I'm no photography expert, but surely in fine photography also, the ability to express an idea must go hand in hand with technical skill?

Art may be a matter of taste, but a website is a matter of communication, and communication should always be as clear and concise as it is eloquent.

by all means express yourself, but for your own sake do it clearly.

Visiting competitors websites is a very smart idea!

I'm not opposed to music, some of the sites I visited had audio and it added another dimension to the site and on others the audio was annoying!

I think if you feel audio adds to the site, great, but give the user a very clear and visible option to turn this off, bare in mind the user may be viewing your site in an open plan office or coffee shop and the sound may be unwelcome.

I can't stand that fancy, blinking, flashing, colourful stuff on photography sites anymore - including music! - because it's just getting on my nerves. I want to see on a photographer's site, what's important: His or her work. Presented in a pure, simple and elegant style. Let's call it some kind of Zen: Reduced to the essential, which is photography.

Concerning the print portfolio: I can't stand Helvetica! Sorry for that, but it's "McDonalds of typography". Typography offers much more chances for design and branding of a photographer's print portfolio in a characteristic and impressive style!

Best regards!
Heike

The line "But ultimately, I’m not hiring a Web designer; I’m hiring a photographer," really struck me. I've had colleagues (and former partners) say a super fancy website is needed. I disagreed and felt simple was the way to go.

I use a basic Squarespace template. I have no nested menus. I do not describe my photography services (for the most part).

Wayne, how do you feel about having music on your portfolio pages? Me, I can't stand sites that do that.

Thanks for the great post.