A designer recently suggested that I change my .gif and .jpg files on my website to flash. I really do not understand the benefit of having flash over the others. Especially due to the fact, that my site is primarily for those having computer malfunctions. His only explanation of it being better was that people could not save the image. I showed him how to get around that. Flash may load faster, but may not even be viewable on the person's pc. Can someone explain to me why it would be better to use flash?

People can save Flash too...in fact, they already do. They just don't know that they do (it's in their browser cache if they really want to get at it). Alternatively, a tech-savvy user could simply screen capture the Flash at the point where the JPG/GIF is displayed and use his/her favorite photo editor to eventually extract the image.

The designer who made that comment is an ignorant fool that you shouldn't be listening to. You clearly know a lot more than he does, just by knowing that JPGs/GIFs are universally accessible among browsers whereas Flash is not.

The designer also forgot that Flash doesn't inherently come with alt text for the sighted and that your images won't be part of image search engine results, which can be a great traffic boon.

In other words, don't use Flash just for the reason of copyright...if it's that big a deal, watermark your images, but don't use Flash. This is just silly.

I agree with Adam 100% That would be a very poor reason to use flash.

Thank you! There is so much information being thrown my way, being new it is hard to distinguish fact from fiction. Just when I think I know something, it seems, someone is telling me different.

Welcome to the wonderful world of web design, Brandy. Get yourself a shovel...you'll be up to your eyes in horse**** in no time.

The person who suggested this to you must be a designer who does not think about usability and compatibility. I agree with what Adam said.