[thePurpleGiant]

Hey all,

I'm resonably new to web development, and just doing sites for small businesses. I have made a site for a backpackers place, and used flash for the navigation.

The site is:

http://www.grampiansbackpackers.com.au

My flash skills are pretty basic, but I can get around. I realise that many people detest flash in any way, shape or form. I dont' mind it, but only in small amounts.

What I want to know is, do you think my use of flash is okay? Or does it still appear to be 'done for the sake of it', like so much flash on the net?

I used it because I liek the effect of the pictrues lighting up, which look good and promt the user to click them. If I used rollovers, the file size would be bigger, since I am only fading each picture by using flash.

Any opinions on the site? Thanks!

[clam2000]

it isn't a bad use of flash.

almost any site can be made with flash, it is almost never nessicary, however it isn't a bad thing either.

you should consider putting those links in html somewhere on the page, that way people without flash will still be able to see your site

--will

[thePurpleGiant]

Originally posted by clam2000:
it isn't a bad use of flash.

almost any site can be made with flash, it is almost never nessicary, however it isn't a bad thing either.

you should consider putting those links in html somewhere on the page, that way people without flash will still be able to see your site

--will

Thanks for the reply. The html links are under the heading, and near the bottom of most pages. Do you think that isn't obvious enough, that they should be closer to the top?

[Millennium]

It would be an inappropriate use of Flash, but you've provided an alternate means of navigation, so it's OK.

That's what a lot of people don't seem to realize. Flash is, in an of itself, neither good nor bad; it's just a tool. Flash-only, on the other hand, is pure evil. That's not what you did here, though; you did The Right Thing by ensuring that your site remains accessible.

If only more Flash authors would do what you're doing here, the Web would be a much better place. For another example of this, check out http://www.homestarrunner.com, which recently added HTML navigation to its pages in a non-obtrusive manner which doesn't detract from the Flash.

[mac freak]

Flash-only is pure evil?
WHAT?!

I beg to differ!
I think it's the future.

Of course, Flash can be bad; by that same token, so can HTML, and Java. Flash haters are a bizarre bunch... from what I can tell, many are disgruntled old-skool designers from the web's earlier days that think Flash is some sort of cheap way out.

Pfft. No other medium offers the same level of "immersiveness": one can integrate music, sound effects, video, and most importantly, tasty vector animations. Sure, all-Flash is a poor choice for very info-heavy sites, or stores, but I wouldn't call it "evil," as it certainly has its applications in websites that need to project more of an "aura" while needing to get across less text. Also, Flash, if properly created, is LESS bandwidth intensive than HTML (though obviously the common integration of lots of music and big graphics tends to negate that). 40% of the US is on Broadband anyway, and ~98% of Internet users have the Flash 5 player or later (99%+ have Flash 4).

My 2 cents, hehe.

[philzilla]

Originally posted by mac freak:
Flash-only is pure evil?

blah blah blah

say i'm half way through your huge flash-only site, and i want to bookmark a particular page. how do i do that?

far too many flas-only sites are just horrid, from a user POV. need an example? www.macromedia.com is THE worst site i've ever seen, when it comes to flash. i have a 1Mb line at home, but that site takes forEVER to load up on my powermac. there's your broadband argument out the window.

sure, Flash is great. just don't OD on it. use in moderation. please.

[Ludovic Hirlimann]

Originally posted by mac freak:
Flash-only is pure evil?
WHAT?!

I beg to differ!
I think it's the future.


Pfft. No other medium offers the same level of "immersiveness": one can integrate music, sound effects, video, and most importantly, tasty vector animations. Sure, all-Flash is a poor choice for very info-heavy sites, or stores, but I wouldn't call it "evil," as it certainly has its applications in websites that need to project more of an "aura" while needing to get across less text. Also, Flash, if properly created, is LESS bandwidth intensive than HTML (though obviously the common integration of lots of music and big graphics tends to negate that). 40% of the US is on Broadband anyway, and ~98% of Internet users have the Flash 5 player or later (99%+ have Flash 4).

My 2 cents, hehe.

Yeah I surf the web to gather data and info. Flash eat up my time when I surf because I can't save info in flash form. Also many site have a teaser in flash which is not necessary at all.
The web was created to share information/Data. Flash was created to add ads and slow the access to the information.

Flash-only site sucks. IE only sites suck ! ...
Valid sites are ok.

[wallinbl]

Originally posted by mac freak:
Flash-only is pure evil?
WHAT?!

I beg to differ!
I think it's the future.

Of course, Flash can be bad; by that same token, so can HTML, and Java. Flash haters are a bizarre bunch... from what I can tell, many are disgruntled old-skool designers from the web's earlier days that think Flash is some sort of cheap way out.

Pfft. No other medium offers the same level of "immersiveness": one can integrate music, sound effects, video, and most importantly, tasty vector animations. Sure, all-Flash is a poor choice for very info-heavy sites, or stores, but I wouldn't call it "evil," as it certainly has its applications in websites that need to project more of an "aura" while needing to get across less text. Also, Flash, if properly created, is LESS bandwidth intensive than HTML (though obviously the common integration of lots of music and big graphics tends to negate that). 40% of the US is on Broadband anyway, and ~98% of Internet users have the Flash 5 player or later (99%+ have Flash 4).

My 2 cents, hehe.

Flash can make a good site unusable. In 99% of the cases, there is absolutely no need for it. I go to your website for information, not to be bombarded with animations and noises. Please, do not make your website make noise. What the hell do I want to hear that for? It's really nice to be sitting at work taking a break and have the crap noise from your website blast across to all my cubicle neighbors.

You probably can't see this (because you already have Flash installed), but the original poster's site navigates nicely without Flash.

On a side note, is there a way to turn off the prompt about installing Flash? I don't intend to install it, so I'd prefer to not have to click 'No' every time I go to a site that uses it.

You probably think that I am a crank right about now. I have Flash installed at home, but I don't intend to use it at work. I just don't want a bunch of hack websites blasting sound out of my computer (thank goodness most people stopped including .WAV files on their site long ago).

[wallinbl]

Originally posted by mac freak:
I beg to differ!
I think it's the future.

No chance at being the future. Why? Microsoft doesn't want it to be.

[mac freak]

I think you are all poisoned by the crappy Mac flash player

But if you all really think that way, I pity you guys, you're missing out the on IMO the most interesting part of the Internet. The 'net is evolving beyond pure information to a true place to advertise and even to entertain. To each his own.

[wallinbl]

Originally posted by mac freak:
The 'net is evolving beyond pure information to a true place to advertise

Please, no! No more ads! Ads are ruining the Internet. To be on the Internet anymore, you have to have a router to block the damn Windows messages (net send command in Windows), a pop-up blocker (browser or additional software), spam filters, etc. Even that won't stop the damn sites that show you a flash/DHTML ad for a few seconds before showing you the page. Some wonderful sites use a META refresh to make sure that you get even more pop up ads if you stay on one page for "too long". Leave us alone already. We don't want your lame product. If we did, we'd buy it.

[philzilla]

Originally posted by wallinbl:
Please, do not make your website make noise. What the hell do I want to hear that for?

how about it it's a band's website? y'know... they make music? they want people to hear it?

chill

[wallinbl]

Originally posted by philzilla:
how about it it's a band's website? y'know... they make music? they want people to hear it?

chill

I was referring to sites that play music when the page loads. You should ask the user to start the music.

[ameat]

christ people, why don't you just assume that every site should look like Ludovic Hirlimann's? yes, i'll agree, sometimes the use of flash is totally useless, it might make your site less accessible by not allowing for bookmarks, or text selection or some other complaint (though i can almost guarantee that there's been a hack or fix to all of your concerns), but you're overlooking all of the wonderful features that flash provides as a presentation and user interface medium. you can provide smooth content transitions, visual hints and cues to interface function, has many tools now for dynamic content...

denying flash altogether is absurd because there really are some excellent implementations of it out there...

[Millennium]

Originally posted by ameat:
christ people, why don't you just assume that every site should look like Ludovic Hirlimann's?

No one is saying this. Only that the right tool be used for the job. Flash has its uses; it is excellent for graphics, animation, and sound. But it is not a good format for making entire Websites, for a huge variety of reasons.

denying flash altogether is absurd because there really are some excellent implementations of it out there...

No one is saying to deny Flash altogether. What we are saying is that it shouldn't be used to hack entire Websites together, which a task it was never designed for and does not do well. You'll notice that we said that the original poster's Flash navigation menu wasn't inappropriate, because he had provided an accessible alternative. That's the key: if you use Flash for anything other than content, then you must make that functionality accessible through other means. Again, I ask you to look at the Homestar Runner site. Most of its content is Flash-only, and is an excellent use of Flash; this is a Good Thing. However, until recently the functionality was also Flash-only, and this was a Bad Thing. They have fixed this, by providing a simple HTML menu which does not detract from the design of the site but does make it more accessible. In fact, it's worth noting that their main menu page is actually a set of nineteen pages, chosen randomly; this functionality was pioneered in the Flash but was preserved seamlessly in the HTML.

Or, to put it another way: if you're not a talented enough developer and designer to make a site both pretty and accessible using the appropriate tools, you are in the wrong line of work. Or maybe we in the Web community have made a mistake by combining development and design into a single job, when perhaps it should be two separate specialties, leaving each person to do what they do best.

I do not pretend to be a good designer. I'm not terrible at design, but I am first and foremost a builder, not an architect. Given a design, I can implement it, and I can do so in ways which save time, money, space, and bandwidth (which, it can be argued, all amount to the same thing). But I am not good at creating beauty from nothing. However, when I see something beautiful, I can recognize it, and I can understand how it was put together, and how it might be able to be re-created in ways which don't compromise the aesthetics (or even change them at all, in most cases) but -in the case of Websites- make it work better and often faster. That is why I oppose the abuse of Flash. It is excellent for delivering content, and I wholeheartedly encourage its use for such. But as a tool for delivering functionality it is sorely lacking.

[ameat]

Originally posted by Millennium:
No one is saying this. Only that the right tool be used for the job. Flash has its uses; it is excellent for graphics, animation, and sound. But it is not a good format for making entire Websites, for a huge variety of reasons.

...understood, and i agree fully with you. i guess i was (over)reacting to wallinbl's post stating his refusal to even install flash (i tend to just turn my speakers down or close the page and not fault flash for a poor design choice)...

[wallinbl]

Originally posted by ameat:
christ people, why don't you just assume that every site should look like Ludovic Hirlimann's?

It is rather vanilla, but you can find everything right away, which is something that most sites can't claim.

The bottom line is really this: most people come to your site looking for information. You need to make sure that information is clearly accessible and that no one has to search your page over to find out how to get your phone number or to check their order status or to find your next concert date. The graphics and animations and sounds are all nifty, but you must make sure that the site is navigable and useful first, pretty second. Most sites with Flash tend to be pretty first, useful second.

Just remember what the website is for. It's for disseminating information. Looking pretty is a bonus that usually influences nothing more than first impressions. Return visits come from people being able to *use* the site.

[ameat]

Originally posted by wallinbl:
Just remember what the website is for. It's for disseminating information. Looking pretty is a bonus that usually influences nothing more than first impressions. Return visits come from people being able to *use* the site.

...yes, but what is that facilitates one's ability to "use" a site?

[philzilla]

Originally posted by wallinbl:
Just remember what the website is for.

i do a lot of work with bands. their websites are for promotion of their music. which is why i use flash.

[derbs]

Christ! Why are there so many self-righteous ****ers in the web industry? Standards, accessibilty, yadda yadda. Why is it, these son of god standards 'experts' have such **** sites? Have you guys ever seen www.useit.com ??

Millenium says that flash 'shouldn't be used to hack entire websites together'. I disagree. I can't stand websites that try to incorporate Flash and HTML badly. The whole benefit of flash is that you don't have to wait for a page to reload after an action. And that is a usability/functionality benefit!!

You see, HTML is a page based system. When you click a button, or a link, nothing can happen until the page has refreshed, which can take time on slower connections, and is f*king annoying.

This is the opposite way to how operating systems work, which can do things the instant the mouse is clicked. This is why the web is a foreign concept to many non-power users.

OK, for a page of text, obviously HTML is the best way. Ludovic's site is fine in pure, standards compliant HTML. However, people want their web solutions to act as an application. Hotmail is one example. Slow as treacle, and incredibly clunky and unintuitive compared to Apple's Mail program, or MS Entourage. A flash webmail solution would be infinitely better.

E-commerce systems are another example. Take a look at this site:

http://www.fredperry.com/estore/default.asp

And please do look at it! Now, can you guys tell me this:

1) why it isnt usable?
2) why it isnt functional?
3) would it be faster in HTML?
4) would it be better in HTML?

I'll be awaiting your answers!

[wallinbl]

Originally posted by derbs:
http://www.fredperry.com/estore/default.asp

And please do look at it! Now, can you guys tell me this:

1) why it isnt usable?
2) why it isnt functional?

Because I don't have Flash, I can't run your site. It is neither usable nor functional for me. Am I unusual? Probably. Have you considered what a blind person would do with your site?

3) would it be faster in HTML?
4) would it be better in HTML?

It could basically be identical in HTML.

How is Flash making a connection back to the database? (I'm honestly curious - I don't do any Flash development). One beautiful part about HTML is that the database connections and access to library code is all on the server and is never sent to the client. I don't want any piece of code running on a client machine communicating with my database.

[ameat]

Originally posted by wallinbl:
How is Flash making a connection back to the database? (I'm honestly curious - I don't do any Flash development). One beautiful part about HTML is that the database connections and access to library code is all on the server and is never sent to the client. I don't want any piece of code running on a client machine communicating with my database.

i don't know how he's doing his data connection specifically for this site, but on projects i've worked on, you simply call on a server side script (php, asp, perl, c...) that returns some form of text output. ideally, i like for my scripts to return xml which can then be leveraged for multiple purposes by either flash, a "more accessible" html variant, handheld or whatever...

there are also libraries now that allow you to do real time object method calls onto php or coldfusion objects (and i believe someone has developed a jsp version as well) therefore removing the extra step in between...

when you're at home (with flash) check out macromedia.com to see some of the updates that flash has seen...you might want to also know that with flash mx, usability for blind and impaired users is a consideration (they have jakob nielsen on staff now) and can be implemented by the site designer, much like it is an html designer's responsibility to provide accessible functionality, not the technology's...

[derbs]

Originally posted by wallinbl:
Because I don't have Flash, I can't run your site. It is neither usable nor functional for me. Am I unusual? Probably. Have you considered what a blind person would do with your site?

You don't have flash? Did you uninstall it from your system, Or are you running lynx, or something?

[derbs]

Hey ameat - i know you're into flash but what would you answer to my 4 questions on the Fred Perry site?

[derbs]

btw the Fred Perry site has nothing to do with me, it's just an example of a nicely done flash site.

[funkboy]

Originally posted by ameat:
...yes, but what is that facilitates one's ability to "use" a site?

If one does not have the Flash Player installed, and does not have sufficient privileges to install it, the site becomes unusable. Similarly, if someone is using an older site, a LYNX browser, or just an older browser in general, Flash will not run or run very poorly. (as slow as resizing a window on an older Mac running Mac OS X... which is a completely different topic!)

Originally posted by derbs:
Christ! Why are there so many self-righteous ****ers in the web industry? Standards, accessibilty, yadda yadda. Why is it, these son of god standards 'experts' have such **** sites? Have you guys ever seen www.useit.com ??

I don't quite know what you mean by pointing out useit.com... I imagine you think it's a very bland, boring design. Personally, I find it very easy to navigate and a pleasure to use its search engine and other features. Sure, there could be a little more interesting contrasts on the page (maybe, say, images of any kind!), but an advantage of a page like this is that it will load on essentially every browser, from a text-only cell phone browser to a WebTV thing. How popular is WebTV nowadays, anyway?

I'd respond to your post more thoroughly, but your attitude in this first paragraph is decidedly nasty, so I hesitate to reply with my true opinion for fear of getting ridiculed unjustly. Call me Mr. Sensitive

You see, HTML is a page based system. When you click a button, or a link, nothing can happen until the page has refreshed, which can take time on slower connections, and is f*king annoying.

This is the opposite way to how operating systems work, which can do things the instant the mouse is clicked. This is why the web is a foreign concept to many non-power users.

The web is slowly becoming the standard to how people are used to computers working, because internet usage makes up such a large portion of computer time for some people. If 90% of web sites use the page metaphor, the other 10% of sites using Flash or whatever other non-page metaphor system are going to be more confusing, not the other way around.

OK, for a page of text, obviously HTML is the best way. Ludovic's site is fine in pure, standards compliant HTML. However, people want their web solutions to act as an application. Hotmail is one example. Slow as treacle, and incredibly clunky and unintuitive compared to Apple's Mail program, or MS Entourage. A flash webmail solution would be infinitely better.

Edit: Whoops, missed this paragraph.
Actually, no one I know who uses Hotmail regularly complains about using the website. It acts like the rest of the web, which is good. Having it act like people expect is what makes it okay.

E-commerce systems are another example. Take a look at this site:

http://www.fredperry.com/estore/default.asp

And please do look at it! Now, can you guys tell me this:

1) why it isnt usable?
2) why it isnt functional?
3) would it be faster in HTML?
4) would it be better in HTML?

I'll be awaiting your answers!

Again, from your attitude earlier in the post, I'm hesitant to answer these questions, because any answer I give you might just say is wrong. However, I'll venture a go anyway.

1) Why it isn't usable.
- and -
2) Why it isn't functional.
As I said before, if Flash is not installed, the site is not usable. Unless they've developed an HTML alternate for non-Flash equipped browsers, the site becomes unusable.

I must say that I cannot check this, because all my browsers support Flash. You may point this out as proving your point, but it doesn't, because I'm a web designer who makes sure that all my browsers are pretty up-to-date and that I can view most types of media. This often takes a good deal of setting up before browsing, making sure I have the latest updates, plug-ins, and whatnot. This is not something the typical user should be expected to do.

As for the usability of the site (general ease of use), I see some problems.
- On the front page, what's the difference between the 1st, 2nd, and 4th choices? They all look like t-shirts to me. On close inspection, I think the 5th choice is women's apparel. Adding text labels underneath these different categories is not asking too much, I don't think. At the very least, having their titles show up when moused over would be better than its current incarnation.
- Now that I've clicked the 2nd choice, I see that a wide variety of items show up, some that include a jacket! I clicked on a t-shirt, not a jacket... I want to see a selection of t-shirts. Again, a simple label on the front page would fix a lot.

3) Would it be faster in HTML?

Probably not. But how fast does this site load on a dial-up connection? The site could be highly optimized in HTML to load pretty quickly - and if this type of site confuses people (which I imagine it will... anyone remember boo.com?) , a simpler, HTML form-based site will work much faster for users.

4) Would it be better in HTML?

It will display in more browsers. Unless, of course, this store has an alternate HTML-only version.
However, it seems quite silly to alienate customers just because they have an older browser or computer. The point of designing a commercial site is to sell as much as possible. If having a Flash-only site (or having any other particular feature) limits sales, then a problem exists that should be fixed.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by derbs:
Christ! Why are there so many self-righteous ****ers in the web industry?

Like the ones who don't bother working with the established tools, instead hacking technology to do things it isn't suited for, for no other reason than to satisfy their own egos?

Standards, accessibilty, yadda yadda. Why is it, these son of god standards 'experts' have such **** sites? Have you guys ever seen www.useit.com ??

I've seen useit, and yes, it looks terrible. I would guess that Jakob Nielsen is not a designer, any more than I am.

This is the problem; we've put the jobs of "designer" and "developer" onto a single person, when really, there should be two. Most designers know nothing about proper coding, and let's face it, most coders couldn't design their way out of a wet paper bag. There are certain exceedingly-rare exceptions to the rule (try http://www.zeldman.com for an example of that) but they are just that, exceptions. For the most part, web sites should never be designed and implemented by the same person.

Millenium says that flash 'shouldn't be used to hack entire websites together'. I disagree. I can't stand websites that try to incorporate Flash and HTML badly.

Indeed, these sites are bad. But there are many hybrid sites which incorporate them well.

The whole benefit of flash is that you don't have to wait for a page to reload after an action. And that is a usability/functionality benefit!!

No, it's not. The user interacts with the site in exactly the same manner, regardless of reload times.

If anything, all Flash does with load times, by the way, is to front-load them; rather than loading only the pages you need you load them all at once, even if you don't require them all. That is not a usability/functionality benefit.

You see, HTML is a page based system. When you click a button, or a link, nothing can happen until the page has refreshed, which can take time on slower connections, and is f*king annoying.

Indeed. But waiting for five seconds between pages is far less annoying than waiting for fifty seconds right at the beginning.

This is the opposite way to how operating systems work, which can do things the instant the mouse is clicked.

The Web is not a single computer. Indeed, to be a single computer would miss the point entirely. This is why good browsers and sites take care to ensure that the user has feedback on what is going on.

1) why it isnt usable?

• Front-loading takes too long, alienating users right off the bat. This is an inherent problem with the Flash format.
• Annoying animations which delay interaction even once the page has loaded; broadband does not fix this problem. This is not inherent to Flash per se, but is all too common.
• Browser buttons do not work. These buttons are the single most familiar interface users have to the Web; there is no excuse to break them. This is an inherent problem with Flash.
• Too much information is presented on a single screen. I can't immediately tell if I'm supposed to interact with the widgets on the left or right side of the screen, for instance, because nothing looks like a button or a text field. Again, this is not inherent to Flash but is too common in Flash sites.

2) why it isnt functional?

• The Back button does not work; there is no immediately obvious way to back out of a transaction I have decided to cancel. Inherent to Flash.
• I cannot bookmark items that I want to revisit later or show to my friends. Inherent to Flash.
• If I choose to browse with images off -as many dial-up users do- the site is totally useless. I can't even decide to load images as needed; it's all or nothing. And let's not even get into users with aural browsers. Inherent to Flash.

3) would it be faster in HTML?

Front-loading time certainly would be. It seems you've also forgotten about that little browser-based wonder known as progressive rendering, where parts of a page can be rendered as soon as they are downloaded. This cannot be easily mimicked in Flash.

4) would it be better in HTML?

In terms of usability, speed, and functionality, it probably would. The mere transition would automatically give us working browser buttons, bookmarks, progressive rendering, and at least semi-recognizable interface widgets, as well as fixing some other problems which are inherent to Flash. Assuming a competent developer, the rest of these problems could be fixed with little effort.

[ameat]

Originally posted by derbs:
Hey ameat - i know you're into flash but what would you answer to my 4 questions on the Fred Perry site?

1) why it isnt usable?
personally, on my system (2-3 year old pc win2000...work), it is extremely usable...no plugin or browser problems and load time was fast. how it degrades onto other systems, i could not tell you...you might want to title your page though.

2) why it isnt functional?
again, i found the interface to be for the most part extremely well laid out. i think that some of the navigation elements need a bit of space around them, since i find myself getting the bottom menu to popup way too often when navigating image collections. also, perhaps more explicit feedback on item selection (if you pick a shirt, notify the user that they need to select a size and color before adding to the bag. just test labels isn't enough...perhaps having a default value initially or revealing the steps sequentially as completed).

basically, like with any other new interface, after the two seconds of necessary orientation time, i had no trouble selecting items and filling an order...granted i'm conditioned at this point to work with the web so you would definitely need to do some usability testing...try your parents.

3) would it be faster in HTML?
most definitely not. by the time you've loaded a new selection in the flash interface, you would still be waiting for the browser to re-render everything from the server request. html will cache the images but flash doesn't even need to redraw anything...what can be faster than a persistent interface?

4) would it be better in HTML?
not necessarily better, but probably not worse. you could definitely do new page loads that may take a few seconds longer but still visisually look the same way...plus you could duplicate most of the behavior with javascript, but then that opens up a whole new issue with browser compatibility and such...

of course you couldn't send someone a link of a product that you like...you'd have to walk them through the site to view it, but then again, have you ever tried dictating to someone a huge url string? in this case, the url is a lot prettier. also, i don't think it's on the current version of their site, but one of the earlier macromedia beta sites actually did use url strings to denote page location to allow for bookmarking and browser back button functionality. basically, they'd update the javascript history object without actually navigating off of the page. then if you call that page, you could extract the url parameters and use them as an initial state for flash...in this case, you could use a product id and update your interface to show it.

the point is, these issues have been thought about in flash development and the only real barrier to usability or whatever other jargon you want to use for viewers being able to access your site is dependent on whether or not your user has the plugin and whether or not you're a competent and thorough designer/developer...

anyways, i am by no means a huge flash advocate. 95% of my professional work is html based, but i feel strongly that flash definitely has its place much like the other posters have mentioned.

[ameat]

Originally posted by Millennium:
[list][*]Front-loading takes too long, alienating users right off the bat. This is an inherent problem with the Flash format.

...definitely a design choice. if you architect your project into components, you can load them as necessary, or set up a background queue while your user is browsing. flash was intended to be a streaming format.

[philzilla]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Like the ones who don't bother working with the established tools, instead hacking technology to do things it isn't suited for, for no other reason than to satisfy their own egos?

dude, what decade are you living in?

as for Jakob Nielsen, pfft. who cares what he thinks.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by philzilla:
dude, what decade are you living in?

The current one. Rather than some ephemeral two or three versions in the future, where Flash might finally be ready for creating whole sites.

No, I live in the current decade, where broadband is still less than a third of the online population, and so bandwidth is still an issue. I live in a decade where people surf Websites to find information and entertainment, not to be entertained by the site itself.

as for Jakob Nielsen, pfft. who cares what he thinks.

Anyone not using a mainstream browser, or using any Internet device other than a desktop or laptop. It's immature hacks with no technological talent or even awareness who hold back the Web by tying their presentations to a specific device by using technologies that aren't even designed for making Websites.

As I said before, the right tool for the job. Is that really so difficult? Flash is a tool, neither good nor evil in and of itself. HTML for sites, Flash for graphics; what do you lose by this?

[daimoni]

.

[wallinbl]

Originally posted by daimoni:
By the way, ALL of the usability/user interface/user interaction designers that I know and work with consider Jakob Nielsen an immature hack.

Being an overpaid pundit != having a clue.

Nielsen is a good idea gone too far.

[wallinbl]

Does Flash run on WinCE or Palm?

[ameat]

Originally posted by wallinbl:
Does Flash run on WinCE or Palm?

...i believe there are players for both.

[funkboy]

Originally posted by wallinbl:
Nielsen is a good idea gone too far.

I think I'll have to agree, even if I sounded like I was really supporting him before. Anything's bad when overindulged. I like the guy from webpagesthatsuck.com, he's the most rational (has he ever been called that?) about these types of things.

Running a user test is the best way to answer the question, "Is my site usable for my intended audience?"

Of course, many online marketers want *everyone* to be their intended audience, since anyone from 8 to 80 could be using their site.

[ameat]

Originally posted by funkboy:
Of course, many online marketers want *everyone* to be their intended audience, since anyone from 8 to 80 could be using their site.

ha, that's my life. working for a university (www.nyu.edu) and the politics that manage it dictates an audience of everyone...

[benb]

There are a few times when I like Flash.

1) Homestarrunner.com
2) Watching other animated movies on the Net

Other than that, when I get to a flash page, it is Command-W for me. Same with a web page with sound. If I want to hear your crappy MIDI, I'll turn it on myself. If you are a band, do the same thing or make your best songs available to be streamed or downloaded.

[willab]

I like it. I am not a pro web designer, but from the casual eye it's great.

[redJag]

Originally posted by benb:
There are a few times when I like Flash.

1) Homestarrunner.com
2) Watching other animated movies on the Net

Other than that, when I get to a flash page, it is Command-W for me.

You mean like on the page of the band from your sig? Seems like almost every band uses a flash web site because they think it reflects that they are true artists or something.......................