Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

aprilcarter · Mar 31, 2004, 05:28 PM

So, I have this pretty simple animation that I need for my site. I set it up as a gif (using ImageReady), and it came out to 70-some frames with a size of 2.3 MB. No one's sittin' around for that, right?

What application and format would you suggest to make something that will still be functional for the majority of browsers and reduce download time? I have access to pretty much all webbie programs and learn fast... I have Flash experience but don't know the tech side (like how many people actually view Flash ams, etc.).

Suggestions welcome.

Thanks,
April Carter

thePurpleGiant · Mar 31, 2004, 05:43 PM

My latest webstats showed approx 98% of all visitors had at least Flash 5 installed. I think it's a pretty safe bet to assume that the majority of your visitors will have it.

philzilla · Apr 1, 2004, 07:10 AM

Flash. go for it. some people will whine about it, but you're probably not targeting them anyway. and yes, i was talking about you, Millennium

aprilcarter · Apr 1, 2004, 08:17 AM

I figured as much. Thank you.

Millennium · Apr 1, 2004, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by philzilla:
Flash. go for it. some people will whine about it, but you're probably not targeting them anyway. and yes, i was talking about you, Millennium

What; what's wrong with replacing an animated image with Flash? That's what it's for, in fact that's exactly what it's for.

It's the abuse of Flash -such as replacing an entire Website with it- that I'm against. It doesn't look like April here is redoing her whole site as Flash-only, and it doesn't look like she's replacing the navigation or anything, so I fail to see where there is any abuse. No problem.

It would be polite to give some warning, though.

Zim · Apr 1, 2004, 11:29 AM

Make sure users can get by without Flash tho...

As an Engineer on Solaris (which is a significant proportion in the engineering world), I am always amazed at the stupidity of companies that have a flash-only front page with NO way to bypass the intro and access the rest of the site..... at which point I decide NOT to use their chips/product in my design.

Mike

DUNSEL · Apr 2, 2004, 08:21 AM

The tragedy of Flash really began when people started using it for those annoying ads running over other pages. That's when some pop-up blockers, including mine, started to include all Flash blocking as an option, which I do use. What I find MOST annoying is when people use Flash when they don't absolutely have to. For simple things you could do with a bit of DHTML that can be made to be cross-browser compliant, and not require any special player.

Zim · Apr 2, 2004, 08:28 AM

oooh.. what browser lets you block Flash?

I'm way ADD and anything "moving" on a web page drives me to distraction.

The "Block images from this server" mouse item is never there for Flash items, so I've been at a loss at how to block those types of ads.

Thanks,
Mike

DUNSEL · Apr 2, 2004, 11:18 AM

No browser that I know of. If Earthlink is your ISP, you can get their popup blocker, which does have options to block flash and shockwave. Runs piggy back on IE, so it doesn't use up system memory like free running ones. The best blocker I've seen so far. Unfortunately, it's only available to earthlink subscribers. But there must be others out there that block flash.

ghotirking · Apr 2, 2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Zim:
Make sure users can get by without Flash tho...

As an Engineer on Solaris (which is a significant proportion in the engineering world), I am always amazed at the stupidity of companies that have a flash-only front page with NO way to bypass the intro and access the rest of the site..... at which point I decide NOT to use their chips/product in my design.

Mike

Amen, brother. For me, it goes for any website - something that carried over from my 100% Linux days - if you don't provide me an alternative to the flash, "screw your website, I'm goin' somewhere else."
Thankfully, in my experience, a lot of web designers are smart and provide "high bandwidth (flash)" and "low bandwidth (html)" versions of the site (a lot of rock/music band sites are like this, I've to noticed).

DUNSEL · Apr 2, 2004, 02:59 PM

Will Flash player not run on linux systems?

Chris O'Brien · Apr 2, 2004, 03:39 PM

Flash does work on linux systems. Google for 'flash linux' and you'll find out.

ghotirking · Apr 3, 2004, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by DUNSEL:
No browser that I know of. If Earthlink is your ISP, you can get their popup blocker, which does have options to block flash and shockwave. Runs piggy back on IE, so it doesn't use up system memory like free running ones. The best blocker I've seen so far. Unfortunately, it's only available to earthlink subscribers. But there must be others out there that block flash.

Avant Browser (okay, that is for the Windoze platform, but you weren't specific

). Mozilla/Firefox has a sh*tload of extensions - including one that blocks flash (or rather replaces it with a button you click to actually play the flash).

Zim · Apr 3, 2004, 06:55 AM

ghotirking, my 1st bord child is in the mail... the Flash button is awesome.

As for Flash on linux/Solaris, etc, I'm sure it will run on most/all systems, but the question is whether you can get your IT cranky-pants to install it, and will their install work when you have the audacity to download a version of Mozilla that is less than one year old... (unlike the Netscape 4.73 they provide you with and expect you to use....)

I exaggerate very little....

Mike

aprilcarter · Apr 8, 2004, 09:02 AM

Do you think it's necessary to provide an alternative to Flash on a site level if there is only one Flash element in a standard page... or maybe a little component here or there (and I mean little, like a 30x30 icon)?

I.e., if I have a handful of small components in a standard website, should I actually consider it a Flash website and construct a second, strictly HTML version?

Thanks.

DUNSEL · Apr 8, 2004, 11:43 AM

Only if it's necessary for navigation. I mean, if you can't navigate a site, and it's not really functional without Flash, then yes, it's a flash site. But if it's just graphic niceties that don't affect function, I s'pose you could get by with that.

calimehtar · Apr 11, 2004, 10:46 PM

Just wanted to say: I tried svg and I love it. Adobe's plug-in is great. If you're used to working with html, it makes more sense than Flash.

Only two problems with SVG - most users don't have the plugin yet, so they'll have to download it. And, while the w3c specs are good, there isn't a lot of information out there about actual implementation. You'll have to just do things and see if they work.

James L · Apr 12, 2004, 02:37 AM

You will have far fewer compatability issues with Flash then with SVG. I love SVG, but it isn't anywhere near as widespread yet.

Flash has an option to save it with a short Javascipt/VBScript (that it creates for you) that checks for the Flahs plugin, and if it isn't present it displays a still image instead.

As long as your animation is a NON essential part of your site this is the best of both worlds... 98% of your viewers will see the animation, and those that don't have the Flash plug in will see the still image.

For people who have disabled scripting, just put the image in place between <noscript> tags, and it will even be displaed for them!

Now, if the animation is ESSENTIAL to your site (which it should NEVER be), then you need to have an html splash page warning people of such, so they can either get the correct plug in, or decide not to visit your site.

Cheers!

calimehtar · Apr 12, 2004, 10:38 AM

To be fair, it's not hard to make a javascript thing that will ask your users to download the svg plugin. But yeah, the difference in market penetration is huge. Flash installed base is close to 90%. SVG, maybe 10%.

I don't use svg myself, except for kicks. And when I do, I usually make a full gif or flash backup rather than asking users to download the plugin.

Just saying that SVG rocks. If Microsoft ever builds a decent parser into IE, and if Mozilla ever get around to releasing their svg build to the public, and if Apple ever ships Safari with SVG support.... I will be very happy. In the mean time, use flash.

frownyfrank · Apr 12, 2004, 10:51 AM

I usually make a point to export my Flash projects as the lowest version for the features used. If it is just simple animation (and no to little actionscript), you could get by with Flash 3 even (also assuming no masks). Nowadays I aim for Flash 5, since that supports the newer format of actionscript and almost all the features that a normal user would use.

Even so, depending on what version of Flash you are using, often it will bring up a dialog on PCs to download the latest version, even if you've exported it as Flash 2 or whatever. I believe that has something to do with the ID element in the object tag, but I'm not certain.

Cheers

James L · Apr 12, 2004, 01:21 PM

I totally agree with the last two posts. It IS a shame htat SVG doesn't have deeper market penetration, as it totally rocks (we had to do an SVG thing in my web design courses at school).

I also agree about saving your flash file at the lowest player as possible, makes total sense to me. I also go for Flash 5 unless there is some scripting issue.

Cheers!

clam2000 · Apr 12, 2004, 04:40 PM

another way to block flash (or anything for that matter) is css

basically all browsers allow you to have a user defined stylesheet. having this line will block all flash:

embed[type="application/x-shockwave-flash"] {display: none !important}

i've put the sheet I use here

it works in mozilla browsers, safari, and even IE.

--will