Flash -- Your Take
January 27, 2004 | 
31 Comments
I’ve wanted to have a discussion here about Flash for awhile. I want to get your thoughts on Flash and it’s effect on the Web and Web design. To start off I’ll try and give you an idea of my take on Flash. It may be hard, it’s a big topic.
As someone who has quite a bit of experience using Flash, and truly believes that it is a powerful and useful too if used correctly, I find it funny that at times I hate it so much. I’m really of two minds when it comes to Flash.
It bothers me that for many people out there, Flash is Web design. This is an idea that I find simply ridiculous, yet I hear it from clients and newbies all the time.
To me Flash is seperate and in some ways beyond the Web itself, let alone synonymous with Web design. It’s both more and less than the Web and a part of, while outside, Web design.
I think Flash has a huge place on the Web as a tool. Even the often hated “all Flash” site has it’s place. Art, entertainment, gaming, photography and anywhere where exploration and play are one of the goals are perfect candidates for a Flashed based site. There are many others. It all depends on the goal of the site and the site’s audience.
Many Web professionals know this and use Flash accordingly. Many more do not. This not only gives Flash a bad rap in some circles — it’s influenced Web design in a direction that I think is ultimately harmful to everyone involved.
It, for some odd reason, promotes bad and unusable design and a constant reinvention of the wheel. I’m not sure why this is, but there are thousands of sites out there that prove it. Clients see these sites and relate them to the Web as a whole. Then they come and ask you and I for an all Flash site without even knowing if Flash is the right tool for the job.
Bwwhuhh huh huh. Scary.
On another note, Flash has also developed as a standalone Web application tool and I think that it’s perfect for Rich Internet Applications (RAI). But again, RIAs are a (in my mind rather small) part of the Web as a whole and at times seem to be again, somewhat beyond and seperate from the Web.
I see quite a bit of Flash design and development moving in this direction. I think that it’s a good thing. Maybe it means that people are really beginning to learn where Flash has it’s pros and cons and what it should, and shouldn’t, be used for.
So, Flash isn’t going anywhere, we know that. Clients want it, teachers teach it, everyone has an opinion on it and it gets more powerful in functionality with each new version. I love Flash. I hate Flash.
What’s your take on Flash?
Filed under: Flash
Comments
1. Rowen said:
Two words: Skip intro >>
:)
Posted on January 27, 2004 05:25 PM | #
2. eric said:
Flash sites, if produced by people who already understand design and interfaces, are usually beautiful and functional, but I agree - most of the web is poorly designed and inappropriate.
I guess I see flash more appropriate for media-rich sites - movies, games, that sort of thing - rather than just plain-jane sites. A friend of mine is stuck in the flash-for-everything mindset and it drives me crazy… flash is totally out of place, I think, for a 4-page personal site without much content. Especially when it doesn’t look too good….
Posted on January 27, 2004 05:29 PM | #
3. ste said:
I think you and I are on the same page concerning Flash. If I’m working on a site that is in any meant to be informative, then Flash isn’t even a consideration. The lack of search indexing, locked text, and general inaccessibility make it worthless for that sort of thing. However, with a controlled audience and a specific purpose (to entertain, to provide more interactivity than HTML, Javascript, and CGI can, etc.) I think it’s a great tool. You wouldn’t use a screwdriver to drive in a nail, so don’t use Flash to drive a content-rich website (unless your content is the Flash - i.e. games).
And for God’s sake, stop making Flash splash pages! Though now I’m torn - which is worse, the Flash splash page that then goes to a regular HTML site or an HTML splash page that opens a Flash popup? ;)
Posted on January 27, 2004 06:19 PM | #
4. ste said:
I meant to say somewhere in there that it’s important to inform your client. If they want a Flash site, instead of just blankly saying No, explain the strengths and weaknesses of Flash-based sites and why the site they want would be much better done outside of Flash. In the long run, you’re doing the client AND yourself a favor. You won’t have to pound the proverbial nail with a screwdriver, and the client gets a site that actually works the way it should. (Education may lose some potential customers, but generally only the ones that aren’t worth having in the first place.)
Posted on January 27, 2004 06:23 PM | #
5. Nollind Whachell said:
ste is dead on. People shouldn’t be using Flash for content rich sites.
As for Flash being used for “gaming” sites, I would have to totally disagree with this because it comes back to being a content issue. To me information is information, it doesn’t matter if you are selling a car or are selling a game. People want information and as much information as possible so they can make a decision when purchasing something.
The reason why gaming publishers and web designers are probably going with the Flash route today is because almost all gaming publishers appear to be spending very little money on their product sites compared to what they did say back in 1999-2000. To me it almost appears as though 99% of the gaming sites out their are Flash-based AND without very much content. Actually some sites are so bad, you almost get as much information or more on the back of the physical game box. To me the company is just throwing their money away because people only visit it once and probably never return. It’s sad because, as I said, gamers wants lots of information just like anyone else. Just pick any game and go visit some of the community fan sites related to it and you’ll see what I mean. Tons of information and usually very little or no Flash involved.
One main reason I detest 100% Flash-based sites so much is because they don’t promote sharing and linking which are two big things to do on the Web. See a cool new game screenshot that you want to show your friend? Sorry, no can do with that 100% Flash-based site because everything is contained under one URL which is like a Cold War check point for the entire site. With an HTML site though, those screenshot can easily be linked to and shared with your friend. Hell, from a developers standpoint, there is no problem even embedding Flash as long as the HTML page is accessible and link able.
If you are still not convinced on this go check out Blizzard’s web site, specifically their Worlds of Warcraft site. No 100% Flash-based site here. Notice how much information is here? Enough to keep you coming back time and again. Geez, it’s probably why Blizzard’s web site got the people’s vote as THE best gaming web site on the Voodoo Extreme gaming news site a couple years back. Blizzard builds their site like a community because their customers want it that way. Why? Because they play that way.
BTW just so you know, I used to work for a web firm that built sites for gaming publishers such as Sierra, Activision, and Paramount Pictures. As I said, we we’re riding high in 1999-2000 but things went off the deep end after that. One of the reasons I believe so is because instead of continuing to push for community sites (which cost too much money), clients started demanding more and more Flash sites (for their cool factor). This caused the sites to have less content, almost becoming nothing much more than product brochures, and it also meant that they cost a lot less to build, meaning less income for the web firm.
It’s funny that companies don’t just listen to the people out there. When we built our first major Flash site for Relic entertainment way back when, almost immediately people started demanding a regular HTML site (which we eventually built). Sure they liked the “coolness” of the Flash site but they found it much slower and less usable compared to an HTML site.
Posted on January 27, 2004 08:04 PM | #
6. dez said:
I don’t neccesarily think that all Flash is the best choice even for entertainment sites either. More often that not I find it damned annoying when for instance I can’t find something simple like a movie synopsis. I think Flash is great for web apps, mutlimedia etc. I love the potential of Flash in this sense and the power of Action Script (have yet to get my head around AS 2.0 though) but I am so over all Flash sites of any kind with some notable exceptions such as the brilliant Flash minimalism of Afterlife. Maybe it’s just personal taste but I find the typical Flash chrome look to be very dated. And load times and linking are big isssues too.
BTW I think it’s a shame Falsh for the Future didn’t take off. It was a worthy idea.
Posted on January 27, 2004 09:48 PM | #
7. Cameron Adams said:
There are only two things wrong with Flash, aside from these it is an entirely valid development choice for anything.
The first is accessibility/crawlability, although progress is being made on this and has been a major area of focus for Macromedia recently.
The second is its modularity – 100% Flash sites suck because you cannot go directly to any of the “pages” inside. This can be gotten around by using HTML as the basis for each of your Flash pages – creating the structure of a traditional site.
Any other complaints you can have about Flash are indicative not of the technology but of its implementers. Splash screens, long intros, load times, usability, navigation; these are all things that are controlled by those *making* the sites.
I remember when Flash was first released it was heralded as the saviour of slow-loading pages. Theoretically it should be, vectors are way more efficient than bitmaps, but it is abuse by the designers – intros, movies, large images – that have given Flash its bad name and perpetuated the same kind of design around the Web and in the minds of users/clients.
Perhaps the inherent nature of Flash makes it more appealing to traditional designers than to those of the Web – which is why it gets branded the way it does – but in the hands of the right designer I have seen it used as effectively as HTML on “information” projects.
(Note: I haven’t done any Flash development for over 3 years)
Posted on January 27, 2004 10:41 PM | #
8. Keith said:
Cameron said “Any other complaints you can have about Flash are indicative not of the technology but of its implementers.”
This is very true. Unfortunatley the vast majority of Flash we come across is poorly implemented.
A well implemeted Flash site, or even use of Flash for anything other than RIAs, is very hard to find.
Posted on January 28, 2004 12:12 AM | #
9. Keith said:
Ste, Nollind and Dez all mention that they have problems with various all Flash sites, so I figured I should clarify a point.
When I say “Art, entertainment, gaming, photography and anywhere where exploration and play are one of the goals are perfect candidates for a Flashed based site.” I don’t mean that these types of sites can “go all Flash” and be successful. It still really depends on the site.
I’m just saying that if done correctly these kinds of sites tend to lean more toward Flash than away from it.
Nollind mentioned The World of Warcraft site, which is one I just looked at recently. I was pleasantly surprised to find it was pretty easy to get around and get information from. Many gaming sites – Flash or no – are hard to use and for the most part Flash just adds to that problem.
So I see his point.
I guess, even if you determine Flash may be appropriate for you audience in some ways, it still might not be the right tool for your whole online experience.
There is no rule that says you can’t combine Flash with HTML and provide an accessible, informational and usable site that satisfies not only the need for easy access to info, but the desire to explore and interact.
Posted on January 28, 2004 12:43 AM | #
10. Andy Budd said:
The low cost of entry means it’s very easy to start creating flash content with little understanding of the medium. However the same is true of wysiwyg html editors. This is one reason why the web is swamped by bad Flash and HTML sites.
Flash is a very easy product to learn, but quite a complicated one to master. A lot of people turn to Flash to avoid having to worry about browser compatibility issues. Also a lot of clients (and designers) seem to feel that adding motion to a site makes it more “dynamic”, helps “branding” and makes a site more “professional” and “attractive” to customers.
Throw all this into a pot alongside inexperienced designers and your left with a proliferation of bad Flash sites.
Personally I really like flash, but it’s only right for a small proportion of sites. Despite being a flash developer, I’ve quickly developed a case of Flash Aversion Syndrome, whereby, whenever I see a spalsh pag or e a Flash site in a pop-up window, I click away. There is some beautiful Flash work out there, but most of the time I can’t be bothered to wait 10sec for the cool GIU builds only to find out that the site has nothing of interest me.
This is a huge generalisation but most Flash sites seem to be heavy on the expirience, but light on the content. This will change when more people start integrating Flash with databases. However even these days most flash sites seem to be static .FLA’s that the author has to open to change. Great for the “Publish and forget” model but useless for living sites.
Posted on January 28, 2004 02:07 AM | #
11. Bobby van der Sluis said:
Great discussion, I have to agree with most of the points made.
Flash is a powerful tool which adds value to the way we design web pages. It enables us to create vector animations, embedded fonts, dynamic content, games, and bring audio and video to the web. It works efficiently with its resources, delivers small files and has a huge plug-in install base. I think people should see Flash as an addition to their regular web design toolset.
I completely agree with the point that there are more poorly and inappropriate designed Flash websites around than good ones. The implementers are to blame for this, not the technology itself. Flash just offers too much freedom and most designers just don’t know how to deal with this. One of the consequenses is that Flash got a bad name with a lot of clients.
I also don’t like the mindset that Flash can solve every design problem so people should develop 100% Flash sites. Flash has its strong and weak points and is not an overall solution. People should use Flash only for its strong points.
As an experiment tried to create a 100% Flash 6 site with all usability and accessibility bells and whistles available: preloaders, an architecture that loads small movies, obvious navigation, accessibility options used, embedded pixel fonts, Robert Penner’s back button functionality, etc.
I ended up with a very complex architecture which was hard to maintain and limited to extend. I still had to build functionality for deep linking and bookmarking and figured that some issues like crawability could only be resolved by duplicating content in normal HTML. During the process of developing this prototype I got frustrated by a series of Flash bugs I had to work around.
My conclusion was that this was an unneccesary complex way to create websites. Why should I spend my time duplicating functionality that is already available in regular HTML design? I think that for the casual Flash designer 100% Flash sites are a bad practice, because it is way over their head to develop them in a correct way.
My advise to other web designers is to keep web design simple and just see Flash for what it is: one or more objects embedded in an HTML page. The challenge is to use it appropriately and embed it as seemlessly as possible with other page elements like text, images and links. I always admire nicely composed websites that use Flash, but I can’t see right away that Flash is used.
Posted on January 28, 2004 05:02 AM | #
12. Nollind Whachell said:
I need to correct something I said, now that I look back on it. “People shouldn’t be building 100% Flash-based sites for content rich sites” is really what I should have said. Embedded Flash is fine, if done well, and can add a lot of value to a content rich site because it is adding its own content as well.
For example, I created animated GIFs of rotating vehicles for the web site of Ground Control way back when. Flash would be a much better solution for this now. Even better utilize the 3D capability and allow the gamer to control the rotation and zoom ability. Even better add in the ability to show the vehicle in different action modes (i.e. firing, deployed, etc).
Most of important of all though, as with any large files, ensure you state what the person is getting into (i.e. 400K load, etc) before they click to see the animation. For example, you could make it show a static image in Flash but when you click the image it dynamically loads the secondary Flash element. Obviously this makes it much easier on the person’s bandwidth restrictions, since they know what they are getting into and aren’t sitting around twiddling their thumbs in frustration.
Posted on January 28, 2004 09:17 AM | #
13. Justin said:
I was talking to a friend about a site for his shirt embroidery company. He said that he always imagined you see the store and zoom into the door where you are greeted by a serviceperson behind the counter and a rack of shirts in the background. “You would click on a shirt and the CSR would take it off the rack and hold it out for you.” He imagined it would be as if you were interacting with a physical store.
So I asked him 2 questions about trying to see everything in the rack. Would it take more or less time than actually being in the store and flipping through the rack yourself? Do you think the animation would be as amusing at the end of the rack, as it was first time you saw it?
He never brought up flash again.
What is it with business owners who want to feel like you click on their front-door to enter, and have a similar experience to being at the store. Does anyone else here get asked that a lot? Makes me think of VRML…
Posted on January 28, 2004 11:36 AM | #
14. Zelnox said:
There are experiences that only Flash can evoke and sometimes, they are quite cool and impressive. For some, it is like another kind of canvas for creativity. However, it is sad that too many “web designers” seem to believe that the web started with Flash and will end with Flash . If you visit linkdup.com, moluv.com, or netdiver.net, you will see many interesting compositions, almost all Flash-based. Still, I would like to see more of the rest that makes the Web as well.
As an aside, I think of Flash as a medium between print (including static web) and television. It is possible to combine elements from both worlds. It can be artful, no?
Now someone who works with Flash a lot may see the web from an artistic perspective. Art is not always usable. There is a time for cool stuff, but there is also a time for regular stuff (which does not have to be boring).
Posted on January 28, 2004 01:32 PM | #
15. Chris Vincent said:
Sheez… That’s a lot of opinion. Here’s mine.
Flash is really cool. There’s so much you can do with it. I find that a lot of Flash sites do a good job of drawing me in and keeping me interested. For some sites, the content just wouldn’t seem right displayed without the “flashy” multimedia. Flash is the interactive designer’s dream come true.
Already stated is that the technology isn’t inaccessible, but the implementation is. I’m Flash sites will eventually have the same accessibility and indexability (not a real word) as regular pages do.
At the same time, I have my qualms with it. I don’t like the amount of control it gives to Macromedia. I’m not saying it’s a bad company, but a lot of sites now rely on them to keep going. If Macromedia were to decide to become evil (God forbid), Flash and Flash sites are screwed.
I don’t like the way it’s become de-facto in the minds of the inexperienced. To some, Flash sites are “1337”, while traditional sites are stuck in an ugly past. This is just the way some peoples’ minds work.
What I would really like to see is how JavaScript and VML will compare to Flash. If it does well (which is entirely dependent upon the implementations), it will give developers a more reachable alternative. Of course, Flash won’t be wiped out, and I wouldn’t want it to be. I just like the thought of being able to code sweet Flash-like capabilities using standards and without investing hundreds of dollars into software.
I hope all that together made sense. Just like Keith said, I love Flash and I hate it.
Posted on January 28, 2004 02:13 PM | #
16. LFN said:
I’ve always supported the web standards and open source method of creating sites rather than the proprietary plug-in and source to compiler method of working. Maybe it’s too puritan, but it seems righteous to be working in the triptych of XHTML, CSS, and JavaScript totally open and accessible web standards. Well formed documents over fashion. I usually find navigation and user interface to be friendlier on “regular” sites as opposed to the flash interfaces. Everyone knows the tradition of text, link, graphics, as is the case with “regular” pages while this distinction gets fuzzy with flash documents. All too often flash designers seem to want to reinvent the user interface into a “rich user experience” which quickly turns into a confusing waste of time with the slow fades and “flashy” transitions, scroll wheels are broken, scrolling seems to have it’s own pace, links and image flips are slow, text is all to often done incorrectly and fuzzy, transitions are unnecessarily time consuming and glittery, etc… Flash can be done well and in certain cases succeeds where a regular web page cannot, but all too often the most important factor, the content is not enhanced, but degraded by this “rich user experience” and the viewer is left with nothing more than eye candy, like a movie that’s all effects but no plot. It’s funny to see how many people want a “4 page website with flash intro” and you can’t blame them, people who do not understand the web as a medium see the glitz and glamour and want a piece of the action. It’s the job of the designer to educate the client why one option is better than the other.
Posted on January 28, 2004 11:56 PM | #
17. Egor Kloos said:
I’ve always wondered if clients understood that Flash is just a plugin. Although powerful it’s not a browser platform. If it was then Macromedia would have made more effort to help developers create full flash sites. A site entirely in Flash is a posibility but often it is pointless seeing as a mixed HTML and flash site would work just as well. There are some areas where a full-on flashsite could prove to be exceptional as the Altoids site seems to demonstrate. Here content for advertising is key. The sites only goal is to create an experience with the Altoids brand. So it’s requirements as a website are limited, in fact it could run offline just as well.
So if I’m making a website I consider if it could work offline as a contained entity, usually that isn’t the case so then I’d treat Flash as an object to be pluged into a webpage.
Posted on January 29, 2004 03:16 AM | #
18. Jack said:
I’ve seen too many bloated or poorly-made flash sites to hold much hope for them now. If you asked me, I’d wager a guess as to say the most successful use of flash so far is to create distractive little games to pass the hours at work/school. badger badger badger.
Flash just wrests too much control from the user. Unless you really know what you’re doing, flash animations belong in the realm of big animated gifs and java applet graphics.
Posted on January 29, 2004 04:02 AM | #
19. Patrick Griffiths said:
As I have brought up recently, the main problem I have (and come across often) is the argument over which is better - HTML or Flash.
But obviously, it is a daft argument because they both do different things.
Unfortunately, as already discussed, Flash is so often misused and that seems to be the basis of the gripes people have about it. But then HTML is also misused - table-based layouts being the obvious example.
Posted on January 29, 2004 04:33 AM | #
20. Nollind Whachell said:
Actually Patrick’s statement reminded me of the rule, “Don’t use technology just for the sake of using it.” Everytime, I see a 100% Flash-based site, I ask myself, “Could this site have been done in HTML?” Probably over 95% of the time, the answer is yes. Most of what Flash brought to the site was just animated pans and fades. The only thing added that couldn’t be reproduced was the audio looping in the background. Then again, a lot of the time, these audio loops are so bad, you usually turn them off anyways. :)
Posted on January 29, 2004 08:23 AM | #
21. JC said:
I don’t use normal Flash for very much, but Flash Communication Server is about the coolest thing ever. Drag and drop voice, video, and text chat. Even has whiteboards. And the license changes and price drop with the 1.5 version makes it much more reasonable. Runs on Windows or Linux servers and all the user needs is the normal flash plugin. I think it’s the first thing that’s ever let mac and pc users voice chat together… not sure if there’s a *nix capable flash plugin though.
Posted on January 29, 2004 01:45 PM | #
22. Scott Trotter said:
The biggest problem with Flash, IMHO, is that it is proprietary. It’s owned lock, stock and barrel by Macromedia. All of Flash’s usability and compatability problems stem from this fact. If you identify a problem, like the inability to bookmark interior “pages,” there’s nothing you can do about it other than send a request to Macromedia’s wishlist address, and hope that the tiny number of MM employees responsible for determining Flash’s feature set deem your request worthy. And unless your wishlist request is for some cool new feature that will help them sell more copies of Flash MX, you might as well forget about it.
By contrast, the web and the rest of the Internet are open and non-proprietary. If you’ve been around the industry longer than 10 years, you’ll no doubt remember Compuserve, The Source, Prodigy, AppleLink, eWorld, MCIMail, a gazillion BBS systems, and a tiny little startup called America Online :-). All of these had much better content than the fledgling WWW, but they were all proprietary little islands built on the broadcast model. Within a few short years, the Internet had rendered them all–except AOL–obsolete.
The foundation of this success was and continues to be the Internet’s openness–open and freely available protocols like HTTP/TCP/IP and open and free available data formats like HTML and it’s successors. Anybody can build a browser. Anybody can build a server. Anybody can build an authoring tool. Anybody can create content. And “they” did all of the above. On the other hand, the Flash authoring tool is expensive; only available from one vendor and only on the platforms that they deem profitable; has a significant learning curve; and produces content in a proprietary format that can only be read by their own player, which again, is only available on the platforms that they think are worth supporting.
If it was Microsoft instead of Macromedia, everyone would be screaming bloody murder, and there’d be a Justice Dept. investigation.
The Internet and WWW are a rich information ecosystem, full of many different producers and consumers of content, all based on the DNA of HTML and HTTP. In this environment, Flash sites are just rocks–pretty (sometimes) to look at, but not really a full-fledged part of the ecosystem of browsers and search engines and shopping agents and web services and so on.
Still, given all that, there’s no doubt that Flash provides a rich presentation capability that is otherwise missing from the Internet, one that does have it’s uses. And until such time as SVG gains traction–which won’t happen until Microsoft provides native support for it in IE and a major vendor (listening, Adobe?) produces an authoring tool equivalent to Flash MX–we’re stuck with Flash.
So use it appropriately, as a way to ENHANCE standards-based content, rather than annoying “intro” pages and complete sites. And start demanding SVG.
Posted on January 29, 2004 05:44 PM | #
23. Lucian said:
While I probably share the same disdain for Flash, I must admit that it’s amazing what eye-candy can be produced if used properly. It is utterly misinformed to think of Flash as the web. Like you said, it’s a tool that’s more and (at the same time) less than the web. I’m more inclined for HTML and flash to find some form of union as opposed to taking polar ends of the scale.
Posted on January 29, 2004 10:58 PM | #
24. JC said:
Scott - Open SWF.
SWF is wide open. And there are flash players for just about every modern *nix variant, Amiga, BeOS, and OS/2.
Only the fla format is restricted, so you can’t edit a Flash authored file in another piece of software.. but you can definitely create swf files in programs like swish or one of the open source projects for swf creation, as well as export to it from a variety of software, including some from Adobe.
So, like… chill. You’re sounding like a /. zealot who annoys people into sticking with windows.
Posted on January 30, 2004 02:38 PM | #
25. John said:
Flash, used well is a delight and I submit a site that is a fine example.
It provides a choice ( Flash or HTML )and I leave you to decide on which version provides the more positive “user experience.”
The site is http://flash.designbyfront.com/flash.htm#
Its unfortunate that Flash sites like Front are still the exception.
Cheers
John
Posted on January 31, 2004 05:50 PM | #
26. Rick Webb said:
Flash’s only place is as ‘pretty-ness’ not functionality. I’d admit, sometimes a tasteful flash animation for a header would be wonderful, but as a navigation or content device flash is not the great.
Posted on February 7, 2004 06:01 PM | #
27. Benedict Arnold said:
Well, the reason Flash is so popular among webdesigners is the same why TV programmes like “Pop Idol” or “Joe Millionaire” are so popular in our society, or why Britney Spears and Robbie Williams are the most successful singers of our time, or Harry Potter the best selling book series of the last few decades.
The society consists of 99% morons, who will just go for what they are told is cool. It doesn’t matter if it’s really cool. Just swim with the mainstream, and you’ll be on the safe side.
A fraction of this society are webdesigners, and that fraction is a lot bigger than it had to be, because “Design” is looked at as a “cool” profession, so a lot of people who just do what’s the “cool thing of the moment” have gotten into it. It’s only natural that the majority of them doesn’t give a d–m about a “grand plan” of how websites should be designed. They do it like anybody else, and after all, why should they leave the safe path if there are clients who think like they do? When the clients get smarter, the webdesigners will have to follow or they won’t get any more jobs. But as long as you can lead a convenient life without thinking too much, why change anything?
The web is still too young. Every website has to be “hot” and “well designed” to be taken seriously. Then again, it’s not really “design” in the original meaning of the word. “Design” is mistaken for “style” almost everywhere. The hype is still to strong for (us?) serious people to take over.
Another aspect is the big discrepancy about what people say and what they eventually do. Most people will say they “like Flash sites because there’s animation and sound”, but when they use the internet, and have to chose between a Flash site and a plain jane site they’ll prefer the latter because in reality, they just want to get things done.
There are signs that a change is going to take place, but it’s going slow and will take a lot of time. Many corporations have taken down their flash websites (which they paid Millions for…) and put up non-Flash sites. “Usability” has become some kind of buzzword, thanks to Jakob Nielsen, but today, it’s being treated as the next “fashion” instead of being acknowledged as a building block of all things “Design”.
A bitter pill to swallow for the thinking man.
Posted on March 24, 2004 08:34 AM | #
28. sceggott said:
Personally I loathe, detest, and resent flash sites. It is merely a tool to be implemented within html as an object. It should compliment the site’s content - NOT control it. All that said I’m not opposed to incorporating flash for use as a banner or nav bar. However I cannot abide intros, they are repetitive, monotonous, time-consuming, irritating and serve no purpose except to deter visitors. If designers insist on intros they should at least give the user the option, before it begins to load!
Posted on March 31, 2004 09:01 AM | #
29. Visceraman1 said:
There is a time and place for Flash. There are impressive, detailed sites with it, and without. There are of course, many sites that overuse, improperly use, and {yawn} feel they need a preloader for a mere {yawn} splash page.
I’ve gotten away from using any Flash, as I haven’t been able to do so, and still have validated code.
Posted on April 13, 2004 11:35 PM | #
30. Glenn said:
Flash is awesome. Its every designers dream come true. It destroys the boundries of HTML and opens the door to creativity. To me, an all flash site is more interesting than an old table like site. Flash allows artists to entice viewers with interactive content (which is always good) and lure them in with the realm of what ever company it is. Some one once said that a picture is worth a thousand words, thats what flash has given to the web. A new medium for communication infused with the power of creativity. Any developed flash designer (hopefully with an artistic background) can realize flash’s HUGE potential and use it to their artistic advantage and shy away from the boring HTML-based junk. Animation, Interactivity, Usability, Functionality, or funability anyone? Flash is awesome, learn its power before you critique it!
Posted on June 26, 2004 02:26 AM | #
31. Glenn said:
Oh, just a thought i was pondering after reading Arnolds last post:
You were saying that “The society consists of 99% morons, who will just go for what they are told is cool. It doesn’t matter if it’s really cool. Just swim with the mainstream, and you’ll be on the safe side”
lets define mainstream. I think of mainstream as “what the majority of the people do or listen to or want or what ever. It means majority and what they WANT.”
Lets suppose that, just maybe, you were in the DESIGNING or STYLING (as you like to put it) business and you needed to make a webpage for someone. Are you really going to design a webpage that isnt what the “mainstream” crowd wants?? You mean to say that you would rather design something that would not be a crowd-pleaser and expect the client to like it?? I think that you design whats wanted and liked at the momment because that IS what is wanted and cool at the momment. Simple and logical really.
Lets suppose that 99% of society are morons (you can be on the 1% for this example and i’ll be on the 99% side), im going to like, for WHATEVER REASON IT MAY BE, the cool,interactive and animated site. I being the customer. Obviously, any customer-orientated business would aim to please the majority of their customers, EVEN IF it requires an animated and interactive site, EVEN IF only “99%” of their customers approve, EVEN IF there are those few who dislike visually appealing sites, they have a webpage FOR THE PURPOSE of appealing to the MAINSTREAM!
Easy pill to swallow for the 99% crowd. Toxic to the 1%.
Posted on June 26, 2004 02:53 AM | #
Comments are now closed