Flash is bad?

[Joshua Goldberg]

I'm dead, my website that has taken 22 weeks to launch is all done in Flash. Am going to have to get
it done in HTML as well for those who do not have an ADSL connection. In Canada Hi-Speed internet
has pretty well taken over a few years ago.

 

[Donn Cave]

Quoth "Joshua Goldberg" <[email protected]>:
| I'm dead, my website that has taken 22 weeks to launch is all done in Flash. Am going to have to
| get it done in HTML as well for those who do not have an ADSL connection. In Canada Hi-Speed
| internet has pretty well taken over a few years ago.

Depends. I'll never see your Flash site, it would just be a blank page. I guess I'm in a minority
there, Acres says 5-20%, and maybe it makes sense to turn away a minority like that if it means you
get to show a lot of whiz bang stuff that will make or break your business. Personally, I can't see
it, in more ways than one.

Donn

 

[Ken Kobayashi]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 01:18:30 -0500, "Joshua Goldberg" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm dead, my website that has taken 22 weeks to launch is all done in Flash. Am going to have to
>get it done in HTML as well for those who do not have an ADSL connection. In Canada Hi-Speed
>internet has pretty well taken over a few years ago.

It depends on what you want to do. Flash allows you to do many things that plain HTML cannot. If you
feel those are absolutely necessary for your content, I don't see any problem. On the other hand, a
Flash-only web site alienates many categories of people. People who use PDAs, cell phones or text
based browsers will see nothing. For users of non-standard operating systems (anything besides Mac
or Windows), Flash is either unavailable or a pain to install. And the high bandwidth typically
associated with Flash content will drive away many dial-up users - IIRC only 20% of Internet users
in the US have broadband. (That may be 20% of _home_ users - most of them probably have broadband at
work.) Flash-only web sites don't interface well with search engines, so someone who has a vague
recollection of your web site but do not remember the name or address may have trouble finding your
site. And finally, many people I know are annoyed by the unnecessarily complex and slow interface of
typical Flash web sites. Many web site designers forget that a web site is not a TV commercial; the
purpose of a web site is not to attract attention, but to make information easily accessible.

 

[B. Sanders]

"Joshua Goldberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm dead, my website that has taken 22 weeks to launch is all done in
Flash.
> Am going to have to get it done in HTML as well for those who do not have
an
> ADSL connection. In Canada Hi-Speed internet has pretty well taken over a few years ago.

Oh, yes, that's a bit of a problem; but it's easily avoided.

May I ask: Who told you it was a good idea to go all-Flash? I assume that it was also the same web
designer or marketing firm who wanted a small fortune to design your website. If it took 22 weeks, I
can't imagine how much it must have cost <gulp>.

Flash is wonderful. I *love* it for what it does well; but it must be used judiciously. One of the
beautiful things about Flash is that you can "weave" .SWF movie objects into a standard
HTML/CSS-based website without killing the download time. Flash movies can be very tiny (like 20k or
less), and still provide lots of visual impact, and they download as an image file, after the HTML
page has loaded. Flash is the best way to deliver slick, animated controls and high-impact visual
presentations. It's a lot of fun to play with and, if done well, can fascinate visitors and invite
them to stay longer (It's "sticky.") If it's done poorly, it can be very annoying. Flash is also
poor at handling large amounts of text, while HTML/CSS handles text brilliantly.

Asking your visitors to download a 500k+ website in its entirety before you can deliver your message
is asking too much, even with broadband. By using HTML pages to break-up the Flash presentation, and
to maintain legacy and cross-platform compatibility in the bargain, you save yourself a lot of
headaches. It's also much easier to maintain an HTML website than to maintain a Flash website,
especially if the interface is bound up in a bunch of custom ActionScript code, etc. HTML/CSS web
pages allow wide flexibility, compatibility and incredible ease of updating that Flash just can't
match. For instance: A simple script can "browser sniff" (figure out what kind of browser the
visitor is using) and deliver your website formatted for that platform (such as a Pocket PC). The
cool part is that this is done using *one* set of HTML pages - the delivery styles are changed using
external CSS stylesheets, which control the presentation format. Flash cannot match this
flexibility, since it is delivered as a singular .SWF movie file, which must be edited and
recompiled for changes to be made.

Hope this helps. Email me if you need more help deciding what to do next.

-Barry

 

[Alex]

> Depends. I'll never see your Flash site, it would just be a blank page.

I'll never see it either. No Micro$oft products here (too expensive and too horrible) and macromedia
has not really developed a good version of flash for other OSs such as linus, bsd, etc. Good ol'
html should be an alternative on the 1st page of a site - let the viewer choose what she wants.

---------------------------------------
RANS Rocket RANS Vivo
---------------------------------------

 

[Jeff Wills]

Ken Kobayashi <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<5CA8D4F796BD32BA.85D73A21A0D47D4B.4673120F7B19D398@lp.airnews.net>...
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 01:18:30 -0500, "Joshua Goldberg" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I'm dead, my website that has taken 22 weeks to launch is all done in Flash. Am going to have to
> >get it done in HTML as well for those who do not have an ADSL connection. In Canada Hi-Speed
> >internet has pretty well taken over a few years ago.
>
> It depends on what you want to do. Flash allows you to do many things that plain HTML cannot. If
> you feel those are absolutely necessary for your content, I don't see any problem. On the other
> hand, a Flash-only web site alienates many categories of people.

I agree. I live and work in the Portland, Oregon area. DSL and cable connections are high-cost
propositions for my home, despite being in the "Silicon Forest" (3 miles from Hewlett-Packard plant,
25 miles from Intel fabs, etc.). I'm limited to 33K- 26K if it rains.

Flash is neat- I've seen a couple automotive sites that do amazing things on my work systems- but
I'd like to be able to look at sites at home.

Jeff

 

[Paul Worden]

I'll add my name to the 'survey' I avoid web sites that require plugins or programs to run, so I
wouldn't 'see' your site.

I have a dial up 33k connection and I'll bet there are a lot of them out there. Flash doesn't really
add core information - it's a cosmetic gee whiz look at how clever I am I'll attract your attention.

I take the (probably out-of-date) view that web sites need to be built for the lowest common
denominator to maximise viewers.

The simple solution is to add a 'Skip Flash' button that gives Luddites like me the option of
looking at a plain text and image version of your site. Beware computer people...I should know - I
was one. It takes years to train out the desire to add complexity for the sake of it.

Paul W

 

[John Turner]

Paul Worden wrote:

> I'll add my name to the 'survey' I avoid web sites that require plugins or programs to run, so I
> wouldn't 'see' your site.
>
> I have a dial up 33k connection and I'll bet there are a lot of them out there. Flash doesn't
> really add core information - it's a cosmetic gee whiz look at how clever I am I'll attract your
> attention.
>
> I take the (probably out-of-date) view that web sites need to be built for the lowest common
> denominator to maximise viewers.
>
> The simple solution is to add a 'Skip Flash' button that gives Luddites like me the option of
> looking at a plain text and image version of your site. Beware computer people...I should know - I
> was one. It takes years to train out the desire to add complexity for the sake of it.
>
> Paul W

I wish to express whole hearted agreement with everything stated here. Despite the fact that I have
high speed internet I avoid visiting flash sites whenever possible, and find I generally dislike the
presentation. When looking for information I prefer it not to look like entertainment.

--
John Turner http://www.wireless-route-sales.com

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 01:18:30 -0500, "Joshua Goldberg" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm dead, my website that has taken 22 weeks to launch is all done in Flash. Am going to have to
>get it done in HTML as well for those who do not have an ADSL connection. In Canada Hi-Speed
>internet has pretty well taken over a few years ago.

Not just those on narrowband. My bike mechanic is registered blind, uses a screen reader - and Flash
is completely useless to him.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[John Riley]

I can't get the web site to load at all. No error messages, just a blank screen. (mac G3 OS 8.6,
neither NS or IE works)

 

[John Riley]

I got the site to load on my wife's computer. The site is not that useful after all that. I click on
"see the bike" and all I see is a detail shot.

I go to a lot of fancy sites. Some of the Honda Element sites have tons of flash, movies and such. I
can play them fine on my computer.

I will reserve judgement on the bike, but I say the site is no where near what you need in terms of
content and accessibility for a direct sales marketing plan.

John Riley

 

[John Riley]

BTW am I the only person that _can't_ load the bigha site? Why would that be? I've got flash.

John Riley

 

[Mikael Seierup]

"John Riley" skrev...
> BTW am I the only person that _can't_ load the bigha site? Why would that be? I've got flash.

You need the newest version. (6 I think.) I had an older one and it refused to load.

Mikael

 

[John Riley]

My Mac guy said the same thing. I got the latest and now I can load the site.

JR

Mikael Seierup wrote:
>
> "John Riley" skrev...
> > BTW am I the only person that _can't_ load the bigha site? Why would that be? I've got flash.
>
> You need the newest version. (6 I think.) I had an older one and it refused to load.
>
> Mikael