So is this the latest fancy?
-
Simon Stevens wrote:
Are there any 'real' reasons why sites shouldn't just use 100% flash?
Accessibility, it isn't cross-browser (it doesn't work on my phone's browser, for example), inconsistent interfaces that interfere with how people use browsers, lack of content that can be indexed by Google, etc. There are plenty of real issues. Also it generally leads to poor websites that do nothing other than impress someone with a 'ooh look at the flashing lights' syndrome.
Ahhhg! No back button. No damn back button!
-
I was recently asked by a friend if I could do a website for their business (small home business). I said sure, no problem, just let me know when and what you need. Few months later they got back to me and said they had decided to get their niece to do it as she was interested. I was fine with this, as it would only have been free work anyway. But I thought I'd check out the site. It was 100% flash. Nothing else. I mean sure, it looked all right, but 100% flash just feels dirty. But as hard as I thought about it, I couldn't think of one decent reason why a 100% flash website should be avoided. Forget all the "geek" issues like using proprietary plug ins and stuff like that - users don't care about that kind of thing. I mean real user issues. It loaded fast on my rather low end broadband connection. No one uses dial up any more, so who cares about them. it works cross browser, which is good. Are there any 'real' reasons why sites shouldn't just use 100% flash?
Simon
As far as I know the search engine spiders can't go into flash. So if you want to be found it is a BAD policy.
-
Creating HUGE band of flash animation on the home page? I'm starting to see this on too many sites. http://www.thomsonreuters.com/[^] http://w1.siemens.com/entry/cc/en/[^] And there's a huge list to show.. I remember using flash anims on the first page was considered a taboo. That's changed now?!
OK,. what country just started work for the day ? The ASP.NET forum is flooded with retarded questions. -Christian Graus Best wishes to Rexx[^]
Are you on dialup?
Todd Smith
-
Are you on dialup?
Todd Smith
-
Ever tried to maintain someone else's 100% flash site? I thought it was bad enough maintaining old HTML and ASP based sites until I was recently asked to update a location map on a customer's 100% Flash site. Coming from an HTML background, you'd expect it to be easy: get the source psd, modify the layer with the "we are here" triangles on it, update the MAP element. Oh no, it doesn't work like that in Flash. You've got to locate the correct layer (a herculean effort in itself if Mr Flash developer has used labels like img102 for his elements), then deal with all the animation "goto frame number x" bits and bobs before even thinking about adding your own entities. Something I could do in about an hour in HTML becomes a 3 day marathon. Perhaps if I was more savvy with Flash, it'd be much quicker, but it still strikes me as horribly clunky compared to HTML. I'm sure the previous developers did it this way on purpose, to lock the customer in.
Surely this is down to the quality of the person who wrote it rather than flash itself. (I admit I've never used flash, so maybe I'm wrong). But you could just as easily have a terribly written c# app using variable names like "var1546" and you wouldn't blame C# or visual studio.
Simon
-
Simon Stevens wrote:
Are there any 'real' reasons why sites shouldn't just use 100% flash?
Accessibility, it isn't cross-browser (it doesn't work on my phone's browser, for example), inconsistent interfaces that interfere with how people use browsers, lack of content that can be indexed by Google, etc. There are plenty of real issues. Also it generally leads to poor websites that do nothing other than impress someone with a 'ooh look at the flashing lights' syndrome.
Johnny ² wrote:
cross-browser
It's cross browser enough that currently no one outside of the geek community cares. 100% of my non-geek friends use IE on windows. 100% of them can access the site no problem.
Johnny ² wrote:
inconsistent interfaces
non geeks don't care about inconsistent interfaces. They just think it looks pretty.
Johnny ² wrote:
lack of content that can be indexed by Google
This is a good point, but I hear rumours that soon google will soon be indexing flash pages. I forget where I heard this, so it could easily be rubbish.
Simon
-
Why is a non geek going to care about that? So I say to my friend, "umm yeah...the site your neice did is c*** because people can't bookmark specific sub pages?" she will reply "but they can bookmark the main page can't they, why would they want to do anything else"
Simon
-
Simon Stevens wrote:
Forget all the "geek" issues like using proprietary plug ins and stuff like that - users don't care about that kind of thing. I mean real user issues.
Those are real user issues if those users are just everyday folk trying to get/buy something from your company. You be totally surprised how many computer illiterate people there are out there. But, it also depends on the users you're trying to reach.
Simon Stevens wrote:
No one uses dial up any more, so who cares about them
Not true. There's many parts of the US that don't have cable/satellite systems for many reasons, and I'm sure it's like that in other countries as well. I'm in SE USA, and we sell insurance with a focus on farmers and ranchers, but not restricted to just them, anyone can buy from us. We're actually having a couple new sites done, and Flash was immediately elliminated by the Marketing group because they did the demographics, and the cultural studies of our "users" and found a large portion do use dial-up, are not computer savvy and would easily be turned off by such "flashy" content. It's all about who your end users are that should dictate using these technologies.
Zhat wrote:
Those are real user issues if those users are just everyday folk trying to get/buy something from your company. You be totally surprised how many computer illiterate people there are out there. But, it also depends on the users you're trying to reach.
no, I know 99% of the general population are computer illiterate. but everyone non-geek that I know has still managed to get a flash plugin installed. (Usually because they wanted to open up some useless virus infected animated email, or watch you-tube, or play a inane games). They all managed to get the plugin installed, they just don't care that it's propriety. They all use IE on windows so why should they care that the website might not run well on opera on Linux. What do I say to my friend. "The website you niece has done is c*** because it can't be viewed on Linux." she reply's "umm...what's Linux and why do I care about it"..."It's an OS used by about 5% of the population who are mainly programmers" (Incidentally, this business is a hair & beauty service. the target demographic isn't exactly typical geek)
Simon
-
As far as I know the search engine spiders can't go into flash. So if you want to be found it is a BAD policy.
This one is about the only point I do see as valid in the past. but I don't think it's true any more: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/209694/adobe-helps-search-engines-crawl-flash-sites.html[^] http://searchengineland.com/google-now-crawling-and-indexing-flash-content-14299[^]
Simon
-
Surely this is down to the quality of the person who wrote it rather than flash itself. (I admit I've never used flash, so maybe I'm wrong). But you could just as easily have a terribly written c# app using variable names like "var1546" and you wouldn't blame C# or visual studio.
Simon
Absolutely. I'm suffering a knee jerk reaction to this specific site's horribleness. The previous developers sounded like a bunch of cowboys, so it wouldn't surprise me. I'd be interested to see a well developed flash website, although I doubt it'd persuade me to develop anything in flash. There are still too many non-religious reasons to not use flash.