Flash!

buddy

What do most designers choose:

1. Use it - its a powerful tool for designing spectacular sites.

2. Don't use it - not every user has the Flash player.

3. Only use it if you have a non-Flash version of the site available.

4. Other?

LoLth

sorry, couldnt resist.

In answer, (dont use it much and not professionally) but I would only use it if I had a non-flash version available as an option.

Seth Brundle

Whats the point?
* Many people will not see your site,
* dial-up users need to wait two weeks to be able to view it
* difficulties with search engines
* can't bookmark pages
With regard to your option #1 (Use it - its a powerful tool for designing spectacular sites) this is not really correct. Good design will create a spectacular site. Good design does not require Flash.
With regard to your option #3 (non-flash site being available), I don't see the point in having two sites. If the non flash site is any way decent why is there a need for a flash version?
I know some sites can benefit from them (sites where you don't want someone to copy your content too easily) but by and large flash is of no benefit to a website.

Seth Brundle

Actually, can (can't remember correct name now) software that reads web pages to blind people read flash?
I think not (& still can't read PDF files) so you are automatically excluding a portion of your audience (and possibly breaking the law) if you have a flash only site

Repli

Breaking the law for making a flash only site.. oh please

Back OT buddy I think you should use flash ONLY if what you want can't be done with standard html.. I have seen some VERY impressive websites done completely in flash that looked a lot better than regular website

tomED

Originally posted by Repli
Breaking the law for making a flash only site.. oh please

You could be breaking the law across europe if proposed EU plans come into effect, which will mean every commercial website will have to provide an accessible website. So if you have a site only in flash......... BUT!in saying that Macromedia have gone to great lengths to ensure that FlashMX is accessible - so you just have to use the inbuilt tools in that case to ensure your site is accessible.

The main reason why I would suggest clients to stay away from flash is because it hinders your chances of good rankins on the searchers.

Tom

Seth Brundle

thanks tomED
Repli: na na na na na

p

Originally posted by buddy
What do most designers choose:
1. Use it - its a powerful tool for designing spectacular sites.
2. Don't use it - not every user has the Flash player.
3. Only use it if you have a non-Flash version of the site available.
4. Other?

Most good designers will choose 4, they'll use it when it's appropriate.

You other points are not realistic.

Flash is a powerful tool for designing craptastic sites too. It's all a matter of looking at your audience and evalutating your clients needs.

damnyanks

Flash is a multemedia tool. I've rarly come across a site where it is being used correctly. Alot of people just get ripped versions of it and make ok-ish sites that would of been done better and easier in html.

Navbars & Logos are ok for flash but an alternitive should also be provided.

henbane

Originally posted by damnyanks
Navbars & Logos are ok for flash but an alternitive should also be provided.

Navbars and logos are a terrible use of flash. Too many places do nothing interesting/necessary with the flash they use. Navbars are the perfect example. No navbar needs to be more complicated than is possible with proper use of DHTML. The major problem with flash is people using it who would've been incapable of doing the same thing with DHTML.

Compare this http://www.legaltrainingservices.ie/ to this http://www.cs.tcd.ie/ and tell me that the first one isn't something that should've been done with a little javascript.

Flash seems to very often be used by people who thinks it's easy so you get a site which is stuff based on the tutorial included with Flash with the images changed because the nerks couldn't manage to do it any other way.

rant over!

(I hate flash.)

tomED

The reason most people would choose Flash over DHTML is cross browser compatibility. Somethings done in DHTML wont look the same across browsers, but once its in flash it will look the same no matter what...

In saying all that - I'm not disagreeing with you on how many people use flash so badly, the example (legaltraining) classic... I'd love to mee the person who designed that and just ask him why?

Originally posted by henbane
Navbars and logos are a terrible use of flash. Too many places do nothing interesting/necessary with the flash they use. Navbars are the perfect example. No navbar needs to be more complicated than is possible with proper use of DHTML. The major problem with flash is people using it who would've been incapable of doing the same thing with DHTML.

Compare this http://www.legaltrainingservices.ie/ to this http://www.cs.tcd.ie/ and tell me that the first one isn't something that should've been done with a little javascript.

Flash seems to very often be used by people who thinks it's easy so you get a site which is stuff based on the tutorial included with Flash with the images changed because the nerks couldn't manage to do it any other way.

rant over!

(I hate flash.)

henbane

Originally posted by tomED
The reason most people would choose Flash over DHTML is cross browser compatibility. Somethings done in DHTML wont look the same across browsers, but once its in flash it will look the same no matter what...

Problem is all those people who don't have the flash plugin. If you don't have admin privileges on a w2k/XP box you're screwed. If you is running and kind of *nix you is pretty much out in the cold with it as well. I know there is a plugin for mozilla at this stage but it causes and awful lot of crashing.

Good (properly tested) DHTML goes a long way towards better cross browser compatibility. I know it can be a pain in the hoop but anybody writing a flash site who doesn't at the very minimum provide the basic functionality in plain old html if the user doesn't have flash installed is just not making the effort and I generally find people who can use DHTML appropriately are a helluva lot better at providing that functionality.

I just don't approve of flash unless it's in use in a serious multimedia type site. I can understand that every movie site in existence uses it but they have an excuse.

The time it takes an awful lot of the funkier flash based stuff I have seen is another reason I don't like it. It's fine at work but when I'm sitting on a 56k modem connection at home the last thing I want to see is a splash page with zero functionality and no skip option.

tomED

Hang on.... I never disagreed with you - I was merely pointing out why people tended to use Flash for those purposes. I could have easily listed the reasons why you shouldn't use flash - but that wasn't my point.

At the end of the day, I'm not keen on flash myself and can see its uses but I believe most of them are limited if you really want your website to be as successful as it possibly can.

You can go on all day about which is the best to use over flash and DHTML - but thats a tired argument at this stage.

Flash has it uses - but the question was what do designers tend to use it for, personally i recomend not using it, if I had to use it, I would do so reluctantly, i agree that there is very little from a navaigational point of view that can't be done using DHTML. And before anyone jumps in on that point.... I mean effective navigation, not navigation that swings around all over the place and you have to chase a ball or something...

If i were to use flash - it would be for presentations, maybe to add to design, but thats about it.

But there are cases where you can't use anything but flash - see its a viciuos circle!

Originally posted by henbane
Problem is all those people who don't have the flash plugin. If you don't have admin privileges on a w2k/XP box you're screwed. If you is running and kind of *nix you is pretty much out in the cold with it as well. I know there is a plugin for mozilla at this stage but it causes and awful lot of crashing.

Good (properly tested) DHTML goes a long way towards better cross browser compatibility. I know it can be a pain in the hoop but anybody writing a flash site who doesn't at the very minimum provide the basic functionality in plain old html if the user doesn't have flash installed is just not making the effort and I generally find people who can use DHTML appropriately are a helluva lot better at providing that functionality.

I just don't approve of flash unless it's in use in a serious multimedia type site. I can understand that every movie site in existence uses it but they have an excuse.

The time it takes an awful lot of the funkier flash based stuff I have seen is another reason I don't like it. It's fine at work but when I'm sitting on a 56k modem connection at home the last thing I want to see is a splash page with zero functionality and no skip option.

henbane

Originally posted by tomED
Hang on.... I never disagreed with you - I was merely pointing out why people tended to use Flash for those purposes. I could have easily listed the reasons why you shouldn't use flash - but that wasn't my point.

But there are cases where you can't use anything but flash - see its a viciuos circle!

Agreed. I don't think I was disagreeing with you as much as furthering the point in my head and out loud.

Flash just makes me rant 'cos I see so many terrible uses of it.