|
|
Posted by Andy Dingley on 11/10/06 17:18
Travis Newbury wrote:
> Andy Dingley wrote:
> > > We are looking to update our website to a flash based layout,
> >
> > I'm having trouble associating "Flash" with "update". Don't you mean
> > "Throw away all the content and replace it with pictures of dancing
> > penguins, on a site you can no longer navigate quickly" ?
>
> Andy. If a company switched from a "everyone in the freeking world can
> see it" website to a Flash website and their revenue increases. Is it
> a good thing or a bad thing?
Of course it's a good thing.
Now how often does it happen? Of the vast number of Flash sites out
there, how many are _better_ for using Flash and how many have just
fallen into the trap of too many pointless animations that look pretty,
add nothing and generally get in the way.
Flash is great.
Typical use of >90% of Flash is bad.
http://www.tidefordorganics.com
Was this site really better in Flash?
Also the OP posted "update to flash", implying that Flash was "newer"
than HTML and implying that it was "better" than HTML. Now a particular
_use_ of Flash might be better, but the technique itself is neither
newer nor better, it's neutral.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|