|
|
Posted by Travis Newbury on 02/09/07 11:29
On Jan 29, 9:04 pm, Gérard Talbot <newsblahgr...@gtalbot.org> wrote:
> Travis Newbury wrote :
> > Flash is completely accepted for use on an e-commerce site.
> I disagree.
> "most of the Flash that Web users encounter each day is bad Flash with
> no purpose beyond annoying people (...)
> Despite such good intentions, most of the Flash that Web users encounter
> each day is bad Flash with no purpose beyond annoying people.
No argument from me there. Most Flash is badly done. This is
probably because Flash developers generally came from an artist/
designer background. No clue (or cares) about anything but the eye
candy. (Hence your Flash splash screens.) More and more new Flash
developers are now coming from a programmers background. This makes a
huge difference in efficiency as well as how Flash is beginning to be
used on websites.
>The one
> bright point is that splash screens and Flash intros are almost extinct.
> They are so bad that even the most clueless Web designers won't
> recommend them, even though a few (even more clueless) clients continue
> to request them.
>
> Flash is a programming environment and should be used to offer users
> additional power and features that are unavailable from a static page.
> Flash should not be used to jazz up a page.
Not really sure what you are trying to say here. Flash is now a full
blown development tool for Web based applications. It is no longer
for "jazzing" up a site. When in the right hands it is a powerful
tool.
> The Biggest Web Design Mistakes of 2004 - 12. Misusing Flash
This is 2007 Flash (and the web) has changed.
> Most of the time: no skip intro button, no way to turn off music, no way
> to stop download, no reasonable way for the user to have full control
> over the flash movie/animation. The frustration/powerlessness is worse,
> more acute for people on dial-up connection.
You seem to be dwelling about Flash splash screens. All of your
issues are moot to a well designed Flash site.
> > Download time is a non issue if it is done right.
> Absolutely disagree with you. Flash increases download time and is
> almost always more cpu and RAM demanding than an HTML webpage.
I stand by my download time statement. In some cases (lets say a
photo album) an Actionscript driven Flash photo album can be MUCH
less of a footprint that the same photo album in HTML.
> > Actionscript and
> > dynamic loading of images, sound, and information will make a Flash
> > site no heavier than an html site offering the same content.
> Absolutely not true.
Care to show me where this is "absolutely not true"? You are making
things up based of old preconceived notions about Flash. and relying
on 3 year old information. You need to re-educate yourself about
Flash.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|