|
|
Posted by M on 06/11/07 17:09
"Travis Newbury" <TravisNewbury@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181563103.517612.291710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 9, 10:10 pm, "M" <nowhere...@twilightzone.net> wrote:
> Second, While you and others may all think these sites suck I tend to
> enjoy many of them.(I especially liked this one:
> http://www.themartist.com)
This isn't bad. It loaded quickly (compared to the ones that I tried) and
the designer has a strong visual sense.
Another Flash-powered site that I liked was the Seinfeld and Superman site
that was home to the Amex 'webisodes' a few years back. It used the living
room-home movies analogy as a setting -- no word menus at all. Everything
was very intuitive.
A lot of Hollywood movie sites also use Flash to good effect.
My biggest issue is accessiblity. A friend's totally Flash-powered site for
her photography business had a menu system that I could barely read. No way
to change the font.
Another issue was time. Every one of her images had some transition special
effect so that it took way too much time to get through her portfolio. No
way to turn it off.
I run my rez at 1024 x 768 on my single monitor. The text in the upper left
corner of themartist.com is just large enough for me to read comfortably.
How would it look to someone with a higher rez?
I've seen sites that give you the option between html and Flash. I suppose
it wouldn't be much more difficult to offer more choices based on the end
user's screen real estate.
Another issue: How do Flash-powered sites measure up with respect to search
engines?
Anyway, thx for your feedback
M
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|