|
|
Posted by Travis Newbury on 08/20/07 23:57
On Aug 20, 6:00 pm, William Gill <nore...@example.invalid> wrote:
> >> MTV.com went from an HTML site to an all flash site
> >> But after watching the site for a while, they notices a
> >> decrease in visitors and revenue from the site. So they went back to
> >> a HTML site with some heavy usage of Flash where it was most
> >> appropriate.
> > I would have expected a different outcome from a site in the
> > entertainment industry. Very interesting.
> The operative phrase here is "all flash site." What impact on search
> engines?
Actually today there is very little impact on search engins if the
Flash developer is good.
> What percent of the potential visitors have slow connections
> (or short attention spans) and don't wait for the show to load. The key
> is trying to strike a balance.
Again, conection speed is irrelevant if the Flash was developed by a
competent Flash developer. If the developer has to put a "loading..."
then it is bad Flash development.
> How often do you read here about "graceful degradation?" If the site
> depends on javascript or flash, it's audience is limited by some
> percentage.
But the point is, if the Flash drives more people to the site than it
drives away form the site, then it is a good thing.
> If however a site can be enjoyed by all, but those with the
> additional technology get a bonus, that's good.
Enjoyed by all is an unreachable goal. You could never develop a site
that will please everyone. The best site developers will know their
audience, monitor the site continuesly, tweak the site as needs to
insure that the technology they are using is correct for the site. A
site that has the ability to be seen on every browser or reader or
phone or pda in the world will not make it a great site. Such a site
could actually lose money. Every site, even those that sell the same
product is unique. And a competent site developer knows how to use
the tools and technologies available to make the site look and feel in
a manner that makes it sucessful.
> I frequently advise against large high-res graphics, but if a client is
> in the art business large graphics files may be appropriate. More
> importantly, if a visitor knows that to get a quality picture of the new
> Harley-Davidson they have to be patient, they will. IMHO it's when the
> designer tries to force feed javascript, flash or really big images that
> visitors bail.
It is equally likely that those same things that drive one visitor
away from a site could draw two visitors to the site. Coming up with
some blanket rule about what makes a site a good site is a complete
waste of time. Know your audience. Know what draws them to the
site. Then do that.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|