|
|
Posted by rockradio2000 on 11/12/93 11:36
"The Tactician" Luke Michaels wrote:
> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> > Bald Purp wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I never bothered to install any Flash plugin, hoping year after year
> >>that it would eventually just go away.
> >>
> >>Are there any cogent arguments against the use of Flash?
> >
> > Well. It's not very good for issues concerning accessibility.
> > There are a lot of other reasons, I have an artticle on my site which
> > is on the particular subject.
> > http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/design-tips4.html
>
> ===I am ripping this article apart here. If you don't care and just want
> to hear my response to the orginal question, scroll down...===
>
> "Note that the website navigational structure has absolutely nothing to
> do with anything art related...... So why designers waste their time making
> there sites useless is a bit beyond me.."
>
> Totally untrue.
>
> 1) The navigation, that is, the part of the website that creates the
> interaction between the user and the website, is completely art-related.
> Unique navigation is possible with Flash that is not possible with
> hyperlinks and the websites that use Flash well have proven this over
> and over again.
Hmmmmm. Name me one site which has done this. I certenly have not
noticed any of late. Well I have not noticed any useable ones.
>
> 2) Flash navigation hardly makes a website useless by any stretch of the
> imagination. That sounds like arbitrary bias to me.
Well, as I have staited, it does not help with the sites accessibility.
>
> "The main reason as to why the use of flash for items such as navigation
> makes a site useless, is because overall it's not necessary."
>
> This statement does not make sense. Not everything that is not totally
> necessary makes something useless. Otherwise design wouldn't exist, and
> we would live in an ugly, grey world like something out of fatpie.
Hmm. Interesting.
The thing is, if it's used in the wrong way, a way that confusers the
visitor, then they will just leave the site.
It's fine to use Flash in that way on an art type site, but it would
not really be good for a site that was trying to make money.
>
> "Due to the fact that the navigation designed using flash is graphic
> based, it means that search enjons can not access the content that is
> hidden behind the links. Or if they do manage to interpret where the
> link is headed, all attempts at seo are a waste of time. As the search
> enjons won't be able to work out what the link says so will not be able
> to know its importance."
>
> Firstly, "engines". Typing a word into Google will tell you if it's
> spelled right. There's no excuse for this anymore. Also, what is "seo"?
>
> Secondly, this is what meta tags are for.
Well, yeah, I was aware of that fact.
But the Search Engines such as Google do not give a very high
importents to them anymore.
>
> "So the question is; what are things such as JavaScript and Macromedia
> Flash good for. Well, they are ok for small things. To make a page look
> good, But they should not be used for vital aspects such as navigation."
>
> I don't think you exactly make a literate point here for me to attack,
> but while I'm criticizing, exactly what magic javascript-unique
> navigation are we talking about here?
Well actually, I was making reference to more DHTML type markup.
Do you just mean rollover images?
>
> "The main reason for this is because you exclude some users. Mainly:
> those with disabilities and who need to use adaptive technology, such as
> Screen Readers. Also some people do not have access to flash enabled
> browsers and some just choose not to use them."
>
> You've made the first valid point in a really horrible way. Yes, some
> people don't have access to Flash, so if you want /everyone/ to be able
> to access your data you shouldn't use it. Yet, the big advertisers all
> use Flash, because it's a more dynamic and exciting medium
Yeah, but they use it sparingly
So obviously
> if you're targeting those demographics Flash is completely fine. And
> while Macromedia's 98% claim is pretty suspicious, Internet Explorer
> comes with a version of Flash now.
Yep.
>
> "Note that the same conditions apply when using JavaScript for
> navigation and other vital features."
>
> Now, this is pretty silly, on the other hand. JavaScript is a web
> standard now. Every modern browser supports it fully and has for years.
Yes, but not everyone has it enabled.
Although, on that point, more use JavaScript then Flash.
But, it's not supported for people who use Text Only Browsers.
> You're worrying too hard at this point.
>
> "As an alternative consider just making your links plain text. But the
> event that it is not possible to change the existing site.
>
> Consider creating a text only version of the site that contains the same
> content as the graphical site .This will not only make your site more
> search enjon friendly but it will also make your site more user friendly."
>
> While making a text version of a flash site is a perfectly good
> suggestion, what you've done is entirely missed the point...
I am aware of the many advantages that Flash has in a Multi-Media
environment, but if used too mutch for vital aspects such as site
navigation, where the user can not work out what they need too click
on. It can be a very bad tool.
>
> ===to here.===
>
> Flash is a great medium for picture and sound, but it is not an
> excellent medium for text. Nor is it supposed to be. Making an entire
> website in Flash is alright if you don't have a lot to say, text-wise,
> and just want to present multimedia, or if your primary goal is for the
> website to be dynamic, eye-catching, and attention-grabbing. The people
> who can't see your site probably can't see that kind of multimedia
> anyway or don't care.
That's not the point I was trying to make.
The point is, It's not good if it's used in a situation where the site
needs too be accessable by as many people as they can get. Such a site
trying to make money for example. The only Corperation think why could
create a site built out of flash would be a group celling Video games
or similar products.
>
> There's no reason, however, not to install the flash plug-in if your
> browser and your computer can handle it. If you don't, you're missing
> out on some pretty cool stuff.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|