Posted by Chaddy2222 on 02/09/07 12:41

On Feb 9, 10:42 pm, "Travis Newbury" <TravisNewb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 30, 7:18 am, "Andy Dingley" <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you really afford to alienate them
> > like this?
>
> I believe you can. I believe it is completely acceptable to turn away
> the few to please the many. The key (for a commercial site) is
> revenue.
>
> > Flash (or any similar technology) should be used if it _adds_
> > something and ignored if it doesn't. It should be positively avoided
> > if it detracts or makes the site worse (as this one has).
>
> And this is exactly what I am saying too. If adding Flash to your
> site increases revenue, (even though is might turn away a few people)
> then it is a good thing. If adding Flash to your site does not
> increase (or decreases) revenue then it is a bad thing.
>
> > Before using any technology like this, ask yourself _why_. Exactly
> > _what_ is it adding? I
>
> There is one reason to add _anything_ to your site. Because it
> increases revenue. If it does that, then it is a good thing.
>
> > Flash is good at particular things. These tend to be useful for some
> > sites more than others
>
> Absolutely! Flash is NOT for every site. There are very specific
> types of sites that benefit from Flash. Currently these seem to be in
> the entertainment/media sectors.
>
Yes, that is true, knowing when to use the correct tool for the job is
vital, especially where web design is concerned. I don't think it's at
all good for information based sites, or sites where you want to sell
a product or promote a service, unless it's the likes of YouTube which
rely on Flash and other client side technology for the functionality.
On the note of bad design, I have noticed from very bad CSS sites
recently.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

[Back to original message]