|
|
Posted by SpaceGirl on 09/20/07 09:01
On Sep 20, 12:23 am, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
productions.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:39:49 +0100, SpaceGirl
> ...why not? I mean, recreating the Google site in Flash would be
> exceeding simplistic, it would require almost no effort nor ingenuity
> at all since you're pretty much designing it with no complex
> interface. And the form would be VASTLY superior in that it could be
> made perfect liquid in design, scaling the search result text and
> properly anti-aliasing it to look its best on your monitor.
Without sacrificing usability?
How do you use Google? I tend to shift click links that I'm interested
in so that they open in new tabs so that I can read them all when I've
trawled the first few results. I also quite often use the Google cache
(clicking cached results) so that google highlights the search terms
in the selected document. I also use the mousewheel to scroll through
results, and I sometimes right-click and save images found in google
images.
So, to go through this list:
1) Flash cannot open content in tabs. So you'd have to create your own
tabbing interface
2) As Flash cannot render HTML properly, there is no way it could
display cached results with the search term highlighted in them.
3) Mouse wheel only works in Windows, it's not supported in the other
players (so much for cross browser)
4) No right-click at all in Flash 9 player, on any platform.
5) Flash won't work on my cell phone - it only supports Flash Lite,
but is very basic. Flash is also very very slow on my phone. Google is
lightening fast.
Flash is great - it's what I do for a living - but it's not perfect
and not applicable to all sites. You could not replace Google with a
Flash UI without sacrificing usability on some level. However, you
could argue that you could add new functionality instead. Personally I
think Google Search is very very good at what it does; I'm not sure
what Flash could add to that.
> I don't understand why you and many others think that porting
> something so uber simplistic as Google would even be anything more
> than a sneeze of an effort. In fact...you know what...I think I will
> actually.
Because you've complete ignored how people actually use Google, and
that it works on everything (requiring no plug-in). It's not half as
simple as you think it is, for the reasons I listed earlier. Getting
search results IS easy, the rest of it is quite hard.
> At one point I did create an alternate, customized Google
> search site that ran queries on their server and then returned the
> results to my custom page...I should just take that thing and
> reconstruct it in Flash. LOL, it'll be great, I can use it to bitch
> slap all the Flash nay-sayers in six or eight different directions.
Put your money where your mouth is Matt - I really doubt this can be
done, but I'd be a very happy chick if someone managed WITHOUT loosing
any existing functionality. I'm a strong advocate of Flash as you
know, but I also have to temper my excitement over this technology
with the reality of the user market; for some things usability is far,
far more important than anything else. Google Search is a great
example of this.
> Thanks for the great idea, Spacey! ^_^
Good luck :)
> >The future is not about any one technology; it's about the application
> >of complimentary technologies, a mix and match of what best addresses
> >your needs, whether that is Flash+XML/Flex or DHTML+AJAX or WFP+VBS...
> >it doesn't really matter.
>
> ...it really, really, really, REALLY does matter though. I think its
> been too long since you designed a DHTML+AJAX site, Spacey. I think
> you ought to try one out just so you can remember why you started
> using Flash for all your sites. Remember having to do all that
> browser/OS checking? LOL
Oh I remember. For my sins I still have to maintain a few DHMTL sites,
which I hate. It's not so long ago that I was working through client
sites fixing them for IE7. Blah.
But this stuff only matters to us; designers and developers. Users
don't care at all what technology you are using, so long as it works.
Who cares if something is rendered in WFP or Flash? Chances are they
would look identical. The differences are all behind the scenes, and
the users never see that. So rather than being precious about how you
build a project, you use whatever technology best achieves the goal,
and the users machines can actually display. 99% of the time I use
Flash, because that best suits the sites we build, but we build all
our Admin tools and Content Management stuff in HTML.
Take BiteSizedJapan - the front end is a bleeding edge Flash 9 stuff,
packed with video and nice animation and stacks of lovely content. The
back end is WordPress (PHP), an in house content manager (ASP classic,
HTML, XML) and a .NET XML bridges (C#, XML). It would be a complete
nightmare to build all those tools in Flash - not worth the effort
when we can plug in free things like WP, or build our own server-side
stuff easily.
> Compatibility is what makes it all matter. With Flash, you know it's
> compatible, it simply is, it takes ALL the guess work out of the whole
> process and speeds up creation time ten fold. Or did you forget how
> much fun it was to get alpha transparent images to work with an
Flash is not the same on all platforms sadly. There are slight
differences in the players which can make life difficult. Flash
suffers the same issue as browsers: different versions render things
differently. There are around 4 versions of the Flash 9 player, and
while the core language and rendering is the same in each, each also
has new features... and new bugs. The latest version of the Flash 9
player has new HD codecs in it, for example. If someone visits my site
with an older Flash player they will be prompted to download a newer
build of Flash. This, in a small way, is like telling someone "Hey, my
site does not work in Internet Explorer 7, you must download FireFox 2
before I can let you in". Forcing someone to download a new browser to
gain cross-platform compatibility is not really a good solution :)
Thankfully Flash is small, so it doesn't bother most people. But guess
what? If you are pushing Flash 9 to the edge, you will have to do all
that "browser check" stuff... checking what "build" of Flash 9 the
user has, what platform they are on... all the old Browser issues are
back :(
> >Adobe are moving in the right direction with the opening up of the
> >development platforms (specifically Flex, which is just amazing), but a
> >lot more needs to be done. It's not *truly* open, and it's not truly
> >cross platform.
>
> Well, it's open enough. One of the major downfalls of HTML is that it
> was TOO open, which is where all the cross compatibility issues arose.
> If Flash is ever made COMPLETELY open...it'll likely destroy itself in
> the same way that HTML has destroyed itself...REAL slow...REAL
> painful. *nods*
>
> Oh and as for cross compatibility...sorry Cupcake, but that hole's
> been filed since July 10th:http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/
>
> "Adobe delivers Flash Player 9 for Solaris Sparc and Solaris x86
> platforms."
>
> LOL...maybe now you doorknobs will start griping that's it's not
> compatible with Windows 3.11 or yer fuckin Commodore 64. *snicker*
It would be nice if *all* the features (mousewheel please!! the AS3
event is ignored!!) were supported in linux, and osx... which account
for 10% of all computers.
[Back to original message]
|