This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design From: "AB" <bill@makingitdigital.com> Subject: To Flash or not to Flash? Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 14:36:12 GMT I just redesigned my site, http://www.diywebserver.com and two people have mentioned that they have flashed turned off in the their browser, which I use for navigation. Should I consider these Luddite freaks who dont use flash, or should I disregard their opinion? Any feedback on the above site would be greatly appreciated. === From: brucie <brucie06@alt-html.org> Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Subject: Re: To Flash or not to Flash? Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 00:46:14 +1000 AB wrote: > I just redesigned my site, http://www.diywebserver.com and > two people have mentioned that they have flashed turned > off in the their browser, now its three > which I use for navigation. do not use anything optional on the client side for critical site functions such as navigation or supply alternatives. > Should I consider these Luddite freaks who dont use flash, or should I > disregard their opinion? I have better things to do with my time, download allocation and money than waste it waiting for flash to download. using flash for navigation is not an appropriate use of the technology, just because you can doesn't mean you should. === From: tina@elfi.org (Tina Holmboe) Subject: Re: To Flash or not to Flash? Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 14:58:18 GMT "AB" <bill@makingitdigital.com> wrote: > Should I consider these Luddite freaks who dont use flash, or should I > disregard their opinion? With THAT attitude I suggest you ignore us. *plonk* === From: Stan Brown <qx1741@bigfoot.com> Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Subject: Re: To Flash or not to Flash? Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 11:01:54 -0400 AB <bill@makingitdigital.com> wrote: >Should I consider these Luddite freaks who dont use flash, >or should I disregard their opinion? Nice to see how you have a completely open mind on this issue. "Luddite freaks" is certainly a good, neutral phrase. You ask for advice, but it doesn't sound as though you actually want advice. On the off chance that you really do, and just made a bad joke, I'll offer it: Flash, like other whizzo technologies, is not supported by all browsers; and, as you said, some people find it annoying and turn it off. I think that limits it to two legitimate uses: (1) where there is some effect that is central to your message and can't be achieved in any other way. If your site is about visual special effects and needs to show what is meant by "morphing", for instance, Flash might be the appropriate way to achieve it (though animated GIFs might be nearly as good; I don't know). (2) where it is purely decorative and doesn't take long to download. http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com is an example. The "chomping shark" logo downloads very fast and it's cute, but even if you can't see it you can still use the site. (The site has other usability problems, which are not relevant to the Flash issue.) Navigation meets neither of these criteria: It is not part of your message but it is also not purely decorative. I would say that it is a very poor choice for navigation. Bottom line: Do you want people to be able to use your site, or not? Or, to ask it another way: Do you want people to try to access your home page, shrug their shoulders, and go elsewhere without seeing anything else on your site? === From: "Jacqui or (maybe) Pete" <porjes@spamcop.net> Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Subject: Re: To Flash or not to Flash? Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 16:10:10 +0100 "AB" <bill@makingitdigital.com> wrote: >I just redesigned my site, http://www.diywebserver.com and >two people have mentioned that they have flashed turned off >in the their browser, which I use for navigation. >Should I consider these Luddite freaks who dont use flash, >or should I disregard their opinion? >Any feedback on the above site would be greatly appreciated. I love the content of your site (I once emailed you to say how good it is), and I think it's just great that you've taken the time to put it all up on the web. But... it takes *ages* to load over dialup. And all those frames. And buttons that don't show where they go, and which don't do anything that can't be done in 5 minutes with css and don't work at all if you don't have flash . And that nasty little box that you have to scroll to read, even though there's about two miles of space below it. Horrid. How about something nice & simple? I'll do it for you, as a gift - if you're still talking to me after that review... I quite like the colors :0) === From: David Dorward <dorward@yahoo.com> Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Subject: Re: To Flash or not to Flash? Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 16:26:23 +0100 AB might have typed: > Should I consider these Luddite freaks who dont use flash, or should I > disregard their opinion? You mean those Luddite freaks who use WAP phones? Those Luddite freaks who download websites to palmtops using technologies such as AventGo and Plucker? Those Luddite freaks who are blind and use technologies that can convert HTML to braille or audio rather then graphics? Those Luddite freaks who have poor eyesight and make use of text zoom so that they can read the text of links? Those Luddite freaks who works on secure networks that don't allow the installation of untrusted executables? BTW - your noframes content and alternative text for images sucks. === From: Isofarro <spamblock@spamdetector.co.uk> Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Subject: Re: To Flash or not to Flash? Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 16:50:34 +0000 David Dorward wrote: > You mean those Luddite freaks who use WAP phones? Whenever people insinuate limited technologies are supposedly forward thinking and others that disagree are Luddites, I'm continually reminded of an old Grumbleweeds (a gang of comedians on UK TV during the early eighties) sketch: In the days before the invention of the wheel one caveman is busily working away, he's just managed to put what looks like two wheels and an axel togther. A second stone-age caveman bumbles over picks up this great new invention stares at it and huskily exclaims "You know what you just invent?" Turns the invention upright and sits on it. "First barstool" === From: SAZ <saz1958@nospammersexcite.com> Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Subject: Re: To Flash or not to Flash? Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 12:45:38 -0500 Flash is okay (when used sparingly), but never as a sole source of navigation. Always provide another source elsewhere, in an obvious place on the page. On the rare occassion that my client demands Flash, I always put a text menu on the side or bottom. I've never had a client complain after I explain the reasoning. === From: midimonkey@hotmail.com (midimonkey) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Subject: Re: To Flash or not to Flash? Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 00:43:09 +0000 (UTC) > bill@makingitdigital.com wrote: >> I just redesigned my site, http://www.diywebserver.com >> and two people have mentioned that they have flashed turned off in the their >> browser, which I use for navigation. >> >> Should I consider these Luddite freaks who dont use flash, or should I >> disregard their opinion? Depends on who your target audience is and what the purpose of your site is. Obviously, much like clients, it truly depends on what -you- want and how much of your audience you're willing to overlook. If you have thousands of people coming to your site, then perhaps it's not that big a deal. OTOH, if you only have 2 people, well...there could be a problem. Usually, with micro-sites, it's not as big of a deal, but with your main site, if you're going to use Flash, the best thing to do is detect what the user has, and give them the option (if they don't have the plug-in, etc.) to either upgrade or offer an alternative version (or in the case of IE4.5, to load any- way -- if they choose.) The important thing is to give the user a choice and let them know what's going on. Something else to consider is accessibility. With most users having Flash 4/5 plug-ins on their machines, you won't be able to take advantage of the features of Flash MX, unless they upgrade. On most sites I've worked on, we generally tend to keep the main site as open and accessible as possible (html, css and javascript as necessary.) A good rule of thumb, IMHO. === From: Eric Jarvis <usenet@ericjarvis.co.uk> Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Subject: Re: To Flash or not to Flash? Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:08:32 +0100 In article <aod3us$uf$1@helle.btinternet.com>, midimonkey@hotmail.com wrote: > > Usually, with micro-sites, it's not as big of a deal, but with your main site, > if you're going to use Flash, the best thing to do is detect what the user > has, and give them the option (if they don't have the plug-in, etc.) to either > upgrade or offer an alternative version (or in the case of IE4.5, to load any- > way -- if they choose.) The important thing is to give the user a choice > and let them know what's going on. > nonsense...just offer an alternative...it save messing around with inaccurate and unreliable scripting and probably ends up taking less time to do === From: midimonkey@hotmail.com (midimonkey) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Subject: Re: To Flash or not to Flash? Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:54:48 +0000 (UTC) Eric Jarvis <usenet@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote: > midimonkey@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> Usually, with micro-sites, it's not as big of a deal, but with your mainsite, >> if you're going to use Flash, the best thing to do is detect what the user >> has, and give them the option (if they don't have the plug-in, etc.) toeither >> upgrade or offer an alternative version (or in the case of IE4.5, to load any- >> way -- if they choose.) The important thing is to give the user a choice >> and let them know what's going on. >> >nonsense...just offer an alternative...it save messing around with >inaccurate and unreliable scripting and probably ends up taking less >time to do A couple things to consider. There are users who don't know whether or not they have the plug-in (or which version) and there are clients who would prefer that the Flash route be used before the HTML one. Hence detection. Whether you're using a "swiffer", moock or the Macro- media method for detection, there are reliable ways to do this out there. Worth mentioning is that many clients won't pay for a "duplicate" version of their site, so sometimes the alternative may be nothing more than a page explaining what the site offers and the advantages of upgrading with links to the respective places, etc. Another reason to use XML I suppose. :-) === From: "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@mail.cern.ch> Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Subject: Re: To Flash or not to Flash? Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:32:39 +0200 On Oct 14, midimonkey inscribed on the eternal scroll: > A couple things to consider. There are users who don't know whether or > not they have the plug-in (or which version) Indeed - and why not, since it's still a proprietary format using, usually, proprietary HTML-like markup to invoke it. No reason that users _should_ need to bother about all that. > and there are clients who would > prefer that the Flash route be used before the HTML one. By "client" I could understand either the software that's in use at the reader's location, on the one hand; or the person/company who commissioned the web site, on the other hand. This often leads to confusion when we don't know your terminology. I prefer to think of the actual human readers as taking prime place in such considerations, but I guess that's impractical for some... > Hence detection. Whether you're using a "swiffer", moock or the Macro- > media method for detection, there are reliable ways to do this out there. Heaven knows how they're going to find out the reader's preferences in this regard. It's supposed to be done by an HTTP Accept: header - e.g by including an entry for the relevant content-type with a ;q=0 quality factor. OK, so how many browsers offer their naive users a well-engineered interface to this preference machinery? > Worth mentioning is that many clients won't pay for a "duplicate" version of > their site, Ah, so it _is_ that kind of client. > so sometimes the alternative may be nothing more than a page > explaining what the site offers If you manage to do it in sufficiently reader-oriented language, you _might_ manage to avoid accusations that you "optimised for arguing with customers". Then there's the WAI. === From: tina@elfi.org (Tina Holmboe) Subject: Re: To Flash or not to Flash? Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:34:23 GMT midimonkey@hotmail.com (midimonkey) exclaimed in <aoeib7$46a$1@paris.btinternet.com>: > Hence detection. Whether you're using a "swiffer", moock or the Macro- > media method for detection, there are reliable ways to do this out there. If there exist a RELIABLE method for doing any for of capability detection, I'd sure like to hear about it. > Worth mentioning is that many clients won't pay for a "duplicate" version of > their site, so sometimes the alternative may be nothing more than a page > explaining what the site offers and the advantages of upgrading with links to > the respective places, etc. > > Another reason to use XML I suppose. :-) Not really. Another reason not to sell clients many-coloured versions of snake oil. Multiple versions of one website is so rarely needed that I have never run across such a situation.[1] [1] Languages excepted. === From: midimonkey@hotmail.com (midimonkey) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Subject: Re: To Flash or not to Flash? Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:19:10 +0000 (UTC) "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@mail.cern.ch> wrote: >On Oct 14, midimonkey inscribed on the eternal scroll: > >> A couple things to consider. There are users who don't know whether or >> not they have the plug-in (or which version) > >Indeed - and why not, since it's still a proprietary format using, >usually, proprietary HTML-like markup to invoke it. No reason that >users _should_ need to bother about all that. Agreed. >> and there are clients who would >> prefer that the Flash route be used before the HTML one. > >By "client" I could understand either the software that's in use at >the reader's location, on the one hand; or the person/company who >commissioned the web site, on the other hand. This often leads to >confusion when we don't know your terminology. Client, as in paying client. Sorry for any confusion. >I prefer to think of the actual human readers as taking prime place in >such considerations, but I guess that's impractical for some... Agreed. In an ideal world, it would. Alas, in the world of business, that's not always the case. My colleagues and I will and have pushed standards whenever possible (writing functional specs, prod reqs, etc.) and work within the limitations of the project. Another reason why QA is essential to any project. Clients practical? I wish! :-) >> so sometimes the alternative may be nothing more than a page >> explaining what the site offers > >If you manage to do it in sufficiently reader-oriented language, you >_might_ manage to avoid accusations that you "optimised for arguing >with customers". Then there's the WAI. You try your best to educate clients. At the end of the day, it's about compromise and a fine balance between what the client wants and user accessibility. You will never know precisely how each and every user has their brow- ser configured, but with statistics, interviews (for the target audience) and the knowledge that you yourself bring to the table, one can come up with a fairly rough picture of what will work and what won't. I fear this has gone off-topic. I hope the original poster got the info that he/she wanted. === From: sbpoley@xs4all.nl (Stephen Poley) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Subject: Re: To Flash or not to Flash? Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:52:43 GMT "AB" <bill@makingitdigital.com> wrote: >I just redesigned my site, http://www.diywebserver.com >and two people have mentioned that they have flashed turned off in the their >browser, which I use for navigation. > >Should I consider these Luddite freaks who dont use flash, or should I >disregard their opinion? The Luddites protested against the use of knitting machines which were used to produce products faster and hence make them more widely available. Since Flash does the *opposite* in both respects, who are the Luddites here? ===