[thelist] Jakob Nielsen [was Anti-aliasing]

[Erik Mattheis]

>At 7:54 PM -0500 2/25/02, dan donaldson wrote:
>>Reading a bit of his site reveals an inconsistent philosophy based on
>>outdated information.
>
>Is this really fair? He's been at it for seven years - a lot has
>changed - to his credit, he keeps his old articles up and available

I based me criticism solely on his current explanations of why his
site has few graphics and doesn't use the mailto: tag. And the fact
that recent and current content is very hard for me top read without
drastically resizing my browser window. I'm being completely fair and
accurate, something you can't say about his criticism of Flash.

>But anyway, my point is: what on his Flash-related alertbox
>(http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html) do you disagree with?

Other than that the "facts" he uses to support his criticism are
incorrect and that he mistakes bad use of Flash as something that's
inherent to Flash itself, I disagree with the premise he assumes:
that the purpose and goal of every web page is to present text-based
information in a way that will not challenge or surprise the visitor.

One could take a few points from his Action Alert and expound on
them; make the concentration: How not to use Flash," but it would
just be duplicating information and guidelines available on
Macromedia's site.

To point to examples of bad use of Flash and mix it with falsehoods
to vilify Flash wholesale is reprehensible.

>Flash: 99% Bad

"Jakob Nielsen 99% Idiot Armed with Loose Cannon"

>*	The "Back" button does not work. If you navigate within a Flash
>object, the standard backtracking method takes you out of the multimedia
>object and not, as expected, to the previous state.

Correct.

As an aside, I see that Jakob is a connoisseur of the "back" button:
more often than not, on useit.com, you have no choice other than
hitting your back button as many times as you click on a link. Maybe
some people like it that way, but I think most of us agree that's bad
navigation design. (maybe it was here that it was suggested a good
rule of thumb is to allow visitors to get from any page on your site
to any other in two clicks or less).

>*	Link colors don't work. Given this, you cannot easily see where
>  you've been and which links you've yet to visit. This lack of orientation
>  creates navigational confusion.

Incorrect. At the time Jacob wrote this, the current version of Flash
could change the colors (or size, or position if you wanted) of
visited links within the Flash movie. And keep them changed between
sessions if the visitor accepts cookies.

>*	The "Make text bigger/smaller" button does not work.
>  Users are thus forced to read text in the designer-specified font size,
>  which is almost always too small since designers tend to have excellent
>  vision.

Incorrect. If it's important to allow visitors to change font size,
you can do that within a Flash movie ... again with the version that
was current as of the writing. Why does this make Flash "bad" ...
everyone is free to use a mixture of Flash an HTML text, I know of no
jurisdictions where doing so is forbidden by law.

>*	Flash reduces accessibility for users with disabilities.

Correct. If it's important that visitors with disabilities be able to
access the content, making a Flash only site would indeed be stupid.

>*	The "Find in page" feature does not work. In general, Flash
>integrates poorly with search.

Correct on the first part, incorrect on the second. You can make a
search feature within the Flash movie, of course sometimes the
browser's search function will be superior ... but I don't think I'm
the only developer that's been charged with displaying searchable
data as a Flash movie, because the data and desired format of search
results lent itself to be best accomplished in Flash.

>*	Internationalization and localization is complicated. Local
>websites must
>  enlist a Flash professional to translate content.

This is the biggest non-point of the whole thing. If you need to
change the language of copy on a straight HTML page, you're going to
have to "enlist a [HTML] professional." On top of that (and this
again shows his ignorance) you don't have to be a "Flash
professional" to change the language of external data files from
which Flash culls text content.

>  Also, text that moves is harder to read for users who lack fluency
>in the language.

Um, I find it hard to believe he's unaware that it's possible to have
text that doesn't move in a Flash movie. I doubt this point struck
home with anyone, including himself.

>Distracts from a Site's Core Values
>Perhaps the worst problem with Flash is that its use consumes resources that
>  would be better spent enhancing the website's core value by:

>*	Frequently updating content (Flash content tends to be
>created once and then left alone).

A statement by someone who's ignorant of the fact that it's just as
easy or easier to update text in a Flash movie than a HTML page ...
indeed, a friend's client that can't even open a PDF updates her own
Flash site by modifying a .txt file on the server. No back-end or
HTML knowledge required.

>*	Providing informative content that answers users' key questions at all
>  depth levels (Flash content is typically superficial).

If someone can explain what this means or is alluding to, I'd appreciate it.

>*	Identifying better ways to support customers by task
>analyzing their real
>  problems (Flash is typically created by outside agents who don't
>understand the
>  business).

Asinine. It's not Flash's fault if you don't have anyone in house
that knows it nor have anyone that can effectively communicate with a
outside contractor.

>  If Flash was cheap to produce and if all content creators could
>make a Flash object
>  as easily as they write a standard Web page, then perhaps many of
>these problems
>  would be alleviated.

ROFLMAO. Here's Jakob, I'm Jacob - I've got a deadly serious scowl on
my face: "Flash poses a fundamental threat to the status quo. We
must, I say MUST, make it our number one priority to continue doing
things as they were done in the Golden Age of 1994. Nothing new can
be introduced! I mean like look at my ugly web page - I've been doing
HTML for years and my straight HTML web site sucks!"

--

__________________________________________
- Erik Mattheis

(612) 377 2272
http://goZz.com/

__________________________________________