[thelist] Jakob Nielsen [was Anti-aliasing]

dan donaldson dan at omnivore.ca
Tue Feb 26 08:53:00 CST 2002


On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 12:34  AM, Erik Mattheis wrote:

> I don't know about anybody else, but I'm saying Jakob Neilson shot
> his big ignorant mouth off in that essay.
>
> Yeah, my language has been kind of harsh, but frankly it pisses me
> off when someone oft quoted in the mass media disseminates false and
> misleading information about the technology that pays most of my rent.

I know this argument well. I used to work at a 3d animation house, with
huge pressure to keep the costly machines we had busy and paying
themselves off. That meant that we (and every other 3d house in the
world) developed the 'Here is the answer, now what was the question'
approach to clients. Whatever concerns the client had - will my product
look good? - will I get better results from a traditional animation
house? - will I be able to modify it easily for the
European/Chinese/Japanese/whatever market? were all given set answers.
Sadly, these usually involved invidious comparisons that exploited the
clients' ignorance.

It seems to me that Erik has a bit of this. Like the old 3d animation
house, where we looked on our computers as our mealticket, and would
allow no evil to be spoken of them, even where they could not even hear
us, Erik cannot bear to see his rice bowl questioned. But lets look at
some of the exchange:


> Indeed ... that right or control-click doesn't work in Flash
> frustrates me too.

>
>>    - mousewheel
>
> I'm not sure about the mousewheel, but you're probably correct.

> Myself, I'd recommend against using Flash to display paragraphs of
> scrollable text in almost all situations.

>> *	The "Back" button does not work.

> Correct.

>> *	Link colors don't work.

> Incorrect. At the time Jacob wrote this, the current version of Flash
> could change the colors

>> *	The "Make text bigger/smaller" button does not work.

> Incorrect.  <snip/> again with the version that
> was current as of the writing.

but these two points mean that all the other flash movies made previous
to that version presumably could not?

>
>> *	The "Find in page" feature does not work. In general, Flash
>> integrates poorly with search.
>
> Correct on the first part, incorrect on the second.

> Erik then goes on to act as if search meant 'search inside the site you
> are in', when clearly what he means and what is important is the
> ability to be found by search engines, which Flash makes much more
> difficult.


>
>> *	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.

But the other option is to make the site twice? And he later disagrees
that Flash content is more expensive to produce:

>
>>  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.

Well, if content can be accessed by disabled users and screen readers
most effectively through HTML, then for a huge number of sites, HTML is
a given. Corporations and Government agencies (and the sites of those
who deal with these groups) require that accessibility issues be
addressed and Flash doesn't do that. So, since as site manager I /have/
to do the one, and since Erik has suggested that companies, if they want
their Flash sites to reflect a good understanding of the site topic:

>  Asinine. It's not Flash's fault if you don't have anyone in house
> that knows it

it seems that a full-time Flashkinder is not an expense? Of course it
is. And at the end of the day, for what? If the content is presented in
that much better a way than the HTML version, then it can be argued that
the accessibility issues are not being addressed. If it is being done as
effectively, then what is the point of the costly second version?

>
>> *	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 ...

And then a statement by someone who hasn't considered that he is masking
the real issue by comparing single pages to single sections of Flash
movies. If as a content manager I need to add three new pages to my
site, I can do so, easily, and link them effectively to other parts of
the site, and build reciprocal links back in any way I like. While you
possibly /could/ do this in Flash, it would be immensely harder to do
so. By comparing updating /a page/ with /a Flash movie/ it limits the
scope of debate to what is convenient for the defense of Flash, but it
would be serving clients very badly.

>
>>  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 think that text often does move in Flash movies, and this - especially
at the time that JN wrote, was what it was [in]famous for. It doesn't
have to move, but a huge amount of Flash is/was devoted to creating
animated text and flying logo sequences. And often these are the intro
to the site. This in turn makes it harder for users who lack fluency to
assess the use of the site they have found. Does anyone here disagree
with this statement?

>> 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.

Hardly asinine, and certainly true. It's important that sites
communicate messages that promote businesses they represent. The strange
attribution of questions of guilt to a software program (Flash's fault)
reveal that this is an emotional issue for Erik, where it is a matter of
rational debate for others. Hence his defensive, overheated tone.

Relax, mate.

In any event, I have had to learn the humility to admit that after
fifteen years of web and multimedia, I never will reach the level of
competence at handling content, of understanding its nuances that my
clients in their various specializations do. Just as they will never be
as good a Lingo or PHP coder as I am. This is a trade-off in
communications, or at least it was until HTML and CMS came along. To
move to a system that reverses this trend is a step backwards. Erik can
come up with situations - as can I - where this does not matter. But
Nielsen's point is focussed, and relates to the representation of expert
knowledge and should be taken in that context, not twisted to suit a
defense of the author's dependencies.

>
>> *	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.

He means what the previous point brought out - that Flash content is
usually created by non-experts in the topic, and so reflects the
superficial understanding that a Flash developer will have of the
subject. Although he does not say it, this points out that not only
content, but also the method of its linking is critical in developing
information systems.

This looks to me like 12 non-trivial points against Flash that have
either been conceded by Erik or inadequately answered, often by changing
the context of the question - for instance the issue of search being
applied not to search engines but to search within the Flash movie.

Don't get me wrong. I like Flash, it has its place, just as the 3d
machines I used to work with/for had a place. When I left that business,
I started brokering video production services, and I was suddenly free
to choose the best tool for the job. Only then did I begin to realize
the limits of the thinking that prevailed in the animation houses I
worked with, where for them everything was 3d, 3d, 3d. I expect people
to defend the tools they use, but as a client and a supplier, my first
obligation is to understand my clients' real needs and address those
first.

Macromedia has their own promotions department, Erik - take some time
off, and learn Java...or XML or something. Your clients will thank you.

dan










More information about the thelist mailing list