.jeff wrote: l > have a browser, but not all will have flash installed/enabled. i can hear > the flash proponents yelling, "but spinning logos and flames make them wanna > buy more stuff", which has been proven over and over again to *not* be the > case. using an absurd example is flawed logically. of course 'logos & flames' won't make you want to buy things. > now, back to flash and its usefulness. sure, it could be used to display a > 3d mockup of the object for the user to inspect. thinking this will close > the sale is a rather uneducated assumption. if the rest of the aspects of > the "sales pitch" can't sell the product without the bit of flash then the > addition of the flash won't have any positive impact on securing the sale. why blanket it like that? why is it an 'un-educated assumption' on my part to give a 360 degree model of a scooter on iSellScooters.com? what if i told you the flash-enabled site sold three times as many scooters as the 'HTML only' site? would i still be using flash incorrectly? as for the sales pitch thing, insert pictures or text for flash and see how that sounds: 'if the rest of the aspects of the "sales pitch" can't sell the product without the pictures then the addition of pictures won't have any positive...' see, its all information. discarding *any* piece of otherwise relevant and helpful information, whether it be a flash animation showing you how the scooter wheels work or a paragraph of text explaining it to you, is the 'uneducated' thing to do IMO. information *IS* great, and should always come first. information can be conveyed in many mediums though, not just textual. the WWW was designed for multi-media information, not just textual information, and was *THE* defining feature that lead to the explosion of the Web and Internet in general.. and i understand the importance of knowing an audience, etc. so before i get labeled on either side of the debate, i'd like to point out that I don't have flash installed. .djc.