[thelist] flash accessibility/usability

[.jeff]

djc,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Daniel J. Cody
>
> > the sellability of "cool" and "hip" to users ends
> > after the first visit.  if after the first time they
> > visit they have to wait for the fancy animations
> > before getting at the content, they'll soon decide to
> > go elsewhere.
>
> how do you sell the coolness of 360 degree shots before
> the first visit?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i'm not talking about flash as an enhancement to an existing html site (what
you're talking about).  i was referring to all-flash, full browser window
nightmares where things fly in from various directions to form the logo,
navigation, content area, etc.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> if people think of something as 'cool', it's going to be
> cool to them regardless of when they visit the site.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

not if it impedes access to content.  if you don't believe me, then go do
some reading on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of splash screens.  they
used to be viewed as cool and hip.  now, anybody that's smart avoids them
except in ultra-rare situations.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> as erik's already pointed out a couple times, flash is
> often more efficient than static images, so why do you
> think they'd have to wait?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i wasn't talking about static images.  i was talking about planned animation
that always took a set amount of time to execute.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > i can tell that you're implying that this metric
> > indicates the users preferred the flash version.  i
> > don't know how you're measuring your traffic for the
> > flash versions, but the reduction in traffic could
> > mean the users are able to find the information
> > they're looking for easier/faster/fewer clicks in the
> > html version.
>
> or maybe its because one flash file replaces 5 static
> images(hits).
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

that would suggest the opposite of what erik was saying -- flash sites
generate *more* traffic than an html version.

i was suggesting that the reduction in traffic to *html* sites could be less
for the reasons (and more) that i noted.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > marketing.  maybe the html version was too design-
> > heavy, making the user wait too long for the content.
> > maybe the content in the html version wasn't updated
> > as often.  maybe some key features of the flash site
> > that were responsible for a large part of the traffic
> > weren't ported to the html version.
>
> and maybe it's just because they liked the flash version
> better.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

maybe.  however, unless you ask them, it's left to making educated guesses
based on usage reports.

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/