[thelist] [Fwd: Flash vs. HTML]

Michael Mell wrote on 09 April 2002 23:16

> We're trying to decide
> whether we should use Flash or HTML for the navigation. I think we're
> leaning towards having both a Flash and an HTML version of the entire
> site. This would mean having one version with a static home page as well
> as HTML navigation.
>
> Mike, we want our site to be really snappy, but also make sure everyone
> who visits our site is able to view it. That's why we're thinking we
> should create it using Flash and have a default HTML version. You
> mentioned that the majority of internet users have Flash these days. Is
> it standard practice to only do a Flash version? Please give us your
> expert opinion.


Hi,

One problem with separating a site in to different versions for
browser/plug-ins is that one version often gets neglected and the content
quickly becomes out of sync with the main version. It's also a real bore to
have to do essentially the same work twice - or more - so the main version
doesn't get updated as often as it should because it's all too much of a
drag.

However, your client want to have a "snappy" site, and let everyone see it.
So here you should go for the Holy Grail... separate content from
presentation.

Shove all the text into a database and call it into the flash or html using
MySQL/PHP or whatever your favourite db/script language is...

It's probably fairly simple to take a Opensource/GPL Content Management
System to handle the backend and HTML side, and you would "just" need to do
the flash integration.

Kind regards,
Liam Delahunty