[thelist] Is flash always bad [was: google and other search engines]

Kasimir K evolt at kasimir-k.fi
Mon May 10 15:42:02 CDT 2004



Allen Schaaf wrote:
> If we want to respect the "world wide" part of the web, we need to account 
> for the real pipe sizes 

Yep. And we need do that wheather or not we are using flash - if you 
animate 50 huge images, it's going to be heavy both ways. If you have 
just text, it's going to be light both ways (yes, I can imagine why 
somebody would do text-only flash - actually I've seen some truly 
beautiful text animations done in flash). And if you need to present 
diagrams or line drawings, the flash often is lighter than an image.

> And this is where the hard work comes in, making an appealing entrance to 
> your client's information. Information? I thought we were talking about 
> Flash and other "enhancements" to the web?

Not all information is textual. Some information can be expressed only 
with animation, some requires synchronization of images and audio. In 
these cases, flash is not an "appealing entrance" to information, but 
the best tool to present it.

> Well, when you distill the functionality of the site to its essence, what 
> you are providing is information that is intended to bring the potential 
> consumer to the door of the nightclub, etc. The only real difference is the 
> form in which the information is conveyed. And this brings us right to the 
> nub of the question, form vs. function, or put another way, means vs. ends.

True, it's this simple - as long as the purpose is to sell or bring 
customers, and the site does it using text and images. Or actually no, 
it's not that simple even then... if my client runs bussiness in an 
obscure locatation, I might suggest using a flash-map, that the users 
can zoom and move. A 25k flash-map is much better and informative than a 
100k gif (which would of course be provided as an option).

And remember that sometimes the form *is* the function...

.k


More information about the thelist mailing list