[thelist] flash accessibility/usability

Daniel J. Cody djc at members.evolt.org
Tue Feb 26 19:08:10 CST 2002

.jeff wrote:

>>From: Erik Mattheis
>>My working theory, which seems to be supported
>>throughout this thread, is that some visitors prefer
>>something that looks "cool" and has a bit of "zip"
> 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?
if people think of something as 'cool', it's going to be cool to them
regardless of when they visit the site. 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?

>>My experience has been that Flash websites get more
>>visitors. I've even done a redesign on a website that
>>went from 100% Flash to 100% HTML/bitmap graphics - and
>>in hindsight, I still believe the HTML version is
>>designed better. Yet hits went down with the HTML
> 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).

> 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.


More information about the thelist mailing list