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

[Allen Schaaf]

At 02:08 PM 5/9/04, Kasimir K wrote:
>Hi Ed,
>
>>>It is true that not everyone likes flash - but it is also true that 
>>>there are many, who like it very much, and keep their plug ins up to date.
>>That's groovy, but when my browser shows me "Downloading - 1% complete" 
>>for more than two seconds, I'm out of there.  And so are an awful lot of 
>>dial-up consumers.
>
>You seem to make an assumption, that flash sites are always heavy, and 
>download for a long time. This is not true. Well authored flash files are 
>light weight, and show content as soon as first bits have downloaded.
>
>Badly authored pages may be heavy whether they are made with or without flash.
>
>>>If these people are a sites target audience, it would be foolish not to 
>>>use flash on that site.
>>
>>I don't design a web site based upon whether or not I think the 
>>restaurant I'm designing it for has or doesn't have people who like Flash 
>>in their target audience.  I design it to appeal to people who might be 
>>attracted to that kind of dining experience.  Of course, if I ever do a 
>>site for a
>>restaurant that decorates its walls with flatpanels displaying kewl 
>>animation, I might reconsider that.
>
>Yes, you are speaking of only yourself now, which is very specific. More 
>generic view will give better understanding. If you desing only dining 
>restaurant web sites, then flash probably is not your cup of tea.
>
>But for those who design a web site for dj-bar with target audince of 
>25-30 year old trend setters, flash may be a very good choice. And when 
>designing a site for a company whose main product are "kewl animations", 
>flash probably is the only way to go ;-)
>
>>But in the meantime, the only company I can think of that should be 
>>specifically targeting Flash aficionados is Macromedia.
>
>I can think of many others too. It is clear that you don't personally like 
>flash, but the truth is, that many media oriented sites - be it sound, 
>animation or video - are best done with flash. Or do you consider only 
>text as real, good content? And any sound or moving images as always bad 
>content, which should be forbidden?

Hi gang,

I'm going to butt in on this as a semi-outsider. I do some web stuff, but 
it is mostly organized around content and, as a techwriter, I tend to be 
somewhat biased in that direction.

Be that as it may, the web is only 14 years old, just a teenager with 
embarrassing voice changes. The reality is that the purpose for which it 
was created was early and easy distribution of content to save particle 
physics money by eliminating potentially duplicate and very expensive 
experiments.

What has happened over time is that the web has added chrome and geegaws 
that now can be a burden to a large portion of the end users. It's not that 
the chrome and geegaws are unpleasant to the eyes, it is more a matter of 
how many eyes can or will see them.

If we want to respect the "world wide" part of the web, we need to account 
for the real pipe sizes in places like India, Africa, and Latin America. 
If, on the other hand, all you are trying to reach are those within 50 
miles of some nightclub or restaurant, then you need to consult the 
demographics of your potential audience and see what the download times are 
for the average pipe your audience has and whether the number that would 
flip channels rather than wait is small enough that your client is willing 
to write them off.

Personally I see it as an opportunity to sell more services to the client, 
a two prong approach that can reach as many as is possible.

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?

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.

Alas, there is no right answer, just results. Did more people show up 
because of the website or not? Was it worth the cost? I haven't seen any 
evidence pointing in either direction but at some point people are going to 
ask these hardball questions and you'll need to have answers or your 
clientele with go with some other fad that catches their eye or media 
attention.

Best to all,


Allen Schaaf
Information Engineering
http://www.doctordoc.info/

"There's more to life than increasing its speed."
   -- Mahatma Gandhi