Depends on who you ask. I say Flash is good for games and little things that might require some business logic, perhaps a calculator or something of that nature. You shouldn't really use it for anything that is pertinent to the functionality of your site. Others may argue differently.
Basscyst
__________________
Helping to build a bigger box. - Adam Matthews
If you however decide to create your entire website in Flash, then it is advisable, that you also have a normal html-version of your website. Just put an intro-page asking the user to select lo-fi or hi-fi.
Horrible idea.
1) No user can bookmark individual pages if your whole site is a flash movie
2) If your website content is in flash, google won't find you
Aside from the handicap accessibility loss, a whole flash site is a bad idea. It's best to use flash in areas where content isn't a huge necessity -- a mini movie, or graphic presentation... but some users will frown from even that. Whole flash sites regardless are frowned upon by most professionals now-a-days, because you're causing your customer more problems in the future. And this is coming from a long ago Flash addict, so take my advice on it
__________________
// Art is what you can get away with. <-- Andy Warhol
...:.:::: bradyjfrey.com : htmldog : ::::.:...
Not sure bout that. I personally agree with you that having a website entirely is not very handy. Thats why I said that you have to have an HTML alternative. However I disagree with you that "whole flash sites regardless are frowned upon by most professionals now-a-days".
Take for example http://www.derbauer.de or http://www.24-7media.de . These are two highly respected webdesign companies from Germany and yet their websites are entirely in flash with no alternative given.
I've worked on contracts with 2advanced and Macromedia downtown here, and I've know some excellent flash designers -- and I've seen those sites as well. I worded that wrong -- most professionals frown upon it -- you get the visual benefit, but the possible loss of market share, and the definate loss of indexed content. I am a firm believer that design doesn't package content, it is the content -- but the web isn't print, and the benefits of using flash for visuals and not full content outweight the pretty effects of a full flash site. Having another html/xhtml site is helpful, but redundant -- a professional can just as easily mix the two -- because the web is not print, and there are fundamental differences between the two.
In the end, this is all who you ask - and I've worked and ran many a design department now -- and the majority of who I met felt flash was visually cool, but didn't spend too much time returning to those sites, and didn't really find too useful information. Until it overcomes some of it's weaknesses, even highly skilled flash designers are viewed as print designers in the wrong medium. I didn't agree with it either until a few years ago when some developers laid into me about it -- it's the different between designers and developers in the end. Designers want things to look pretty and usually don't care too much what's under the hood, the opposite tends to work with developers... professionals do both. Neither of those sites you showed me had anything but 1997 code -- but fantastic design. This industry needs both -- just like I teach print designers how to build their files properly for production (prepress) -- they need to know both. Sorry if this is short and poorly structured... I've typed this more than a few times on here
__________________
// Art is what you can get away with. <-- Andy Warhol
...:.:::: bradyjfrey.com : htmldog : ::::.:...
Those two German sites have beautiful interfaces. Visually, they are stunning, as well. But they're just not paying enough attention to the medium of the web and all it entails. The emphasis is all on accessibility for the priviliged majority. This may serve some well enough, but it's lazy and disrespectful to both potential customers/users and the spirit of the web and those that work hard to realize it: a medium to level the playing field and empower everybody.
Let's say I get a job interview at 24/7... I can't even do something as simple as copy their address and paste it into Mapquest or some similar site. I have to either switch back and forth between windows, memorize it, or write it down on paper and then type it out. None of those tasks is exceedingly laborious, but that's far far beside the point. And that's just one, simple task.
As Brady alluded to, the web is still trying to wrest itself free of predecessor mediums such as print. Hopefully it can manage to do that, because the idea of the web is too promising and too powerful to stagnate into something like Television++.
Designers want things to look pretty and usually don't care too much what's under the hood, the opposite tends to work with developers... professionals do both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ]|V|[agnus
...the idea of the web is too promising and too powerful to stagnate into something like Television++.
It might as well say 'Loading my ego, and its a half megabyte ego at that'.
I just can't be arsed with it, it turns me off, and turns me away, all that waiting and what's the pay off? A bit of bouncing text!? - unless I have chosen to view the latest Spiderman trailer, or whatever, in which case it can be worth the wait
Don't get me wrong, I think the web would be a poorer place without Flash. My daughter loves visiting the kids BBC site, loads of Flash games to play. That's the difference though: she gets a payoff for waiting for the stuff to load.
Location: Web Designer - North East Lancashire U.K.
Posts: 842
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradyj
Designers want things to look pretty and usually don't care too much what's under the hood, the opposite tends to work with developers... professionals do both.
Quite, true designers are just as concerned with what's under the hood, as they are with purely decorative considerations: Pugin, Morris, Corbusier, Lloyd-Wright etc.
All produced beautiful work, all were concerned with the form, function, and raw materials they worked with.
The raw material of the web is html, in it's many flavours. The function of the web is to present hyperlinked documents; Flash seems to side-step the issue of form following function by ignoring what the web actually is.
We designed a business to business promotional CD-ROM in Flash for Jacobs-Danone (Jacobs bisuits/crackers) last year - it was a nightmare, in terms of man hours, it was a loss financially; lesson learnt. The lesson was; there had to be a better way.
I use flash in my websites because i know how it works. I'm not so good with other flashy codes. i still can't get my page to add values, but anyway, flash is good for adding interactivity to certain parts of your site or condesnsing data areas i think . You should still have two versions just in case.
I believe that designers should be creative using flash, but at the end of the day, too much flash becomes annoying and stupid. Yes I know there are a lot of people who are talented at flash, but 99% of the time I don't wish to see loads of jumping text. I prefer a clean, static design which is easy to navigate as well as having a fresh, streamlined design without flash.
However, designers do have their reasons for flash, i.e. flash intros and games, which I think are ok in most purposes. I heard once that browsers decide whether they want to continue browsing your website within 10 seconds of entering it - so first impressions really do count. If you have a really un-professional, badly designed flash intro, then they will know where to go...as I say, there are times where flash is appropriate and times when it isn't.
Before you post, read our: 
