Flash or HTML?

html if we are having a vote... not every visitor has flash installed..

BTW this is nearly as bas as politics or religion... :)
 
if this is a vote:
Everyone has their preferences, however MY OPINION... is flash sites take longer to load, not everyone uses flash, mobile browsers dont all include flash etc.
so html.
 
HTML for me too.

I hate the little 'please wait whilst loading' icon and usually don't bother waiting.


Steve.
 
I think you will be hard come to find an average users/potential clients PC that doesn't have flash installed on.

Good design will mean loading times are negligible (especially with most households on broadband now), plus you have the added benefits of being able to design it however you want, without any limitations from HTML.

I think so long as you keep to the same design standards used in HTML, and don't go using flash just because you can...then it'll do just as good a job! Random animations and buttons that look like they were done by the special effects team from Lord of the Rings will just put people off.

You have to remember that you are appealing to customers, not other photographers! What will the customer like to see? Wedding sites for example, in flash....are mostly a heck of a lot better than the html ones, just because you can do the subtle effects a lot easier, and people will like to see that thought has gone into presentation.

Photographers may pretend to say they know what the consumer likes...but they will always have that incline to swing towards what they prefer technology wise! Any man who says he can think like a bride is just deluding himself ;)

Weddings is just an example by the way....I don't intend any further discussion on that matter :D
 
purpleclouds said:
I think you will be hard come to find an average users/potential clients PC that doesn't have flash installed on.

Good design will mean loading times are negligible (especially with most households on broadband now),
Click to expand...

Your talkign about pc users on broadband.. how happy would you be if a potential client visits your site and passes you over because he cant see your contant..

I ahve nothign against flash and would quite happily use it if/when i require.. but given the choice I woudl prefer to know that EVERYONE can see my website... NOT everyone is sat at home on a PC with broadband..

If they have money in there pockets i dont want them passing me :)
 
Maybe I should refine the question a bit.

This is not a site for people to search and find on google etc. So I'm not bothered about people who can't be arsed to wait the 4 secs it takes to load, (I'm on vvv slow broadband too) It's a case of me personally speaking to someone then saying go look at the site.

Any difference of opinion now?:shrug:
 
I have nothing wrong with what you are saying, on my site I have a flash header, the rest is HTML/PHP driven.

My webstats tells me that since New Year (probably goes back further but it's only got up to Jan on it at a quick look!), there hasn't been a person on my site who hasn't been able to load the header. 80%+ users have the very latest version too.

I know your site is purely for direct sales, therefore flash isn't suited to what you do. But for someone wanting to show a portfolio, then it is an ideal medium!

I've been toying with a sample design for a flash website, and the main page that loads up sits at 25kb...which is 5 seconds if they're still on dialup (again..haven't had a dialup visitor for months!).

It's purely down to how you use it, and I certainly wouldn't advise that you use it, nor anyone who sells through an online gallery!

Saying that, I also wouldn't advise anyone just offers flash, there should always be a HTML option available too!
 
One thing I don't like is typing in an address which takes me to a header page which then invites me to 'Click Here To Enter Site'.

I would rather straight to the actual site.

treeman said:
So I'm not bothered about people who can't be arsed to wait the 4 secs it takes to load
Click to expand...

Every flash site I have backed away from has taken a lot longer than four seconds to load (or to half load).


Steve.
 
treeman said:
Maybe I should refine the question a bit.

This is not a site for people to search and find on google etc. So I'm not bothered about people who can't be arsed to wait the 4 secs it takes to load, (I'm on vvv slow broadband too) It's a case of me personally speaking to someone then saying go look at the site.

Any difference of opinion now?:shrug:
Click to expand...

In that case I change my opinion from html to flash.... cus its sexier :)
 
Steve Smith said:
One thing I don't like is typing in an address which takes me to a header page which then invites me to 'Click Here To Enter Site'.

I would rather straight to the actual site.



Every flash site I have backed away from has taken a lot longer than four seconds to load.


Steve.
Click to expand...

It is possible for a site to detect flash or not, then direct to the appropriate site! So the flash sites you have been to are badly designed and don't deserved you're attention :)

No need to rubbish a technology because of a few bad experiences! It's like saying cars are bad because you've only ever driven a Lada!
 
depends on what the site is.

for example badly designed flash sites can be a pain in the arse to navigate around, back/forward buttons dont work etc.

flash for the sake of flash is just wasting time. flash to promote a media presentation etc is fine.
 
purpleclouds said:
It is possible for a site to detect flash or not, then direct to the appropriate site! So the flash sites you have been to are badly designed and don't deserved you're attention :)
Click to expand...

good answer.. its the one i usualy give and gets all maner of responses why they dont do that... end of day its laziness on the developers part.
 
KIPAX said:
good answer.. its the one i usualy give and gets all maner of responses why they dont do that... end of day its laziness on the developers part.
Click to expand...

Yup! I'll quite often stumble across a badly designed HTML site too...and I'll pass it by! It's not just flash :)
 
purpleclouds said:
So the flash sites you have been to are badly designed and don't deserved you're attention :)
Click to expand...

And therefore don't get it!

I don't think flash is bad generally, I expect I have been on some really good flash websites without any problems. The key thing here is that it should be transparent. I shouldn't even be thinking that the site is flash or HTML whilst using it.

And I shouldn't be sat there waiting and thinking "Oh ****, not another ****** flash website". As with most things, you only remember the bad experiences and then tar them all with the same brush.


Steve.
 
For sites designed to wow the user graphically, there is no contest. Most of the best portfolio sites around are designed mostly or fully in Flash. That's not to say you can't design a very good looking portfolio site in HTML, but Flash is better suited. :thumbs:
 
I have just remembered a flash (I assume) site which I like.

It manages to make the screen look like a 1980s green screen monitor and uses letters to navigate with as if it is in DOS.

Not the normal use of flash but it is one I was impressed with.

http://www.theraconteurs.com/



Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I have just remembered a flash (I assume) site which I like.

It manages to make the screen look like a 1980s green screen monitor and uses letters to navigate with as if it is in DOS.

Not the normal use of flash but it is one I was impressed with.

http://www.theraconteurs.com/



Steve.
Click to expand...

god thats irritating. more so that it forces your browser full screen.. not good for covert work browsing lol
 
Flash is fine if used correctly and in moderation. That is why most Flash sites fall down, because they aer way too OTT. If a visitor to my site doesn't have flash, they are presented with the option to eitehr install it or click through to my blog instead, which is html. Everyone wins :)
 
OK. Deep breath. I'm pretty sure this thread has been done before but I'll try and educate some more people while I'm at it.

treeman said:
Is there a consensus of opinion on this? Do most people have flash players on their computers?
Click to expand...

KIPAX said:
html if we are having a vote... not every visitor has flash installed..

BTW this is nearly as bas as politics or religion... :)
Click to expand...

Flash player uptake on personal computers in the western world is currently as follows...

Most people have a version of Flash player installed. There is a small minority that don't but it's not the end of the world as you'll see later in this post.

itsjosh said:
if this is a vote:
Everyone has their preferences, however MY OPINION... is flash sites take longer to load, not everyone uses flash, mobile browsers dont all include flash etc.
so html.
Click to expand...

Poorly designed flash websites can take a while to load, but it could also be down to other factors like hosting and traffic. Not everyone has flash, that is correct, but again, keep reading and you'll see why that isn't a problem.

andrewc said:
I prefer an HTML site to a flash site.
Click to expand...

It's all down to personal preference, but 'you' are not 'everyone' that visits a particular site.

Steve Smith said:
HTML for me too.

I hate the little 'please wait whilst loading' icon and usually don't bother waiting.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Smartly designed Flash websites have intelligent loading practices. I've seen some pretty fast flash sites that are media rich but don't take an age to load.

KIPAX said:
Your talkign about pc users on broadband.. how happy would you be if a potential client visits your site and passes you over because he cant see your contant..

I ahve nothign against flash and would quite happily use it if/when i require.. but given the choice I woudl prefer to know that EVERYONE can see my website... NOT everyone is sat at home on a PC with broadband..

If they have money in there pockets i dont want them passing me :)
Click to expand...

Everyone can see your website... just sometimes not the version that you want... keep reading.

Steve Smith said:
One thing I don't like is typing in an address which takes me to a header page which then invites me to 'Click Here To Enter Site'.

I would rather straight to the actual site.

Every flash site I have backed away from has taken a lot longer than four seconds to load (or to half load).

Steve.
Click to expand...

The problem is there are lots of Flash developers out there building **** flash websites. Splash pages feature on flash sites a lot, but they also appear on html websites too. They are completely irrelevant and unnecessary. I'll skip any site that has a splash page.

Good flash developers will use tools such as SWFAddress to create highly navigable websites. Sites that you can hotlink to specific pages, back and forward buttons work just like you'd expect them to on a HTML website. Again, don't blame the medium, blame the developer.

purpleclouds said:
It is possible for a site to detect flash or not, then direct to the appropriate site! So the flash sites you have been to are badly designed and don't deserved you're attention :)

No need to rubbish a technology because of a few bad experiences! It's like saying cars are bad because you've only ever driven a Lada!
Click to expand...

You can do this without redirecting. SWFObject is a great tool for Flash developers to provide HTML fall back content should a site user not have Flash installed or are viewing the site on a mobile device that doesn't have Flash installed. Fallback content gets shown without redirecting the user. It's seamless.

neil_g said:
depends on what the site is.

for example badly designed flash sites can be a pain in the arse to navigate around, back/forward buttons dont work etc.

flash for the sake of flash is just wasting time. flash to promote a media presentation etc is fine.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

neo2810 said:
For sites designed to wow the user graphically, there is no contest. Most of the best portfolio sites around are designed mostly or fully in Flash. That's not to say you can't design a very good looking portfolio site in HTML, but Flash is better suited. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Yup. Again it's all about choosing the correct tool for the job. Sit down before building a website and decide which tools are best for creating the solution you're looking for.

divine` said:
Hate flash sites, can't stand them.
Click to expand...

I've seen some pretty nasty Flash sites. I've seen some pretty nasty HTML sites. Again, personal preference... but you shouldn't blame the medium. There's nothing wrong with Flash. Flash has come a long way since it first appeared. There are people building enterprise applications using Flash technology, myself included.

FWIW I'm ditching my current HTML website and building a new Flash website. I'll post it up when it's finished for a bit of crit.
 
Also, combining SWFObject and SWFAddress allows you to create a Flash website that can be indexed by major search engines. I should also say that some of the tools mentioned in my previous post will probably only be understandable to Flash developers schooled in ActionScript 3 development rather than timeline based websites... the latter suck balls in my opinion.

Anyone who builds a Flash website in the timeline is asking for trouble.
 
What does flash allow you to achieve that HTML et al. doesn't?

Because quite honestly I don't think i've ever seen a flash site that adds anything other than annoying useless things such as menu options flying around all over the shop, random pointless animations. That sort of thing.

The next main problem is the vast majority seem to have been made by someone who just couldn't understand coding HTML and so used flash instead and it usually ends up a bloated useless heap of rubbish.

I can't remember the last time I saw a flash based site that a) was constructed well and b) actually had a valid use for flash


edit - for example, this largely embodies most of what I hate about typical flash sites: http://ss09.wwe.com/
 
I'll watch it if it's on and i've nothing better to do, it just happened to be the first site I could think of i've recently seen use flash.
 
One thing I don't like is typing in an address which takes me to a header page which then invites me to 'Click Here To Enter Site'.
Click to expand...

I agree, the one I'm working doesn't have a splash page.

As I often use my iPod touch I can't view flash websites so has to be HTML for me
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, this is what prompted my original question, I can't get my Flash site on my iphone.

But thanks to JayKay' post, and a little maths, 95.25% of Europeans have a version of Flash installed.

Didn't realise this was such a hot topic!

Just being the Devil's advocate for a sec, I suppose I could turn it around and say if I was searching for a photographers website and it was still in HTML, I might think "Huh, stuck in the dark ages" :exit:
 
What does :schtum: mean?

Or is it just a comment on my crap spelling of mine?


Steve.
 
flash is brilliant if you want a "hard to maintain and adjust" site with "poor SEO characteristics" that wont be viewable on a lot of corporate networks... often corporate networks have a simple version of windows installed on the base units, with no user options for downloading plugins"

There are other interactive options that give movement: Javascriot, DHTML, HTML, AJAX etc
 
divine` said:
What does flash allow you to achieve that HTML et al. doesn't?

Because quite honestly I don't think i've ever seen a flash site that adds anything other than annoying useless things such as menu options flying around all over the shop, random pointless animations. That sort of thing.

The next main problem is the vast majority seem to have been made by someone who just couldn't understand coding HTML and so used flash instead and it usually ends up a bloated useless heap of rubbish.

I can't remember the last time I saw a flash based site that a) was constructed well and b) actually had a valid use for flash


edit - for example, this largely embodies most of what I hate about typical flash sites: http://ss09.wwe.com/
Click to expand...

It offers a tremendous amount, depending on your target audience. The problem with this thread is that everyone assumes, because of poor implementation, that Flash is rubbish and pointless.

I'll find you some great examples of well executed websites that offer something more.
 
Richard King said:
flash is brilliant if you want a "hard to maintain and adjust" site with "poor SEO characteristics" that wont be viewable on a lot of corporate networks... often corporate networks have a simple version of windows installed on the base units, with no user options for downloading plugins"

There are other interactive options that give movement: Javascriot, DHTML, HTML, AJAX etc
Click to expand...

Hard to maintain? It is fully integratable with PHP, XML....it's as easy to keep updated as a normal HTML site is!

Google is quite able to read flash websites..

As has already been said, if you offer a HTML backup, which is seamless to the browser....what is the problem?

A little research goes a long way...
 
divine` said:
I'll watch it if it's on and i've nothing better to do, it just happened to be the first site I could think of i've recently seen use flash.
Click to expand...

To a 15 year old lad...that website will keep them entertained for minutes! :p A standard HTML site can't offer the same level of seamless animation and action that keeps youngsters busy. They are visual people. The would find a standard laid out website with nice little links here and there to be somewhat boring.
 
Richard King said:
flash is brilliant if you want a "hard to maintain and adjust" site with "poor SEO characteristics" that wont be viewable on a lot of corporate networks... often corporate networks have a simple version of windows installed on the base units, with no user options for downloading plugins"

There are other interactive options that give movement: Javascriot, DHTML, HTML, AJAX etc
Click to expand...

This is total *******s. The maintenance and SEO issues are no longer issues. I've done Flash websites that have Wordress and Expression Engine back ends. Flash sites that pull data from social networks. I've also done Flash sites that sit at the top end of Google searches.

The argument about corporate networks is also pretty weak since most corporate networks will restrict the websites people have access to anyway. I hear all the time on here about people being blocked access to TP and other websites at work. And in my big post on page one didn't you know that Flash sites can also be built with HTML fallback content for people who don't have Flash Player installed, or who do sit behind corporate networks?

The argument you present is the argument I'd have expected to hear 8 or 9 years ago. No offense.

Adobe better send me some free stuff for all this defending.
 
KayJay said:
This is total *******s. The maintenance and SEO issues are no longer issues. I've done Flash websites that have Wordress and Expression Engine back ends. Flash sites that pull data from social networks. I've also done Flash sites that sit at the top end of Google searches.

The argument about corporate networks is also pretty weak since most corporate networks will restrict the websites people have access to anyway. I hear all the time on here about people being blocked access to TP and other websites at work. And in my big post on page one didn't you know that Flash sites can also be built with HTML fallback content for people who don't have Flash Player installed, or who do sit behind corporate networks?

The argument you present is the argument I'd have expected to hear 8 or 9 years ago. No offense.

Adobe better send me some free stuff for all this defending.
Click to expand...

I'll drink to that! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top