Pro togs with Flash-based websites

[parish]

Not just togs, but anyone with a commercial website, why do you use Flash? Have you considered the disadvantages that may actually be losing you (potential) business?

Some facts and observations about Flash...

Firstly, it's a proprietary format so will only work on operating systems that Adobe bother to write the player for. OK, that probably covers 99% of users but there are those who, like me, hate Flash sites and many don't/won't even install the Flash player.

Flash sites generally have a pointless and time-wasting Intro and while some have a Skip Intro button, many don't. Usually, at this point, I close the tab and move to the next hit on Google.

Sadly, too many "web designers" seem to think - and must convince their customers - that more bling is better.

Several pro tog sites have a Flash slide show - often with pointless and annoying transition effects - where the time delay between frames is set, and can't be changed by the user, so you can't study any if the photos. Another reason why I'd move on to the next site.

The two biggest things you should consider about having a Flash-based site are:

1. Google et.al. can't index the Flash content which will adversely affect your site's ranking in the search engine.

2. Many companies, like the one I work for, block Flash content. In the case of mine they strip the code out of incoming pages so where the Flash content is just appears as a blank area so, if the whole page is Flash, then you just get a blank page. That's a major issue if you are targetting commercial customers but even if you're targetting private customers, e.g. wedding or portrait photography, then bear in mind that many companies allow their employees to use the Internet (maybe just at lunch-time) so they may well be searching for their wedding photographer whilst at work.

 

[petemc]

1. Google et.al. can't index the Flash content which will adversely affect your site's ranking in the search engine.

Actually it can now. But I do agree that html sites with flash elements are the best concept. Annoyingly people have been debating this for years now. Simple fact is that the web allows people to create bad websites easily and no amount of "should do it this way" can sway them from "ooooh".

 

[Raymond Lin]

You don't have to tell me, i had a friend who gave me a lecture on it a couple of weeks ago, and he showed me some survey done and what not.

Rankin uses flash in his site, and i got lost the first time i went on it. The navigation is clever but a bit weird.

saying that...mine is flash and my experience is that even for regular users who are not computer savvy, their computer all have flash players installed, they don't know the difference between HTML and Flash, they only care about how the site is designed and layout. If the layout is good and easy to use then it doesn't really matter its flash or html. This account for a majority of users, when i was done with my website last week i showed all my friends. Everyone of them got it to work, no one said it didn't load or anything, the only people who complained are the ones who knows about computers and already have a thing against flash.

 

[mbscad]

Hey Parish,
I agree with most of what you say.
I refuse to load a flash player on my 'puter and when I come across a site which says "you appear not to have flash xxx loaded upgrade now", I just move on to the next site.
Some of us oldies remember the days when the 'puter was taken over by unscrupulous program writers using flash type techniques and spawning new pages faster than you could kill them. This still happens on some sites (particularly if you are trying to download freeware programs).
Rebuilding computers is very annoying and time consuming so I try and avoid situations that have given me trouble in the past. (Rant over).

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I too hate Flash intros and I know we're not alone, but for some reason many companies (or as parish says, some web desiners) seem think that their customers have a great desire to sit and wait for some pointless animation to load, before getting to the actual site. Unless it's a site that I have to get onto, I generally move on.

Don't get me wrong, I think Flash has it's place, but a website intro page isn't it....

 

[PeteStewardson]

I don't think any website, regardless of how it's produced, should have an intro page personally.

TBH I don't see what all the fuss is about with people having such strong issues with Flash. Not installing it on your PC seems a bit OTT to me, especially since so many sites use it. A well designed flash site is infinity better than a badly designed HTML page with rubbish java script running.

Pete

 

[petemc]

Some of us oldies remember the days when the 'puter was taken over by unscrupulous program writers using flash type techniques and spawning new pages faster than you could kill them.

Yer its not like you can't do that with Javascript. C'mon, don't be so silly. That never happens to me. Maybe I'm just more web savy. Its a really silly reason not to install Flash. Its like saying you don't drive a car because your great grandad died in one.

 

[Caledonia]

I am not a great fan of flash, and I don't use it on my site, but it does have it's uses.

Many photographers and commercial companies use it because of copyright concerns. It is a lot harder to grab an image from a flash site than from one using HTML, Javasript, PHP etc. Flash sites provide a bit more of a challenge than just clicking "Save image as" - it's more of a challenge but certainly not impossible.

As with all site design and viewing, it all comes down to the designers and the viewers preferences.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I am not a great fan of flash, and I don't use it on my site, but it does have it's uses.

Many photographers and commercial companies use it because of copyright concerns. It is a lot harder to grab an image from a flash site than from one using HTML, Javasript, PHP etc. Flash sites provide a bit more of a challenge than just clicking "Save image as" - it's more of a challenge but certainly not impossible.

As with all site design and viewing, it all comes down to the designers and the viewers preferences.

That's the added benifit too, what i find that those that don't even understand copyright or image leeching don't know how to get around the problem of getting an image from a Flash Site, so that itself stops a lot of people, regular joe from stealing images.

 

[Jamesbuk]

Im not really a fan of full flash sites, I dont mind HTML sites with some flash e.g. a slide show but full flash sites often look incredibly tacky. Ive used all the types, Ive used full flash, just a bit of flash and php script and the php script is the one people have liked the most.
What gets me more though, are normal people that write in the 3rd person like they have a biographer.. I know it shouldnt bother me but I hate the fact that some people have to kid themselves that they are a someone..

But maybe thats just me

Regards, James

 

[mbscad]

Yer its not like you can't do that with Javascript. C'mon, don't be so silly. That never happens to me. Maybe I'm just more web savy. Its a really silly reason not to install Flash. Its like saying you don't drive a car because your great grandad died in one.

Yes Petemc, I won't let javascript run without permission also.
As for being silly, I think thats a personal attack and not welcome.
I'm entitled to my viewpoint aren't you?

 

[robbys82]

I have spent many years working developing flash and html within elearning (accessability is key!). When it came to developing websites for my photography businesses there was no choice, if you want to get a good ranking in search engines HTML is the best way.

 

[petemc]

Yes Petemc, I won't let javascript run without permission also.
As for being silly, I think thats a personal attack and not welcome.
I'm entitled to my viewpoint aren't you?

If you think its a personal attack RTM it. Personally I have 0 issues with Flash or Javascript. My viewpoint is that its silly to disabled half these things incase of something going wrong. Doesn't really happen in my humble opinion.

 

[Marcel]

Play nice everyone. Remember the rules....you may disagree, but criticise the thought, not the thinker

 

[Matt]

flash and java are the future. Phones run on java and flash, bluray disks use java, all kinds of things do nowadays.

adobes latest pdf software even allows flash elements to be encoded into it. Personally i dont have a problem with it or using it, its a tool like any other.

 

[parish]

flash and java are the future. Phones run on java and flash, bluray disks use java, all kinds of things do nowadays.

adobes latest pdf software even allows flash elements to be encoded into it. Personally i dont have a problem with it or using it, its a tool like any other.

You're missing the point Matt. The 'net and the WWW are - or rather were intended to be - platform-agnostic, so using things on a website that are specific to particular platforms or browsers is bad as is using proprietary products like Flash.

The main point of this thread however was about the use of such things in commercial websites as it potentially restricts your business.

It's interesting that Raymond has posted here as it was his thread about his new website that prompted me to start this thread - although it is not directed at Raymond himself, however if I view his website at work all I see is a blank white window because, as I said above, my company blocks Flash content as do many other companies so Raymond - and anyone else using Flash sites - is potentially losing business from anyone who visits their site from work if, like mine, Flash is blocked.

 

[petemc]

You're missing the point Matt. The 'net and the WWW are - or rather were intended to be - platform-agnostic, so using things on a website that are specific to particular platforms or browsers is bad as is using proprietary products like Flash.

Flash which is available on Win/Lin/OSX. No I do agree that its best to stick with simple HTML and CSS. The popularity of the iPhone is really hitting home how big mobile interneting is going to be and the iPhone doesn't support Flash due to battery life issues. You can easily use CSS to rejig the format of your site for a mobile platform, but Flash is tricky. Still, saying that Flash has changed the web in such a huge way. It was inevitable that it would happen due to Macromedia Director in the pre-web days. Multimedia applications n all that. But without Flash we wouldn't have Youtube, and such. FLV is really fantastic and its allowing people to produce and deliver movies right from a webpage. Just as the mp3 file allowed bands to publish from their site.

 

[parish]

But without Flash we wouldn't have Youtube, and such. FLV is really fantastic and its allowing people to produce and deliver movies right from a webpage. Just as the mp3 file allowed bands to publish from their site.

Err, why not? Most - all even - of the movies on YouTube started out as AVI/WMA/MPEG etc. so they could just be posted in those formats. Just about every (decent) media player has browser plugins that allow these common formats to be played in the browser.

Also, you can't compare Flash with MP3 as the latter is, to all intents and purposes, an open format (although there are patent claims surrounding it they are not enforced - and some have expired anyway) whereas Flash is proprietary and any support for the files outside of the Flash Player is down to reverse engineering.

The BBC has recently gone backwards by posting all the video clips on the News site in Flash format whereas before they were available in WMA and Realplayer format and worked just fine.

 

[purpleclouds]

Err, why not? Most - all even - of the movies on YouTube started out as AVI/WMA/MPEG etc. so they could just be posted in those formats. Just about every (decent) media player has browser plugins that allow these common formats to be played in the browser.

Also, you can't compare Flash with MP3 as the latter is, to all intents and purposes, an open format (although there are patent claims surrounding it they are not enforced - and some have expired anyway) whereas Flash is proprietary and any support for the files outside of the Flash Player is down to reverse engineering.

The BBC has recently gone backwards by posting all the video clips on the News site in Flash format whereas before they were available in WMA and Realplayer format and worked just fine.

You pointed out the one problem there...AVI/WMV/MPEG/MOV/Real player and the million other formats all require different codecs, and more often than not...a lot more bandwidth than flv, which is fairly economic on bandwidth and just needs flash player installed.

During university I used to put up some of my animations online in avi and often found I had to direct people to codec sites....until flv came along!

Sites which have used embedded media like wmv etc did so at a cost of aesthetics, I don't distinctly remember any good looking sites using this!! Shallow as it may be...but smart websites media is seamlessly embedded.

 

[petemc]

Err, why not? Most - all even - of the movies on YouTube started out as AVI/WMA/MPEG etc. so they could just be posted in those formats. Just about every (decent) media player has browser plugins that allow these common formats to be played in the browser.

Clearly the popularity of Youtube proves my point. Its basically the biggest site in the world account for a large portion of bandwidth used. Why? Because you can put any format movie online for all to see and they don't have to worry about codecs or anything. Its simple, it works.

Also, you can't compare Flash with MP3 as the latter is, to all intents and purposes, an open format (although there are patent claims surrounding it they are not enforced - and some have expired anyway) whereas Flash is proprietary and any support for the files outside of the Flash Player is down to reverse engineering.

I can and did. I not going to argue about the specifics of the format. If you wanna get stupid silly well mp3 doesn't do interactive animation. But thats not the point. The point was that mp3 did a lot for moving music forward on the web and Flash has done similar for video.

The BBC has recently gone backwards by posting all the video clips on the News site in Flash format whereas before they were available in WMA and Realplayer format and worked just fine.

Now its in Flash, and works just fine. I'd imagine the reason they moved to Flash was simply because its installed with XP, OSX, *nix, Vista where as WMA requires an extra program. Realplayer was just a joke. A really funny joke.

 

[Marcel]

I don't remember Realplayer ever making me smile?

 

[parish]

Clearly the popularity of Youtube proves my point. Its basically the biggest site in the world account for a large portion of bandwidth used. Why? Because you can put any format movie online for all to see and they don't have to worry about codecs or anything.

They could just as easily convert the movies to AVI/MPG/WMA then you'd still only need one codec - and it would be more standard.

I suspect that the real reason that YouTube uses Flash is either that Adobe pay them lots of money and/or they think it will stop people copying/saving the movies - which is comical since most of the stuff posted is in breach of copyright anyway

Its simple, it works.

Provided Adobe happen to make a version of the player for the OS you use.

Now its in Flash, and works just fine.

Not for me it doesn't.

I'd imagine the reason they moved to Flash was simply because its installed with XP, OSX, *nix, Vista where as WMA requires an extra program.

No it isn't installed with those OSes, certainly not with XP and *nix, don't know about Vista and OSX though. Maybe Dell etc. pre-install it on their machines, but that's not the same thing. As for Linux, then it can't be pre-installed as it's commercial s/w and the terms of the licence prevent it being re-distributed.

Realplayer was just a joke. A really funny joke.

Ah, we agree on something then

And then there's Quicktime.....

 

[petemc]

They could just as easily convert the movies to AVI/MPG/WMA then you'd still only need one codec - and it would be more standard.

You keep saying that. Might happen one day 99% of internet users is pretty darn standard.

I suspect that the real reason that YouTube uses Flash is either that Adobe pay them lots of money and/or they think it will stop people copying/saving the movies

Or its because its the better system. You'd have to be a little wrong in the head to have missed that almost every major website distributing video now uses Flash to do so simply because its so easy and you don't have to worry about codecs. I doubt Adobe is paying everyone off. I didn't get a cheque and I use it.

Not for me it doesn't.

Aw, shame Only have yourself to blame for that.

No it isn't installed with those OSes, certainly not with XP and *nix, don't know about Vista and OSX though..

Yup its preinstalled with XP, OSX and Vista. Flash currently has reach of 99% of internet users. Thats a little more than xvid, divx, quicktime, h246, avi, mpg, and so on. Its really quite hilarious to see these same old arguments. Oh noes Flash is bad. Its 2008. Give it up. Flash changed the web nearly 10 years ago. It continues to. Its not going away. 99% of the web use it. Pretty huge number there. 99% of the web agree with me that Flash is pretty good. Again, the success of Youtube proves that people are glad that it exists and enjoy the simplicity of the format.

http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/

 

[parish]

Oh dear, we seem to be wandering off at a tangent and heading towards trading insults.

So, to pull this back on topic, 99% of people may well be potentially able to use Flash (although I suspect that is more a figure of speech than an accurate figure) however, you then have to take into account

• those who don't want to use it
• those who avoid Flash sites and
• those who use the 'net at work where Flash is blocked

and, most importantly, the 40+% of UK households who are still on dial-up for whom Flash sites (and any multimedia-rich site) will be painfully slow to the point of being unusable.

This means that you are alienating nearly half your potential customers. Of course, if you are getting enough work then that's up to you but I know that if I had a commercial website then I wouldn't be happy with it, and I'm sure you'll not find a bean-counter in the world who would consider it acceptable either.

This is reminiscent of a few years ago when Mozilla was firt becoming popular. Lots of commercial websites would only work in IE yet even when IE still had over 95% of the browser market, companies woke up to the fact that they were potentially losing business and updated their websites to work properly. I can't remember the last time I visited a commercial website that didn't work on any browser.

Still though there are a few companies with their heads in the sand. There's a photo-printing company that gets recommended here on TP (Colour Labs or something) whose file uploader only works on Windows and Mac therefore alienating the ever growing numbers of people using Linux. Their solution? Put the files on CD and snail-mail them. D'uh yeah, right, like people are really going to do that when just about every competitor has an uploader that is OS and browser independent. I can assure you that they have lost business because of this head-in-the-sand attitude; I was going to use them, based on recommendations here, but didn't for that reason.

 

[admirable]

I'm not believing 40% of households are still on dialup? :nono:

Shirley not? :shrug:

Seems a very high figure.

 

[EdinburghGary]

I'm not believing 40% of households are still on dialup? :nono:

Shirley not? :shrug:

Seems a very high figure.

And even if they are, Flash can still be quick as hell if designed correctly.

I prefer a simple site, not keen on flash but gallerys do benefit from it in certain setups.

Gary.

 

[Caledonia]

Almost nine out of 10 UK net users are connecting via broadband services, official figures reveal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7105242.stm

 

[PeteStewardson]

• those who don't want to use it
• those who avoid Flash sites and
• those who use the 'net at work where Flash is blocked

I doubt there are many people in the first two categories. I'd say 99% of people surfing the web don't care, or even know, how the stuff on their screen gets there.

Pete

 

[PeteStewardson]

I'm not believing 40% of households are still on dialup? :nono:

Shirley not? :shrug:

Seems a very high figure.

They're not. It's estimated that about 40% of households are not on broadband. BUT that 40% is mainly made up of households that don't have net access at all.

Oh and these were figures generated up to a year ago, so are even more out of date now.

 

[hepburn]

I've recently been testing the difference between an HTML and Flash web gallery template in Lightroom. Bottom line, same photoset and similar gallery style, the HTML folder size was half the size of the Flash folder. Seems like an awful lot of luggage there.

As for Flash websites, I detest them and click close asap. Always have... A flash element within a site is fine, but I like to be given a choice.

As for protecting photo's, sure that is a benefit, but then so are watermarks, small files, and the courts!

 

[33L]

I'm presently building a web site and although its primarily in HTML and a java script and flash page here and there. The only thing i want is for it to look half decent, be easy to navigate and work well.

I perosnally hate flash intro's and must admit i sigh every time i see one. animations etc are fine when done in constraint. It may serve a purpose for a logo but not to be repeated over and over.

I dont mind raymond lin's site although my gripe with the site is that the images on the front page weren't linked as well as the text. its a small thing but perceptions are based on first experience.

I like many users dont give a toss how the site is built, however if the site works well then its acheived its goal. there are sites that give the wrong impression with standard text over a busy background. it looks untidy and very poorly done and thats the impression i get of the company for who the site is for. However if the same site belonged to a personal page then its acceptable.

Bottom line design the site for its intended target. -e.g. clean elegant for wedding toggs as thats what they want the final images to be.

 

[petemc]

Ah good old dialup. So we should drop h264 encoded flash and use avi to please dialup folks. Interesting.

 

[parish]

And even if they are, Flash can still be quick as hell if designed correctly.

I've no doubt that is true, but in reality how many are? The reality is that a lot - and I mean a lot - of Flash sites take a long time to load, even on a 5MB connection.

They're not. It's estimated that about 40% of households are not on broadband. BUT that 40% is mainly made up of households that don't have net access at all.

Oh and these were figures generated up to a year ago, so are even more out of date now.

OK, I hold my hands up, I remembered the figures incorrectly - but even 10% is a lot for commercial websites (see my comments about browser compatibility in my previous post).

Ah good old dialup. So we should drop h264 encoded flash and use avi to please dialup folks. Interesting.

Huh?

 

[petemc]

At one point you're going on about how people should be using avi instead of Flash for embedded movies, but then saying don't use Flash because of modem users. So you have to wait a bit for it to download. You do with avi, divx, xvid, etc. You had to wait for jpg's to download back in the day. If we can't use Flash, we can't use avi's either. I dunno but you're way of thinking essentially holds the web back by 10 years which is simply mad. Look at all the creativity that has arisen because of what Flash offers. Most recently Dr Horrible's Sing-a-long blog. Joss Whedon created a 42 minute 'tv' show without the need for tv. No network approval, no ad breaks. He made a show and it was a hit thanks to Flash. He probably could have used quicktime but its just so much easier these days with Flash. You know people have it. It *is* installed on XP, Vista and OSX with a fresh install. Any new computer has it. So that removes any what if questions. Simply publish your film. It was a huge success.
I get the feeling your the type of person that won't see a carrot when its put in front of them. You dismiss the stats, believe Adobe paid Youtube (which is hilarious since Google was also using Flash for video at the same time) and so-on. Fine, hate full flash sites and flash intros. But to dismiss the technology entirely is crazy. Its done some seriously great things for the modern web and creative industries.

 

[Matt]

flash galleries are a lot easier to build than anything else ive used. thats why i use it, also how many tog gallery software packages DONT use it...erm....gallery and coppermine...and can they be used on standard web hosting packs? no...mysql required.

You're missing the point Matt. The 'net and the WWW are - or rather were intended to be - platform-agnostic, so using things on a website that are specific to particular platforms or browsers is bad as is using proprietary products like Flash.

The main point of this thread however was about the use of such things in commercial websites as it potentially restricts your business.

It's interesting that Raymond has posted here as it was his thread about his new website that prompted me to start this thread - although it is not directed at Raymond himself, however if I view his website at work all I see is a blank white window because, as I said above, my company blocks Flash content as do many other companies so Raymond - and anyone else using Flash sites - is potentially losing business from anyone who visits their site from work if, like mine, Flash is blocked.

flash isnt browser specific, its an add on to safari, firefox and xp if its not already installed (iirc it is on most, you just need an update now and then)while googles new browser supports it right off too.

Presentation is everything on the net, and flash may be quicker to use to get visual results.

I think the days of companies blocking flash is fast coming to an end, its getting too widespread.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Originally Posted by petemc View Post
Ah good old dialup. So we should drop h264 encoded flash and use avi to please dialup folks. Interesting.

Huh?

He means in terms of bandwidth, it makes no sense to drop flash and use avi. Avi is a much much larger file for the same movie.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I dont mind raymond lin's site although my gripe with the site is that the images on the front page weren't linked as well as the text. its a small thing but perceptions are based on first experience.

Oooooooh, a compliment I can live with the the negative

A minor niggle.

 

[dod]

Yup its preinstalled with XP, OSX and Vista.

Don't think it is Pete. I've got a pretty much brand new install of Vista, fully updated and I can't see Raymonds site using IE7.

 

[Matt]

is it turned on in add-ons dod? i had to install the latest version when i installed vista iirc

 

[dod]

wasn't in the add ons, had to download it, works fine now though.