The Problem WIth Flash Designers

[Brainiac]

I think he is saying that you could easily make a site keeping your contents HTML based and using Flash for navigation or some fun, interactive event. It's not a bad option since Flash Menus are usable all over the site. You don't have to use SSI or other techniques and Flash Menus (usually) takes less place than ordinary bitmaps, and then you can have sound, animation or other stuff included. And the contents is easy to read.

The only thing that isn't as good is that the Flash Menu has to be loaded for each page unless you use frames...

[aversion]

this page blends flash nav and html content pretty well http://www.echomedium.com

[alex8735]

thx Braniac that's what I was trying to say ;-)

http://www.b-und-b.com
http://www.vdlb.de
http://www.kesselsweier.de

...are some examples of sites I've made yousing only flash menus and decoration but HTML content.

[opengeo]

ah, now i understand and agree. the reason why those all-flash websites are better is cause you can up that $$$ a bit and rake it in. but realistically, a balance of html content and a nice flash nav and/or embedded object works best.

aversion, that echomedium site is quite impressive. were you involved in the development?

[alberto sejas]

... nice city alex. As i made only html sites, i was very unhappy i couldn´t use nothing of what i´ve learned about design and typography. Dynamic content is more difficult in flash as in html, but the only way to reach a professional quality (because you can embed your fonts). If you must use machine fonts, you can forget the design quality, and the comfortable readability.

[alex8735]

I was there three weeks ago and hope to return soon;-)

I guess flash is a great versatile tool, for me even the reason I started webdesign but I guess we shouldn't forget the more basic but sometimes better technologies.

[puresin]

good morning

the problem is not the (over)use
of those pixel fonts or if
they're illegible.

what i'm missing a little bit
in this discussion is typography
on the web in general. does it
really care what font you use
as long as you don't even follow
the BASIC typograpic rules as
many designers do it on their
sites?

reading on screen is harder than
reading on paper, that's a fact.
so our job as designers should
be to make any content as clearly
readable or understandable in
general as possible.

there are rules for typography,
and as much as i enjoy breaking
rules, i do have much respect
for such guidelines that exist
for more than 500 years and were
proven right for uncountable
times.

we should care about those who
have to read the text and to
understand what we are telling
them.

pixel fonts don't necessarily
make it harder to read the
bodytext, but they certainly
don't make it easier.

any more reason to use them?

no

take a minute to think about it (thx mtv)

[opengeo]

puresin, I will say that most of the folks looking at sites that use pixelfonts are advanced computer/internet users that enjoy seeing people's creativity through using different types of fonts. You are right, for general websites, your basic Arial, Helvetica, Verdana fonts are best, however, as I have stated, I like when sites like 2Advanced or Egomedia (and the many others) use pixel fonts. Face it, people just like them. If you check the fonts forum on FK, you see MANY people curiously asking all sorts of questions about pixel fonts and their validity and function. I truly think that if used well (and readable), pixel fonts can really set the tone of website. They can turn an ordinary website into a technological marvel. Your thoughts...

[Brainiac]

http://www.miniml.com - The Standard series of Fonts are REALLY good and easy to read. Maybe not totally futuristic but they work for me.

[danleroux]

I can't beleive I'm joining in on this! pixel font or no pixel font, up to the designer! will everyone be happy?...no...people are judging 2advanced you'll never please everybody! If I'd be as good as 2advanced...well lets just say my life would a lot easier

[puresin]

Originally posted by opengeo
puresin, I will say that most of the folks looking at sites that use pixelfonts are advanced computer/internet users that enjoy seeing people's creativity through using different types of fonts.


Face it, people just like them.

hello opengeo,

this is a most interesting thought. but i cannot agree.

i cannot see how using almost illegible fonts expresses
ones' creativity. where is the creativity in using something
against better judgement "just because it looks good"?

if they were that creative, they'd develop a font of their
own.

please don't get me wrong: i love experimental typography.
an experimental website MAY function with an experimental
font. but if there is the faintest hint that the font
i use could affect legibility in a negative way, i discard
it.

it comes down to the same old point:

learn the rules before you break them.


i cannot speak for others, but my claim is not to create
good looking stuff but to communicate content. form
follows function. it still holds true (and always will).

[alberto sejas]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by puresin

learn the rules before you break them.

I say always the same, why to discuss about
typography, without knowing it? Some designers
who means they "break" the rules, are repeating
only old mistakes (too long lines, as 2advanced
for example, right aligned or centered text...
It may look original, because no designer
do that, but that´s only embarassing, because
there are technical reasons not to do that).

form follows function. it still
holds true (and always will).

Well, i prefer to say "form comments function"
(visit "who" in my site)

Regards from Munich

[Goose Green]

What will be become of designers in the future... post your comments please: