Is this really true? - Flash 99% bad

[choosh]

Have read Jakob Nielsen's recent article about flash?
It's at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html
I was really shocked because most of his arguments make sense and I could hardly find the way to attack his point of view. Please, tell me he is wrong...in logical ways..

Here is the article..
Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, October 29, 2000:

Flash: 99% Bad
Summary:
Although multimedia has its role on the Web, current Flash technology tends to discourage usability for three reasons: it makes bad design more likely, it breaks with the Web's fundamental interaction style, and it consumes resources that would be better spent enhancing a site's core value.
About 99% of the time, the presence of Flash on a website constitutes a usability disease. Although there are rare occurrences of good Flash design (it even adds value on occasion), the use of Flash typically lowers usability. In most cases, we would better off if these multimedia objects were removed.

Flash tends to degrade websites for three reasons: it encourages design abuse, it breaks with the Web's fundamental interaction principles, and it distracts attention from the site's core value.

Encourages Design Abuse
Splash pages were an early sin of abusive Web design. Luckily, almost all professional websites have removed this usability barrier. However, we're now seeing the rise of Flash intros that have the same obnoxious effect: They delay users' ability to get what they came for. On the upside, most Flash intros feature a "skip intro" button. However, their very existence encourages design abuse in several ways.
First, flash encourages gratuitous animation: Since we can make things move, why not make things move? Animation clearly has its place in online communication. However, as my 1995 guidelines discuss, that place is limited.

Second, one of the Web's most powerful features is that it lets users control their own destiny. Users go where they want, when they want. This quality is what makes the Web so usable, despite its many usability problems. Unfortunately, many Flash designers decrease the granularity of user control and revert to presentation styles that resemble television rather than interactive media. Websites that force users to sit through sequences with nothing to do will be boring and pacifying, regardless of how cool they look.

Third, many Flash designers introduce their own nonstandard GUI controls. How many scrollbar designs do we need? Actually, we probably do need a new scrollbar design for online content; the current scrollbar was designed for office automation content that users wrote themselves. However, the specification of a new GUI widget is a major human-factors exercise. The current Macintosh and Windows scrollbars emerged after the world's best interaction designers worked for years testing numerous design alternatives. A new scrollbar designed over the weekend is likely to get many details wrong. And, even if the new design was workable, it would still reduce a site's overall usability because users would have to figure out how it worked. They know how to operate the standard widget. When you use standards, users can focus on content and their reasons for visiting your site. Deviate, and you reduce their feeling of environmental mastery.

None of these usability problems are inherent in Flash. You can design usable multimedia objects that comply with the guidelines and are easy to use. The problem is simply that current Flash design tends to encourage abuse.

Breaks Web Fundamentals
The second set of issues relates to the very notion of using a plug-in rather than standard Web technology. In the future, multimedia features may well be better integrated with browsers and thus these problems will be solved. For now, though, the fact that Flash is not standard HTML creates a host of nasty usability issues:
The "Back" button does not work. If you navigate within a Flash object, the standard backtracking method takes you out of the multimedia object and not, as expected, to the previous state.
Link colors don't work. Given this, you cannot easily see where you've been and which links you've yet to visit. This lack of orientation creates navigational confusion.
The "Make text bigger/smaller" button does not work. Users are thus forced to read text in the designer-specified font size, which is almost always too small since designers tend to have excellent vision.
Flash reduces accessibility for users with disabilities.
The "Find in page" feature does not work. In general, Flash integrates poorly with search.
Internationalization and localization is complicated. Local websites must enlist a Flash professional to translate content. Also, text that moves is harder to read for users who lack fluency in the language.
Distracts from a Site's Core Values
Perhaps the worst problem with Flash is that its use consumes resources that would be better spent enhancing the website's core value by:
Frequently updating content (Flash content tends to be created once and then left alone).
Providing informative content that answers users' key questions at all depth levels (Flash content is typically superficial).
Identifying better ways to support customers by task analyzing their real problems (Flash is typically created by outside agents who don't understand the business).
If Flash was cheap to produce and if all content creators could make a Flash object as easily as they write a standard Web page, then perhaps many of these problems would be alleviated. For now, they remain serious issues. I thus recommend that Web designers interested in enhancing usability and their site's overall business presence use Flash sparingly.

[mg33]

Here is the response I made to the same thing on the message board for our Flash organization in the state of Texas. It's a long read, and I still have not finished it. Hope you enjoy my comments.

mg33
---------------------------------------I read this as well, and I do not agree with everything he says. I think about stuff like this all the time, study it in a way, because my career is definatly going to involve stuff related to what he is talking about-viewer interaction, realizing when you need Flash and when you don't, etc. It's not all killer graphics and such, Sam and I talked about that today over lunch at school.

Okay, I just realized that the article above is not the one from Createonline, but something different. So I am going to disect the thing and thus contribute a rather long post to our community.

"Flash tends to degrade websites for three reasons: it encourages design abuse, it breaks with the Web's fundamental interaction principles, and it distracts attention from the site's core value."

Coming from an Advertising focus, as that's my major in college-I pay alot of attention to what should be used in order to both encourage and improve viewer involvement and enjoyment. Some of you may have seen posts of mine on Flashkit from around mid summer where I tried to make people realize you don't need Flash for everything, and when setting out on a project, you need to identify a few things to determine if you need Flash:
Do I need music?
What is the main goal of the site-content or graphics?
Is content made better with accompanying motion graphics?
What's the viewers purpose in visiting this site?

Though reworded a bit, those are the things that I think are important. Designing a site in Flash simply because Flash is a good authoring environment and it's the "in" thing is not a reason to design a site in Flash. Neither is the thought that it has to be Flash becuase that is what's going on these days. Setting out in that frame of mind will only serve to have a negative effect on the site.
I say this, because in Advertising, we are constantly working on projects in which we identify so many variables, situations, problems and complex issues before ever even beginning to create a creative strategy and platform. You have to know what is involved, what your needs are, and about a hundered and one other things.
It's a process... it can't be overlooked...It's what makes or breaks the effectiveness and sucess of the site you are creating.

Back to Nielsen....
He says about Flash: "it breaks with the Web's fundamental interaction principles"

My thoughts: First, I don't know where to begin, as there are many directions to take in replying to this. As bluntly put as I can put it-This does nothing but show a reluctance to accept new forms of media communication methods, and it easily shows that he refuses to even think about one word and principle: evolution.
Why evolution? I don't mean it in a human evolution way, I mean in as a progress forward of humans on the Internet to both accept and adapt to change in the Internet environment. If we refuse to accept and adapt to new methods of navigation and interactivity, it seems that we'll be restricting ourselves to an Internet that is changing for the better-and it seems we're destined for a world of static pages and underlined html links as the primary method of website navigation.
Fundamentals change...Principles change...And people adapt to these changes, they've done so for hundereds of years dealing with issues and events far more serious and important than how we navigate web pages.
Also, think about this: How long has the web had "fundamental interaction principles?" At the most, 5 years. 5 years is a very short time for theere to be things called fundamental interaction principles. The web is not a constant, rather, it is a constant progression of adaptation to technology, knowledge, and human interactivity. The web has not become a standard environment that will resist change and improvement. And I doubt I'm the first person to tell you two things: We don't know what tomorrow holds for the Internet, and it's probably not going to digress from it's current course of events...

Moving on...
Neilsen says about flash, "It distracts attention from the sites core values."
My thougts: IT DOES NOT DO THIS IF IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU IDENTIFIED A NEED AND A BENEFIT FROM THE USE OF FLASH. I am sure he realizes this, but his statement displays that this is his opinion of any site using Flash.
Look at it this way:
Website A-core values have been identified in creative strategy planning as: quick to load, content oriented, the user will be there to get in and get out.
Website B-core values have been identified as: Engage the user, enhance a shopping experience,contribute to brand awareness, and let the site be a place that attracts them, thus creating a return shopper and user.
Now, which one would Flash be a good choice for? A bad choice for? And do you know why?
We've seen countles sites that engage the viewer in a way that presents them new ways of interacting with a product and information about the product. People enjoy them, they flock to them, and you cannot tell me that the use of Flash has been a distraction to the core value of the site. You established the core values in the beginning, and you determined that Flash was an excellent choice of site format. So...the use of Flash is a benefit because it does what the designers and creators want it to do:engage the user, etc, etc...

Moving on again-now I have to pause and read more of the article...

Nielsen says, "First, flash encourages gratuitous animation: Since we can make things move, why not make things move? Animation clearly has its place in online communication. However, as my 1995 guidelines discuss, that place is limited."

I agree on this point. Again, that comes from my constant determination to focus on what's neccesary and what's not, then find the ways that it can all come together in a coherant way. I've seen so many people using Flash who have no conception of various print design rules and graphic design fundamentals. They get Flash and start out using it and have no control over it. The Flash environment allows for full freedom of object placement, and that's where the problems start. They think, "this is gonna move here, and this text is gonna fade in, and this picture is going to move, and these words are going to appear, and..." and? And are they ever going to stop to think if it's all neccesary?
So many times flash site intros are made only because they are common, and everyone has one. That becomes the reason for creating one. If you don't have a point to get across, if there's not something you are trying to tell the viewer before entering the site, don't bother with one. On the other hand, here are things I think make a flash intro a good and valid thing to create:
I want the viewer to know a little about me before entering the site.
I want to give a quick glimpse of my artistic style.
I want to sell myself.

Those make sense. Think of a situation with a first time viewer to a graphic design/portfolio related site. They know nothing about you, they maybe pulled the site up in a search, or heard about it. What's the best way to quickly give them a glimpse of who you are and what the site theme is? A well planned, quick, effective intro. Simple as that...

Well, I'm done for the momemt... Hope you've enjoyed this. I'll get back to it later.

mg33

[Snowfox]

Interesting thread this is !!!

But I agree, Flash isn't the answer to everything.
Most people forget that it all comes down to functionality.
You must ask the question whether Flash will function better in a situation than standard HTML. Most of the time it doesn't. Sure, if you want to do a promotional thing, Flash is the best thing you can have, but say you want an e-commerce site, do you build that in Flash ??? I don't think so ...

Flash is just such a hype, that everyone runs along with the crowd, while some are standing aside, wondering where the hell they're running to

Robert

[CNO]

Jakob Nielsen does frustrate me so. I hate to get involved in "Is Flash good or bad" debates, but this Chicken Little of the web design industry has gotten out of hand.

I recently read an artivle in m-business magazine where he essentially trashes all mobile applications (WAP in particular) for not being up to his "usability standards".

Jakob is like the guy whose ship has sailed, yet he claims everyone else's ships will sink. His main goal is to sell his book - I'll bet he signs his checks Jakob Nielsen, author of Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity.

To try to tear down any sort of new medium besides HTML, then add a prefunctory last paragraph that says "not that I don't like [insert name of technology here]" is a timid way of writing, much like the trolls who flame bulletin boards for attention, knowing that an argumentative topic will draw other people to the conversation.

Flash trashing seems to be the new sport of traditionalists nowadays, and it's disapointing to see a lot of good points raised in an article filtered through such a narrow mind.

My $0.02 (About 0.04 Austrailian )

[mg33]

CNO, excellent points!

BTW, when did you become a mod? Could have just slipped my mind, I'm so busy I forget who certain people are sometimes.

mg33

[pwilster]

Nielsen´s critics to multimedia on the web reminds me on some critics John Dvorak (a respected PC magazine´s columnist) made about desktop multimedia many years ago (1993 i think), he said that the whole multimedia revolution wouldn´t happen because all those little "widgets" that make sound and video on our desktops would distract us from productivity, and he said, i remember clearly: "forget multimedia, it won´t happen here." The fact is, despite Nielsen has a point about navigational flaws in some Flash sites, that technology will keep coming, whether you like it or not, whether it makes you more productive or not, it will happen here... is up to you to keep the pace of changes.

[johnie]

I've answered this qusetion in 4 or 5 other boards but just want repeate this one huge point:

Everything he says is bad about Flash can be true of Javascript , HTML, and CSS. The problem isn't Flash its bad design.

The most anoying navigation feature is putting an on unload redirection script on your page. The fusion of these technologies is known as DHTML and is not anything new. CSS has been around since 3.0 browsers and Netscape 2 had javascript. The only difference is 4'th generation browsers introduced something called a DOM allowing DHTML. I would say that if Netscape and IE hadn't inroduced different DOM's and IE hadn't created their own version of Java Script, known as J-Script, so they would not have to pay Netscape royalties for the technology then Flash probably wouldn't have caught on becuase DHTML would not be so hard to do. DHTML editors are cheaper than Flash and can do many, and once SVG is finalized do everything, that Flash can do.

The difference is Flash is a Binary. This means that SWF Files are smaller than DHTML pages. Flash Actually decongests the internet.

Just for the record I have seen more DHTML pages and regular HTML pages that are just as bad as Flash pages.

His final point is mute. Macromedia opened the SWF Format allowing low cost flash generators. You can get a SWF creator cheaper than you can get an HTML editor.

Examples of low cost SWF tools;

PHP SWF Library- Free allows users to generate server side SWF.

Insane Tools- Free registration at the momment. The price was $45.00

Morph Ink- 29.99 Drawing Program that will let you animate simple line drawings- Exports to SWF, GIF, and ANS-their own Ultra compact format.

Swift Generator- Allows users to create server side SWF's for free if you have the Swift banner on your page.

Several text effects generators- Flash Typer is the free and Fax is $40.00

Swish 1.5 and higher- $30 allows import of raster images and sounds it also does text effects. Commonly used action scripts are included. Whole pages can and have been done in Swish. Version 2.0 will be $40.00 and will have internal drawing tools.

Kool Moves -$29.95 Based on animators tool and designed and tested so that children could learn and use the program. Ease of use and animation abilities were focused on. It has a full set of vector drawing tools and allows the import of raster images. The program auto tweens (Animation Tweens not Flash Tweens- basicaly the the program animates between Key Frames). The Tween Frames can be converted to Key Frames and changed. Tween Frames are auto-optimized. Import of sound, vector formats, raster formats, and other Kool Moves movie clips and text effects (the program comes with 60 effects and you can creat and save your own effects) are all possible. The most common Action Scripts are available. The tool can also be used to create frames for AVI and Animated GIFS. The next versions will allow raster transformations and extended support for vector formats.

Live Motion $299 Fully Compatable with Adobe products (Can we say direct Photo Shop and illustrator imports - I know you can). Has a full set of Illustrator like drawing tools internally and allows the use of Photo Shop Masks. The program auto optimizes and is more suited to animation than Flash. The time line is object specific and the object hierchy is easier to folow than Flash- making it easier to learn. The downside is that it does not allow Full Action scripts- Only commonly used Actions are possible (Kool Moves and Swish both support the same actions as Live Motion). The next version will support export as SVG

MOHO $99.00 Animating software that uses a skeletal system known as bones. The animator draws a skeleton and then skins the bones. The bones can then be manipulated and the skin is stretched over it to create animation. It exports as SVG.

Corel Draw- Now supports export as SWF or SVG

Illustrator 9.0- Supports Export as SWF or as SVG

Open Office has a project to add SWF as an export option.

[turpenstein]

Whenever something is developed that allows an untrained person to jump right in and begin doing something that they have never done before, it will allow greater opportunity than ever before for vast piles of crap to be produced by said person. As a designer I was freaked when computers and clip-art came along, and then I saw the stuff that was being produced and I raised my rates because all of that crap made my work that much better and more desireable. Flash is to web design what MSWord is to the document: I have Word but it does not make me a good writer. Likewise, Flash doesn't make me a better artist, it's just a different set of brushes to use when I create. Do I create an e-commerce site with Flash? Do I create an online bulletin board or discussion forum? Nope (despite Macromedia saying that it's possible and feasible). But I wont try to write the code necessary to create a sharp animation either!

[mgb]

I agree with almost everything in the above 2 posts - up to a point. I think everyone involved in Flash should read these posts. First off Flash has developed very rapidly and is still in it's embryonic stages. html had to go through it's rigid severely limited stage b4 it became what it is today, so too must Flash but not so much in terms of technical developement (although this is welcome and inevitable) but in the way it is used. Part of the problem is the very versatility of Flash and the way it can distract the designer from the fundamental idea behind advertising etc. : to present information in a cohesive and user friendly way. To this end it is imperative that navigation be utterly self - explanatory. I have seen Flash sites with a help section on how to use the navigation. This is inexcusable and no fun when you want to get the information you need fast. Not everybody visiting a web site is there to marvel at good graphics and navigational hinderances are a pain for someone who just needs information.
On the other hand the variety offered by Flash makes each site unique. Flash has brought a great vision to the web, but it comes with a price, it's almost too good and to have such a versatile tool at hand in the wake of staid html pages is almost too much for some. I can see from visiting sites that many designers are looking in the direction of fine art. Some work is almost like film, but unfortunately this kind of work will always be in the minority. The success of Flash will depend on commercial success and utility rather than art and that is where it is at for the designer. Looking at these sites might give some people the impression that Flash is film making but regretably for most it is about earning a living and so it must in the mainstream subscribe to commercial interests. It will.
I guess designers have more of a challenge now in striking a balance between familiarity and innovation, because design should not be so novel that it's interactivity becomes a puzzle nor should it be so sterile and run-of-the mill that it's interactivity gives no satisfaction.
There is a lot to be said in favour of the standard interface and to challenge it requires a great deal of consideration regarding what we are going to replace it with.
There are 2 extremes: the status quo of html which has reached it's limits and can progress no further apart from cosmetics and a web full of hairbrained odds and ends and eccentricities - This is the challenge for the designer: to strike a balance between these two extremes and I believe it is possible to find a solution.
The solution lies not in banishing Flash design from the web, but in educating designers. The modern designer is now faced with a new dimension of design that has in the past been reserved for film makers and a small elite. This dimension is a Real time. The presentation of information in real time and one of the most useful aspects of the Flash movie is in it's ability to create the dropdown menu. Something html can't do effectively (and if html could be so versatile it would face the same challenges Flash does) and so, it is either consigned to sterilety or abliged to take on the sophistication of the Flash movie if it is to survive.
Contrary to widespread belief Microsoft did not invent the Drop down menu. The drop down is based on a hierarchical system: One object contains others and those in turn contain others (menus, submenus and sub-sub menus) This system would be hard to better and the reason is because it emulates a fundamental principle of how the world is organised. Take your address for example: you are in your room, in a house, in a street, in a city, in a state.....and so on. The world itself is hierarchical in many respects. Even logic and mathematics employ very powerful hierarchical systems to organise data and this method is so easily and effectively employed in Flash that this aspect of it alone justifies it's introduction as a new web tool. The success of this system encourages Flash designers to employ it again and again and so encourages consistency in Flash design. I would even say that Flashs' eminent adaptability to this hierarchical manner of presenting information outweighs it's misuses designwise.
[Edited by mgb on 11-03-2000 at 05:42 PM]

[riff]

Originally posted by Snowfox
Interesting thread this is !!!

But I agree, Flash isn't the answer to everything.
Most people forget that it all comes down to functionality.
You must ask the question whether Flash will function better in a situation than standard HTML. Most of the time it doesn't. Sure, if you want to do a promotional thing, Flash is the best thing you can have, but say you want an e-commerce site, do you build that in Flash ??? I don't think so ...

Flash is just such a hype, that everyone runs along with the crowd, while some are standing aside, wondering where the hell they're running to

Robert

Flash is just such a hype, that everyone runs along with the crowd, while some are standing aside, wondering where the hell they're running to

I would have to agree, Flash has been around for quite a while and it's nothing new, but it is really easy to use and quick to learn...So with flash people can make a web page without having to know anything about HTML or JavaScript.

Don't know if that makes you a web designer but some people think so.

[phooka]

Originally posted by mg33
[BHe says about Flash: "it breaks with the Web's fundamental interaction principles"

My thoughts: First, I don't know where to begin, as there are many directions to take in replying to this. As bluntly put as I can put it-This does nothing but show a reluctance to accept new forms of media communication methods, and it easily shows that he refuses to even think about one word and principle: evolution.
Why evolution? I don't mean it in a human evolution way, I mean in as a progress forward of humans on the Internet to both accept and adapt to change in the Internet environment. If we refuse to accept and adapt to new methods of navigation and interactivity, it seems that we'll be restricting ourselves to an Internet that is changing for the better-and it seems we're destined for a world of static pages and underlined html links as the primary method of website navigation.
Fundamentals change...Principles change...And people adapt to these changes, they've done so for hundereds of years dealing with issues and events far more serious and important than how we navigate web pages.

mg33


[/B]

It is very nice to see that this thread is evoluting in such a mild, nice manner. In Coffee Lounge we got a bit of an angered/aggresive response to this same article!

I think this point from Mg33 is the clue. Jakob has got very strong points and ideas (and his oppinions refering to other issues are interesting and worth a read)... However, this position against flash is basically a position against any kind of human advance.

To say that Flash is 99 % bad is so clever as saying that 99 % of the sylex axes made by the first Homo Sapiens are bad! So the best option for us would be to retire to a cave, and be killed by the cold, the animals and the illnesses...

Life is a constant evolution: of ideas, of technologies... to deny this evolution is basically to deny life as we understand it!

[Snowfox]

Riff,

It takes more than Flash to be a web designer, because a web designer should make a logical decision whether to use Flash or not.

Only knowing Flash limits your capabilities to give a solution to a costumer. I can't see anyone making a e-commerce site only using Flash for instance

Robert

[puresin]

robert,

i like your attitude..

"It takes more than Flash to be a web designer"

i'd take it even further ( even though that isn't really the
topic of this discussion ).

it takes more than any program ( may it be photoshop,
flash or even windows ) to be a web designer.

and it takes even more to be a good one.

nielsens thought about usability is an important point,
though. does flash improve the way the user can interact
with the website? certainly (if it's done well). but does
the user have to have this possibility in each and every
case?

i'd say no.

i do agree that most flash intros are in fact neither
informative nor helpfull. personally i skip almost every
one of them, as long as they aren't really stunning or
fascinating in the one way or the other.

but the question is:

who did set up those standarts mr nielsen is so fond of
referring to?

as far as i know, most of them weren't set up by the people
who know how information and visual communications works,
the graphic designers.

usability is imporant, i agree.

but, should we go on with holding on to standarts which
don't met todays demands of the web?

the success of that wunderful thing called the web depends
on us, the designers, who learned how to communicate with
and for others.


lets face that responsibility with great caution and the
courage to change standarts if needed.

GO CREATE

[Snowfox]

Puresin,

You're truly right.

The intro's with Flash are sometimes so misplaced !

The Web is still all about information, and it will always be that way. People search very focused and wish not to be diverted from their search for information.
Flash is of course a very good promotion tool, but if it's effective for information is another. If you want to update a Flash movie, you'll be making much more hours than when you make an HTML with the same content (provided that you have a template). Like I said before, it's functionality versus design. When you combine the two in a very good way, then you can call yourself a designer I think.

Robert

[cmhinshaw]

Mr. Nielsen does make a valid argument. There is very little reason to assume that average quality of Flash sites out there is much higher than the average quality of web sites out there. This is especially true from a usability standpoint, where all Flash does is manage to complicate things and give the designer even more chances to screw things up.

I guess what it all comes down to is this: We shouldn't let the medium get in the way of our message. There is always a reason for design, and that reason is seldom to simply show off your ability to move text across the screen and play a two second sound loop.

[murple]

I'm sorry but he's been whining about this for over a year now. Its time to find another thing wrong in life. Flash can and has been poorly implemented in many sites, but there are a great number that are not weak. With IE and nutscrape fighting as to what they both will support equally, flash is one of the few setups that work on both as well as the many other browsers and OS's. see if you can get an activeX control to work in all broswers, or a vbs script, .asp .jsp .esp dot anything. There are many flashers such as myself that do concentrate on the actual UI rather than a 300k intro that does nothing for the user. yeah the back button can be a pain but there are ways around it. many sites that use dynamic pages suffer from this problem as well. all the whining reminds me of this miserable **** that didn't want to use anything but lynx to view the entire world.

[riff]

Just have to correct murple on that last post, ASP pages are O/S and browser neutral, that means ASP works with any browser or O/S. Why?, because the scripts in pages like ASP are executed on the server, not the users browser. So the user only ever gets to see the HTML that the ASP server generates, not the srcipts that created the page.

I'm not anti-flash and I think flash is it's an excellent tool for a web designer to learn, but I agree with most of what that person says about flash. It is harder, (in my humble opinion), to navigate most sites that are completely made with flash.

[jarv]

1. Jakob Nielson is a very clever person.
2. Jakob Nielson doesn't know everything.
3. Some people have to make a living by writing extremely long papers.
4. Usability concerns the user. Be they an 8 year-old kid, a 98 year-old granny or technophile college student.
5. Flash, HTML, ASP, Javascript, Hammers are tools.
6. Good designers are rare.
7. Listen to what clever people like JK say and value it.
8. Never become a slave to what they say - the moment you do, you will stop being creative and start writing long papers for a living.

More later.
I'm off to write a long paper.

jarv.

[murple]

oops, sorry, didn't catch that ASP mistake, thnx.