Preloaders? - I don't think so

[bhughes]

bottom line:

it depends on the site, the contents, and the developer! there is NOT ONE RIGHT OR WRONG HERE! think about it. you all might as well be arguing about round or square buttons!

the web is a DYNAMIC ENVIORNMENT...which means that the only issue here...in this thread anyway, are the egos. leave the preloader debate to the developer creating the site. either it will be good or bad...THEN judge that particular use... don't condemn an entire design tool, that obviously has a place in the flash world.

-anyone that says they haven't been annoyed by a large preloader is lying.

-anyone that says they haven't been entertained by a creative preloader is lying.

draw.

[Robert99]

You are absolutely right. It's only the superlong preloaders that are obnoxious really, and in any case, what ever the developer wants to do is up to h/h.

My personal angle on this is simply that I'm working on creating this zine-type all Flash delivery vehicle... there's no point in trying to describe the thing, but I'm looking forward to hearing feedback once it's up... Anyway, a significant concept with it is that, because freshness (cycling, periodic) is one of the main priorities, almost by definition there can be little or none of what you see in the really cool "dig me" demos, simply because the creation of that stuff is so time-consuming. Even a site with MSN's traffic, say, could not justify economically spending those kinds of hours on movies and then tossing them out every day or week. However, there can be some amazing "coolness" in the static portions of the interface, quite apart from the content portion. This tendency of Flash sites to become static is one of the main trips that sets off the Jakob Nielsen types who berate Flash.
I'm curious to look at what others are doing along this line... which is an issue I raised in the Flash Streaming Sites thread, which, unfortunately seems to have sort of died on the vine, although there were a couple of interesting finds...

[a_slosh]

I honestly didn't think that this thread would cause such a debate - I posted it thinking that I would get 3 or 4 replies and then went on holiday for 2 weeks.

There are a lot of interesting points being posted here and I think that everyone should be allowed to have their own opinion and voice it, but not put down someone elses.

I suppose when I originally posted this, I should have said the following:

A preloader like on Jelve's site is fine, you barely notice it.

He has designed the site so that for most people, they won't even have to know that there is a preloader but there is one for the odd person who is still using a 33.6 or lower modem (I was using one until about 2 months ago).

If I hadn't read his post, I wouldn't have known that there was even a single preloader on his entire site.

It is only really the big preloaders that try and load 100k plus (I admit that mine does do that but I'm working on it) are the only real pains.

I have tried to stop using preloaders in the traditional manner and plan my site so that it is more efficient - in the end, everyone benefits.

[jelve]

Wow.
Thanks for all the nice comments on our site.
My son and I both have long felt that preloaders were something to use only as a last resort. When we did this build, we were constantly checking the 'show streaming' option with the bandwidth profiler set for 28.8.
One trick I'd like to share is that we found that almost all windows machines are configured to receive only two downloads at once per server. With that in mind, we use our main server (burlee.com) to serve the bulk of the content. However, we also use additional servers during the opening of the Flash site. The free space that came with our ISP serves two and a common free hosting account serves another. This solution is not necessarily open to or needed for every site but, if the client wants speed, they may have to pay for at least one additional (small) host server.
I'm especially happy to hear that it's hitting Hawaii as fast as Robert says. It's being served from the eastern part of NA so, I imagine that there are quite a few hops between here and there.
Cheers and thanks,

[dstewart21]

I agree wholeheartedly with this article. As a freelance designer, I've encountered a couple complaints from customers dialing up on slower connections. In the past, I simply removed some of the "suspected" content, thus sacrificing the design. Had I known this ahead of time, I could have possibly avoided it. Hmm...maybe I should revisit these sites.

dstewart

[OddDog]

hi all.

Right then, here is my 2 pesetas worth, from a non design non techie view point.

A lot of you guys/girls seem to be very sure of yourselves when you state that a long preloader drives away visitors to client pages as people do not wont to wait. I would like to question this premise.

Here goes, firstly the truth is that sadly people are already used to waiting on the net. Cliche but fairly truthful. Ok I realise some of you USA citizens have a nice T1 and some amsterdamers have a great cable connectoin to, but the majority of us are still dependant on a very poor local infrustructure.

Secondly and I think the most important point, is that due to this acustomizacion to a poor service, we navigatores tend to use the right click OPEN IN NEW WINDOW thingie. This cannot be under stated. So let me say it again. We navigatores tend to use the right click OPEN IN NEW WINDOW function, and while waiting for one page to download are already looking at another. Can you guys arguing that a 20 second wait is to long, and the client will go, respond to this please.

This is not a tech issue, it is, as always a client user issue. From what I have seem and read, always add a lot of salt to what a design guru says, why ?

becuase they forgot what it was like to be a normal human..

Odd Dog

[a_slosh]

OddDog, I am using a 56k modem and I also use the open in new window function. The only problem with this is that if there is an intro straight after the preloader or a transition between the two, you miss it and if you refresh, the page will have loaded and you wont need the preloader so wont see the transition.

Not a major issue in my life but something to consider.

[mutant]

I really agree with u, but you have to reconsider some factors that might affect especially "business" or shall we say "CLIENTS", let just say B2B or B2C and these clients dont wait for more than 30 secs and if they dont see your SITE, we lose money. Its not just designed, animation, etc. Its how you design your site to be more presentable and fast to view. hope these clear things out.

[Neelixx]

What a great thread! Not very often do I see much "productivity" in a discussion. And to even convert existing "preloading designers".

Here is my opinion and possible proposal. Ever since I started Flash, preloading was the cool thing to do. It made everything go very well and quick, and was kinda the "norm". After reading the previously stated tutorial, I was convinced that Flash was not being used to it's full potential. There are times, however, when preloading is a must, i.e. Jelve's site. An invisible preloader is just ingenious. But, here is another proposal.... how about an interactive preloader? Strange, I know. But, keeping the file size low.... it doesn't take much to create a neat little program that users can click and watch, drag and play, while the movie is preloading in the background. Granted, we must not overdue it, and use Flash as efficiently as possible. But, this is just an idea.

Questions, comments?
--Neelixx

[Neelixx]

Ooops.. sorry Jelve. That was not to imply that your site needed a preloader. I was trying to refer the "invisible preloader" to your site. My punctuation was incorrect. Sigh... must I go back to school?

--Neelixx

[DJ_SFinKz]

Ok....this is getting outa hand...
Preloaders ARE useful!!

[a_slosh]

Yes, preloaders are a must sometimes and yes preloaders can be very useful but as one of you said:

If a potential client has to wait too long then they will get bored and leave. Especially in the web design and flash design areas, your site is the first thing they will see and no matter what you say, first impressions last!!!

If your site takes forever to load and then they have a look at Jelve's site for example, everything may be exactly the same, down to the last pixel except for the loading, who will they choose to use?

Not a difficult question to answer. Who would you choose?

After all, a potential client will want their site / flash presentation to be as good as possible and they will choose the person who demonstrates that they can design the fastest loading, most eye-catching etc. site.

You have to admit that this is how a viewer will think most of the time. Isn't this what we should all be doing? Pretending that we are the viewer or testing the site on non-bias viewers? That is part of the most important things to do when designing.

And now for something completely different:

I am very pleased to see that this has caused such a debate (I think that's a good thing) and that people are willing to voice their opinions freely. 10/10 to Flashkit on providing us with an excellent portal to express ourselves!!!

[fink]

Originally posted by a_slosh
Flash was meant to be used for streaming multimedia (i.e. no preloaders). Using preloaders defeats the whole purpose of why Flash was designed.

I know it can be difficult to design a streaming site, especially because most people have dial up connections and not broadband but f you have to use a preloader then I recommend reading the following tutorial:

http://www.flashkit.com/cgi-bin/tuto...ump.cgi?ID=555

After reading this, I have started to design with these ideas in mind. My original work, even my main web site used to use preloaders but I have started to think more about aspects of design.

I know that lots of people will disagree with me but lots of people will agree. Have a think about this and next time you design a site, put 'STREAMING' at the top of your priorities list.

The use of preloaders can be annoying, but then it is better at least to allow the user to know that something is going on than having a blank screen (like some sites have when there is no pre-loader). The ideal thing to do is to create a site that is as seamless as possible so that the user doesn't experience any MASSIVE waites, this can be achieved by streaming information, or by "pulling the wool over the users eyes" by small animations and interactive "things" while important information is loading.

There are no hard and fast rules on how this is done, only techniques created by the designers. To make the users experience as seamless as possible, that is a good GOAL, and there are many paths to do this.

fink

[a_slosh]

what we should be trying to do is have a preloader but not let the viewer know about it

[Ekostudios]

one word - buffering.

I agree with streaming, but unfortunatly flash can be a bit bumpy on the bandwidth.

I always stream, but you hafta build a-bit-o buffer first!

[a_slosh]

That's what I mean by streaming, of course you have to build some sort of buffering otherwise streaming for a user with a dial up connection would be almost impossible.

Start off by using just text or simple graphics at first and tweening is a definite no.

[a_slosh]

Here is an example of a site that uses a preloader when it is not necessary:

http://www.madewith.com

With the amount of info that comes after the preloader, the designer should have overcome the need to preload. IMHO this is bad designing.