Printable View
In the past I used flash in all my creations; HTML was simply an anecdote, the recipient of a swf film...
After creating my own personal sites, I've been using flash in a much more controlled manner... I guess Jakob Nielsen was kinda' right after all! :D I like to control my own browsing experience and I guess an isolated swf seems to take over!
What's your oppinion on the subject? DO you rather have a flash navigation or a standard one?
regards,
phooks
This is a similar topic that is being discussed in the Swithing to Flash MX. You might want to join in.
My point is this: HTML and Flash are both tools. They don't replace each other. Sometimes they can substitue, but they each have jobs they do better than the other.
Analogy
You wouldn't use a hammer to screw in a screw. Although the hammer is great and cutting edge, it just won't do the job of a screw driver.
-scott
http://www.scottmanning.com/
nm read the link thx nocrapchurch.
[Edited by Hellsbellboy on 03-25-2002 at 12:32 AM]
and not just because we're on FlashKit - I have motivation beyond that.
When it comes down to it, there's two things that make me choose Flash over HTML. The first is the cross-browser problem. HTML and the unavoidable JAVAScript add-ons which add some additional dimentionality to the flat front can sometimes be seen on one yet not on another browser. For whatever reason, this is an unacceptably weak link which is solved by using the nonbrowser-specifc content of a Flash movie.
The other is a more esoteric point. I got into the whole website thing because I thought that as a self-styled design guy, I'd be able to put my ideas to good use. 30 live sites later (countless demos and other animated work too), all designed solely by yours truly, 90% in Flash, I've become bizarrely profficient at manipulating images and vectored graphics within the Flash environment, to the point where I sometimes use Flash to create even simple non-animated images. True, it can be a pain when they release new Flash versions, and some of the features are not always useful for my work, but that's neither here nor there - if you take the time to practice, Flash is easier and quicker at producing better product than simple HTML.
Cheers
Although I think this discussion isn't really valid for several reasons, I have put together some areas where Flash falls short.
The reason this discussion isn't valid is because Flash shouldn't be used to replace HTML. Even if you did a site all in Flash, you're still going to embed it in an HTML page. Flash is not meant to be used to replace HTML, but to add on to it.
Things that HTML beats Flash at:
1. Bookmarking links.
Doing this in an all-Flash site is a chore and won't work with the convential browser method.
2. Sending links.
Same as above.
3. Search engines.
Although Macromedia says that search engines have the technology to deveop programs that will index swf files, none of the search engines have made any attempts.
-scott
http://www.scottmanning.com/
thats always beren the big one really, the problem with swfs and search engines.
flash by far... IF your navigation system is user friendly!
Got any reasons why?Quote:
Originally posted by jasonpratt
flash by far... IF your navigation system is user friendly!
-scott
I like flash for the fact that I don't have to cut up images into slices and spend hours on getting it all right.
I thought google is on the verge of the swf's thing... and dosen't Yahoo! use google techology? That should help...
Here's the question for the hour:
Does Flash replace the need for HTML?
If so, then why do we need browsers? Shouldn't we just have Flash Players?
If not, then do HTML and Flash really need to be viewed as competitors?
-scott
[Edited by nocrapchurch on 04-02-2002 at 10:23 PM]
Why HTML vs Flash? Why not HTML and Flash? And Jacon Neilsen is wrong. His ideal of a website is only good for creating straight text, boreing, non-rememerable work.
An all flash site certianly isn't as accessible as all html site. (which will likely be replaced with the xml languages in a couple years). What if your site was html and still utalized flas for what it was great at. Html can interact with flash through javascript, flash can produce html through php, both can read databases, and they are all esentialy tools.
You don't throw away your hammer just because you bought a saw.
Use them for what they are worth, and for what problem each can solve. The solutions for a movie promotion and solutions for a scientific research lab are completely different.
When Jacob Neilson is right, art and entertainment will be dead.
bookmarking and searching are really issues. The only issue is how you build your pages and site.
Bookmarks can be made through javascript. The search engine thing can be taken care of by adding simple comment tags or XML tags to your html.
With all the programs and languages out there, any webmaster can find solutions for these so called flash/html problems.
Here's a question to ponder...
If Flash is so great, why isn't Flashkit built entirely in Flash?
Hummmmmm
My guess. PHP is more practical for an information site like this.
On the flashkit thing....theoretically, now, the site could be built in all flash. MX can handle querying a database now, correct? Don't know about complex SQL statements, though.
Con - Dynamically expanding flash movies don't exist - but then again,
Pro - flash can have it's own scrollbars and creative navigation. That would actually be much more customizeable than traditional HTML-and-a-browser setups.
Con - scrollwheels won't work on scrolleable flash text.
Pro - I was under the impression that bookmarking is a feature now made simple in MX?
Pro or Con? - On the search engine front, you can still write in your meta tags, and I've used hidden div layers to contain the major parts of text in the movie. However, some search engines see this as nefarious and may block you - they don't really specify what the boundaries are, so you're kind of stuck in a gray area there.
Maybe that doesn't matter anymore. Seems to me that getting ranked in a search engine is more or less impossible these days - so why bother? You pretty much have to use Overture to get any kind of ranking anyway, and they really don't care much about the traditional spider-friendly meta tag/content useage. They all now personally review sites before accepting them. Other than that, you're going to get into a directory without any problems, I think.
I love this thread! More explanation in my next post....
Quasi
Now, props to you Phooka! I was going to come in myself this morning and start an identical thread!
Turns out, I've been invited to sit on the panel for the next meeting of the Association of Internet Professionals here in Colorado Springs:
http://www.csaip.org/events.asp
The debate being different web development tools - FrontPage, Dreamweaver, Hand-coding, and Flash (Me!). At first, none of the board even wanted flash to be included because it wasn't an HTML editor. Well, after much email slander back and forth, they decided to included it.
The trick is, each advocate can talk graciously about ONLY their tool. This happens to be against my own belief...html and flash need to work together...but, it's going to make for a sweet debate!
So, anyway, here I am to get some real input from all of you, the true FlashAddicts out there.
It seems to me, that Flash - especially with the release of MX - is now a very valid standalone development tool. It can talk to a database, invoke javascript commands, include html, and dynamicaly include image and movie files, and send data in and out of itself.
Plus, back to the cross-browser/platform issue...there is none! AND...if you need to get up to specs on the browser side, NS 6.2 is a 25 Mb monstrosity to download! Flash 6 player... a meek, yet powerful 1 minute download on a 56k modem! Then BAM! You're back up and running!
So, help me keep this thread alive for a while. Next month I go to bat for all flash heads everywhere!
Got my nutcup and shingaurds....ready to play...
(sorry for the bad metaphor)
Quasi
Quasidandy,
Just so you know for your meeting. You can query a database with flash5 too. It take 1 line of script in flash and a secondary lauguage. I use PHP and MySQL. But you can also do it with, ASP, ColdFusion, SQL, Access and many many more. With PHP you can connect to almost any type of DB.
Just another reason to have more than 1 tool. Flash + php + MySQL = some extremely powerful applications.
Thanks! Almost forgot 'bout that. We've done a nifty flash playlist for a radio station by parsing out a text file in .asp and loading the results into flash. Got time, length, song, artist ect. all loaded and dynamically refreshing when a new song began. Worked pretty sweet!
Another Pro - using extra tools, ie. Generator or Turbine, you can make incredibly dynamic sites with Flash 4 and 5! User defined experience, just like a typical portal.
Q
Though I don't see any flash based search engines.
I like html, as I can see the content of a page fast, <1 sec. I don't want to have to wait very long to see anything on FK, or any other place for information. If I want some eye candy, I'll view a flash site.
As for file sizes, K-Meleon is only about a 3 meg d/l from http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/ .
It seems, though, that some intelligent architecture could resolve all of this.
Flash .swf format on the whole is a very small file format. It's when a lot of raster art and complex tweens are embeded that the file size shoots up. This is no different than HTML. If you stick with tables and background colors, the page loads fast. If you bulk it up with graphics and javascript/DHTML, it slows down. In Flash, if you keep it simple, the page loads just fine...and with MX now, raster images can be dynamically loaded at run-time...just like an html page. Same with flash as html...just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean that you should do a thing.
In addition, Flash can begin displaying content at any point while the movie is loading. And an intelligent break up of the site into separate movies, that can be loaded and any number of key points in the site, will keep unnecessary bits of the site from loading if the user isn't headed in that direction. Even Flashkit loads quite slow sometimes, just given the nature of PHP. I would hazzard a guess that a simple .swf could load just as fast as the html...it's the database queries that take the time.
Thanks for humoring me Ed....I need some good feedback from this thread. I have a feeling that three html proponents at this meeting will have plenty to say to me!
Quasi