Printable View
what people hate about flash sites:
- flash intros
- fullscreen flash sites
- excessive shining and poping things
- excessive soundfx and loops
- you can't "shift-click" or "right-click" to open in a new window.
- no back button
- bad scrollings
- loading bars everypage they click
- can't save images
probably there are much more to add to this list.
--- edited ---
I'm not saying Ford site has these bad things. That was just about flash site out there.
what people hate about flash sites:
- flash intros
- fullscreen flash sites
::: I'll give you those :::
- excessive shining and poping things
- excessive soundfx and loops
::: I can see excessive shining things ... but there should be SOME animation or accent somewhere. As for soundfx, you have the option (usually) to turn them on or off ... I think phasing out sound loops and fx is a start of that "dulling down" of the internet that I don't want to see ... :::
- you can't "shift-click" or "right-click" to open in a new window.
::: The only time I right-click to open something in a new window is in a badly designed html site where the navigation sucks and I don't want to be stuck ... OR when I want to view a picture in another window which most smart flash designers do anyway :::
- no back button
::: read prior post in this thread :::
- bad scrollings
::: I seed you this one too. Bad scrolling absolutely sucks and with FlashMX having it built into the components, there's no reason for bad scrolling in flash anymore :::
- loading bars everypage they click
::: I remember a few years ago people complained about not having loading bars. I don't mind waiting five seconds. You have to wait for some jpgs and gifs to load too. I think it's kind of excessive to harp on the loading of flash images when some html pages have chopped up jpgs that take just as long to load :::
that's an asset when putting together sites for photographers...Quote:
Originally posted by Vector Media
- can't save images
well, I agree with both of you, but as I said before, it's not what I (designer) think, it's what normal people think...
you could give me lots of reasons about each item in that list, but people will still hate some of those things...
voce un japais maluco! :smoov:
These things are the results of bad design and not inherent to flash. I agree people do hate them but a good designer shouldn't insult their users with any of these things.Quote:
Originally posted by Vector Media
what people hate about flash sites:
- flash intros
- fullscreen flash sites
- excessive shining and poping things
- excessive soundfx and loops
- loading bars everypage they click
These are the things that are 'native' to flash right now.Quote:
- you can't "shift-click" or "right-click" to open in a new window.
- no back button
- bad scrollings
- can't save images
The back button can be implemented pretty reliably on a site, but only by using a hack and structuring your FLA for it.
Not saving images isn't too important to the user, more experienced people can take a screenshot, it offers no protection. But it is an example of flash breaking the browser expectations and functionality, though it really could just be included in a general heading of not being able to right click on a flash item and see the browser context menu.
Right or shift clicking to open windows is another problem that could be lumped with the context menu. If you've ever sat in a user testing session you'll know that the lack of the browser context menu is a big turn off for general users. Also, watch your average web surfer shift click the links in your flash movie a few times then give up on your site, it's a sobering experience. Yes, you want to reach out and strangle them but it's not their fault, the site is in a browser but it's not acting like other sites in the browser do... there's nothing you can do about this designing in flash.
Bad scrolling is something that could be in the bad designer part of this list, but I'm not a fan of the way MM have implemented scrolling within flash elements so I'm putting it here :) But flash can cope with scrolling ok when designers use flash properly.
I agree with aversion, good comments on that. ;)
aversion,
http://www.robertpenner.com/experime...tton_code.html
here is a tutorial I found...is this the one to do the PROPER back button like the site you referred
That's the one that most people use, and it works quite solidly on most browsers as long as frames and javascript are activated.Quote:
Originally posted by mtpgoat
aversion,
http://www.robertpenner.com/experime...tton_code.html
here is a tutorial I found...is this the one to do the PROPER back button like the site you referred
Basically the hidden frame in the bottom of the page is the part that moves back and forth, and as it does you send a message to the flash movie in the main frame to display a certain page.
thanks...I looked at the source for the site you liked and it was alot more complicated...I assume they go into more detail
They also have a system for bookmarking that replies on changing the javascript hash property in the location object for the frameset.Quote:
Originally posted by mtpgoat
thanks...I looked at the source for the site you liked and it was alot more complicated...I assume they go into more detail
In other words when you move to a new 'page' in the flash the bottom frame moves forward to a new page that, as well as telling the flash which area it should be displaying, changes the '#' in the URL (the location). If you're using IE that is. When you bookmark the page in IE the # is included in the URL bookmarked. So when someone returns to the site the first thing the page does is check the hash part of the location object and see if there's is something there. If there is it's passed into the flash and flash jumps to that section.
voila.
all in all whatever happens to the web for years to come we can't complain. Companies like FI have set the path and examples for us to follow. And since mr.Martin logs on here I would personally like to thank him for giving us something to look up to. It might sound cheesy but your company is a role model. Keep up the good work.
My whole problem with this issue is the lowest-common-denominator philosophy. A lot of flash sites, and a lot of sites in general, have bad navigation ...
but ...
there are sites in flash with great navigation that get a bad rap because people don't know how to use page-based navigation, feel stupid when they don't understand it in two seconds (so they say the site is stupid) and thus the site is labeled bad.
I think it's high time someone writes a book about navigating the web post 2000. In fact, I think if a lot of us on FlashKit wrote a chapter a piece (those of us with good flash sites) and put it together, it may get published.
We do have clout as a community, and the book would sell, it's just about doing it and getting two or three people to head up the project.
The reason for this is that yeah, people like to use the back button and don't know how to print flash images etc. etc. ... but in the same breath, when do we educate people on how to use the site's navigation? Or should we just continue to "dumb it down" (pardon the expression) and keep the web in this rather narrow catch-all design.
ALSO, the book should probably educate Flash designers on HOW to make useable websites.
As I'm writing this, I think it's a good idea. Some of us should get together and write a book on it. Like I said, it'll definately sell.
I'm not really sure I understand your basic argument.Quote:
Originally posted by villain2
there are sites in flash with great navigation that get a bad rap because people don't know how to use page-based navigation, feel stupid when they don't understand it in two seconds (so they say the site is stupid) and thus the site is labeled bad.
Can you show us an example of a site with great navigation that is labelled as a bad site because people can't understand it?
To me an example of bad navigation would be unmarked buttons... unless the raison d'etre of the site is to get users to explore blindly (and it may be) there is nothing dumber than mystery meat nav. It reveals the designers lack of education or outright contempt for the user.
I'm not sure I can think of an example where the navigation is more 'intelligent' than what is expected by the user. I'm guess I don't understand your dumbing down concept. If you're talking about the fact that flash functions differently from other sites that open in browsers because it doesn't work with the browser then it's not a case of educating the user, it's about educating the designer.
User should be able to understand the navigation on a site. This is not about art, it's about function, and the users' reason for visiting a site is not to learn how to use the navigation on a site.
You say that,
but what is there to educate them about? Flash either works with the browser's back button or it doesn't, if it doesn't there's nothing to educate the user about, rather you should educate the designer, if they simply must use all-flash, about how to 'hack' the site so it works with the browser's back button. Or failing that, they should open the site in a window with no browser navigation on it, though most users hate that for other reasons.Quote:
The reason for this is that yeah, people like to use the back button and don't know how to print flash images etc. etc. ... but in the same breath, when do we educate people on how to use the site's navigation?
And how do you educate a user about printing images in flash? As far as I know this isn't even possible, the designer can put a button next to an image that prints the image, but again that's nothing to do with the user.
I guess I'm just not sure what it is you propose to teach the user, and why you think it is the users' responsibility to learn how to use the navigation on a site, rather than the designers' responsibility to build a site with navigation that is usable.
None of the arguments I've given in this topic for why flash isn't universally accepted by the user, and may not be the ideal tool for all web sites really have anything to do with the navigation on a site. They have to do with the back button and deeplinking, but I don't think that's the kind of thing you're talking about here because I'm not sure how that can be the users' fault and what would be less 'dumb'.
Both the Ford site and the Road Runner sites have superb navigation within the site, if you're talking about the buttons and methods for moving around inside the site, the navigation system. I don't think any user will really have any problem navigating those sites, because they are usable, the buttons are marked and behave in the way that buttons are supposed to behave, without undue flashiness.
I'm all for unique and unexpected navigation where it is appropriate, one of my favourite sites (requiem for a dream) has no 'usable' navigation whatsoever, that's what makes it so brilliant. But if I took that navigational concept and applied it to a site selling books I would probably be lynched.
Personally I think the user evolves quite well, they become familiar with concepts and adjust to them over time. It used to be for example that it was a sin to put content below the 'fold' on a page but studies have shown that users are now perfectly comfortable scrolling to find content. The reason the suer has not 'evolved' to like flash is because it's been used so badly. Now it's maturing and appearing on more and more sites I'm sure the user will grow to accept it more and more, but that still won't mean, imho, that it is always going to be the right tool to build a site with. Sometimes it might be, but certainly not for all.
I'm sorry if I'm missing the point of your argument, but I really dont' see a "lowest-common-denominator philosophy" anywhere here. The user is the focus of any web design, or industrial design, or commercial design, it all works the same way. Sometimes, for example, furniture designers creat high end products that break out of a mould and appeal to the esthetes amongst the consumers. But those designers are still designing for the user.
So it should be with web design too. I'm all for making advances but don't expect to create something successful if you're not appealing to the user. Those advanced furniture designs wouldn't be sold at your local hardware store, they're sold in high end 'lifestyle' retail stores, because that's where the market is.
There are plenty of users out there who want to explore new and different ways of exploring a website, users who want to see the 'flash'. A lot of gaming sites are built for broadband and present the site to users in an unexpected way, but that's what those users like. Same with certain film sites, or even the sites of those god foresaken 'lifestyle' stores. Situations where if you build a site that complies with every expectation and presentation standard out there you're going to be fired.
If you know your user, and design for them, you will design successfully.
What I think has really contributed to flash's bad rap has been as someone mentioned before, designers designing for themselves. I know I've been guilty of it. It's the sort of thing where these designers are saying
"well, I know how to actionscript these wicked expandable 3d menus, so let's stick that in".
Too bad its impossible to navigate. It's like you have to prove you can do this and this in flash, so you might end up impressing your peers, but totally alienate your audience.
I'd even say the cool sites forum here has been bad at times in the sense that people praise these technically impressive sites, despite their bad usability, but when a really useable, simple one comes along people either don't really pick up on it, or say they weren't impressed because it wasn't different enough. I'm not saying it happens all the time, and I know a lot of people here give creds for awesome useability. And not to say don't give kudos for technical 'coolness'..... But it can be easy to lose site of your real goal, to get the user the info they need and it can be hard to let go of you or you clients ego and think about what users REALLY need.
What I find interesting, is that sites like the Ford one are pretty toned down in their use of flash. It's almost like an html site, but with the extra media and interactive capapbilited of flash on top. This is why I'm becoming a fan of hybrid sites, because it keeps the well structured format of html, and adds on the extra features with flash.
*rehash*
Basically:
Dumbing down: I think it's sad that designer and developers can come up with cool NEW menus, navigation systems that work but since they're not what Joe Blow is used to, it's called bad design. that's "dumbing down" ... if a menu works, it works, just because it isn't the norm doesn't mean it's bad, there are other ways to make menus and navs.
Educating designer: Designers, traditionally, take what's there and build on it. They have to learn however NOT to make something that isn't obvious when it comes to moving around your website. Be creative, but also be functional.
Educating users: We have manuals on everything ... *Insert topic* for Dummies books are everywhere ... I don't think it's too much to ask that people learn that there are more than two ways a website can be put together. Basically, I think users should learn to use in-page navigation, which goes back to designers making their websites so people can clearly see how to get around them.
Art: The web is a visual medium, thus there is some art to the web, it's not totally about art, but it IS part of the medium. I seriously hope we don't start looking at ALL websites as being application programs.
Flash stigma: It's good to make flash sites more like traditional sites. It allows people to go "oh, that's Flash?". More sites like RR.com will help people feel more comfortable.
In all reality: I think I'm just sick of "fast food" mentality ... I mean, WE know how to naviagte these websites, so why do we think (or why is it true) that Joe Blow gets so damn confused. We're not THAT much smarter than the average user ... as long as the navigation is labeled clearly and the page isn't cluttered, I see nothing wrong with creative use of flash.
Those are the things I think the book should be about. Hell, I'll write it myself.
Villain... Why refer to 2A, FI and 24-7 as references?
There are better ones to state the point that flash can be used to create intelligent and smart flash websites.
To name a few
http://www.tonic.co.uk/enter.html
http://www.odopod.com/
http://www.stayhonest.com/
http://www.engagestudio.com/
I was making a point about websites that we all know how to navigate, but for some reason, the average person will look at and think is Greek.
Is it really that hard to the average person to view 2A, 24-7, FI websites?
but still, I don't know what you mean by this, I agree that if a menu works it works, bad menus are menus that don't work... In my experience a new menu, whether it's made in flash or not that improves upon standard navigation systems is quickly adopted by designers and users. The drop down CSS menus are a good example.Quote:
Originally posted by villain2
Dumbing down: I think it's sad that designer and developers can come up with cool NEW menus, navigation systems that work but since they're not what Joe Blow is used to, it's called bad design. that's "dumbing down" ... if a menu works, it works, just because it isn't the norm doesn't mean it's bad, there are other ways to make menus and navs.
But I see no dumbing down, or fast food mentality, in any of this, just good and bad design. I think users are quick to adapt to new and good design, and a good designer will never insult the intelligence of their sites' intended audiences.
The menus on sites like 2A and FI are perfectly usable. Any web user could probably use a menu on their sites. Whether they do or not depends more on whether they will be attracted to the site because it is designed for them, or whether they will be put off the site because it's not. From what I've seen the menus/sites that these companies design are suited for the target users of the sites.
Can you provide some examples of what you're talking about, an example of a site with a menu that you think improves on the standard designs but which isn't accepted by the users it's intended for?
I agree, and there's a lot to the education of a good web designer. Even some of those who are regularly lauded in this forum seem to be only excelling in certain areas of web design. Sometimes it's like a furniture designer who's great at producing wonderful-looking chairs, but as soon as you sit on them the legs collapse.Quote:
Educating designer: Designers, traditionally, take what's there and build on it. They have to learn however NOT to make something that isn't obvious when it comes to moving around your website. Be creative, but also be functional.
There are dummies books for how to use web sites, and people do use them, but the point is there is no need for the average web surfer to learn anything that would take a book to drive home to them. They're perfectly capable of learning and adapting where it is beneficial to their experience, and they do.Quote:
Educating users: We have manuals on everything ... *Insert topic* for Dummies books are everywhere ... I don't think it's too much to ask that people learn that there are more than two ways a website can be put together. Basically, I think users should learn to use in-page navigation, which goes back to designers making their websites so people can clearly see how to get around them.
The reason for using a web site is not to learn how to use it, it's to get the information or experience from that web site. Applications like Excel, or driving a car, are obviously things that need to be learned, but using a web site... I see no reason why this is something that needs to be taught to people. It's like saying people need to be taught how to use a newspaper.
You would probably be surprised how quickly users can and do adapt to changes in the way the web works, it has changed a lot over the last ten years and users have changed with it. Something like amazon or ebay would have confounded the first web users but now people zip around them like it's a second home. Yet there's no instruction manual necessary, it's just well designed. No one needs a manual to use FI's Road Runner site, yet it's chock full of good design and innovation.
Maybe your definition of art is looser than mine. I would say visual design is part of the medium, I certainly wouldn't call it art. Nor would I associate with it any of the qualities of creating art, which is, by my own definition, a self-conscious act. A web designer is akin to a craftsman, not an artist.Quote:
Art: The web is a visual medium, thus there is some art to the web, it's not totally about art, but it IS part of the medium. I seriously hope we don't start looking at ALL websites as being application programs.
There can, of course, be an element of art to a web site if that is what will appeal to the audience, but there is nothing intrinsically artistic about creating a web site, it is, and always has been an application.
I certainly agree with you, but in no way does this mean, no matter how good sites like Road Runner are, that flash is the best medium for any web site.Quote:
Flash stigma: It's good to make flash sites more like traditional sites. It allows people to go "oh, that's Flash?". More sites like RR.com will help people feel more comfortable.
If you go to a professional user testing session, or even just watch enough 'normal' people using web sites, you'll see why we think Joe Blow is put off certain elements of web design. I don't think it's a matter of a user being confused, if a user is confused it's because the designer isn't conscious of their user and is designing unsuitable sites.Quote:
In all reality: I think I'm just sick of "fast food" mentality ... I mean, WE know how to naviagte these websites, so why do we think (or why is it true) that Joe Blow gets so damn confused.
Testing sessions really are an eye opener and I think it should be an essential part of any web project, certainly something that all designers should experience once. People can ask a university nearby perhaps, a lot of them have user/usability labs.
I agree, the only time I have ever criticised a web site is when the navigation isn't labelled clearly or other elements where the design retards the function of the site. This has nothing to do with flash specifically, HTML designs can be just as bad, and the creative use of HTML just as rewarding to the user.Quote:
as long as the navigation is labeled clearly and the page isn't cluttered, I see nothing wrong with creative use of flash.
Flash does enhance the experience, and, as I've said before, I think hybrids will be the standard for many designs for the foreseeable future. And I absolutely think that there are many sites that work beautifully as all-flash sites, despite flash's inherent shortcomings.
Users aren't scared of bad menus and flash design, they just have an aversion to bad design.
Let me know if you write the book, I'll certainly read it.
Yeah, I love writing anyway, I'm plowing my way through a 600 page epic right now so the Web book may be a few months off.
As far as giving examples, I did. A lot of people on here, not you in particular, but others claim that sites like 2A and pretty much all those "fancy" flash sites aren't very user friendly. That's my biggest problem with most people who downgrade Flash as a web design tool.
The guy I work with is a php guy, and puts his "spin" on flash calling it a niche tool ... he had no idea that dynamic content, scroll bars, database connection etc. were part of it's scope. He looked at RR and changed his mind ... a bit ... not much, but a bit.
I think personally I've run into a lot of people who are "designers" who are really coders who found a template they can write and make websites ... the SAME websites over and over again with different colors. They don't have any real creativity, and being that Flash visually is dependent upon someone actually drawing the interface, a lot of code-designers hate it.
So, let's just agree, hybrid sites are best.