fordvehicles.com

www.fordvehicles.com

this is pretty wild, and if you ask me a huge step forward for flash sites. It looks like ford has gone all flash with their site.

I read that this is a joint project between JWT (ford's advertising company) and FI, Kevin McElroy at JWT was responsible for the visuals.

I don't know if this is as successful as the RR site at this point, the design is great and there are some lovely little touches in the interface. They seem to be opening the sections on new pages, rather than internally, which solves the linking.

I guess I'll reserve my overall judgment, I know that my mum just bought a new focus after checking out websites (in england) and she wouldn't have used this one. There's no HTML alternative so Ford must really be committed to this. It's a smooth site but it's hogging my CPU a bit, but this laptop isn't cutting edge any more.

Either way the design is cool and I think the site deserves to be in here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aversion
hogging my CPU a bit, but this laptop isn't cutting edge any more.

Either way the design is cool and I think the site deserves to be in here.

---

Sure does...

hogged my cpu quite a bit too.

Cpu usage was fine, about 3%.

Specs
3.2ghz
2gb ram

Quote:

---

Originally posted by crinkler
Cpu usage was fine, about 3%.

Specs
3.2ghz
2gb ram

---

The point was in relation to an average computer, I have a hyped up desktop too, but most ford buyers don't.

^^ agreed. my mum and dad are on a celeron 400mhz and are far more likely to buy a ford than any designer/gamer type on their super pcs.

The site looks and works well, but I have to wonder about the reasoning behind having it all flash, just doesn't really make sense.

I still haven't had time to explore the site fully, I'm excited by the idea that a company as large as Ford would do something like this, but it doesn't seem so wise to launch this without the safety net of a simple HTML site. The road runner site had the advantage of knowing all its target users were using broadband and were thus likely to be using high end computers. Ford's users are a different kettle of fish altogether.

But it's also not that bad, it's going to run on most computers and it's a fairly simple design, which makes me wonder why it runs so 'hot'. And the design is lovely.

I really like it. It's a real risk Ford is taking and I think it turned out well. Design works and everything is very clear. Makes me glad FI are getting an office here in NYC so I can apply for an internship :)

The fordvehicles.com portal was built to perform on a below average machine, just as the Road Runner portal was. The Road Runner portal is quite larger in file size than Ford, but not all Ford customers have broadband. However this current release will be optimized from all aspects but it is currently designed towards a higher speed user.

Why flash?
Today our clients such as Ford / JWT, Microsoft and Time Warner, Road Runner, require an interactive experience to present to their customers, clients and visitors, which is seamless, modern and balanced. It must be flexible and gain the most from a high speed connection while being adaptable to a lower speed connection. It must be able to harness creative complex applications, in this case, the color viewer, 360 views, video tools and assets, all seamlessly.

The portal while using flash, is also using a special engine developed at FI to gain the most out of the users connection which dramatically speeds up the site experience and interactivity.

This portal could have absolutely been done in html. But not near to the quality, the performance and to the seamless user interaction flash can offer. Together with JWT, FI has accomplished what we feel is a step once again into the next generation internet and we will continue to optimize and evolve in order to deliver the best experience for the end user.

If you are using a mac, the site as all flash sites are roughly 40% slower when animating graphics only. This should be addressed with the upcoming flash 8 player.

This portal was a fantastic experience to design and develop together with JWT. Together we are going forward, we are listening to the client and to the customer. We plan to have more information relating to this project on our new site www.fantasy-interactive.com launching mid-late October.

very good design!

is it easier to update flash websites like this and RR?
is it easier to develop a flash application like these?

the site is great and people should be impressed...but all designers out there should take not of FI's public relations...FI's post on here proves the design is like any other business and you MUST SALE....and that is where I think they are great...good work

I dont see it as a risk, time is changing we are changing the "traditional" way is going to be push aside. I believe its part of evolution, with a combination of faster connections and marketing directors aiming for the young ones, its a smart move.

Quote:

---

very good design!

is it easier to update flash websites like this and RR?
is it easier to develop a flash application like these?

---

If you asked me I believe its not based on easy or hard, i believe it comes down to having an advantage. To be able to cover all your bases with compatibility while giving the user an indulging interactive experience.

ps. Look at the cars that are coming out, we have the Dodge Neon SRT-4,Ford Focus SVT, the Toyota Corolla Sport! for christ sake, i thought Toyota stopped with the GT back in 89. The market is targeting young crowd in all angles.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by junior_ab
I dont see it as a risk

---

I know a hell of a lot of people who hate 'all flash sites'
Now, if this is a non business site and users decide not to stay because of the flash, thats life. But we are talking about $20000+ products.

Don't get me wrong, Ford have done a forward thinking thing and it is great for designers that big companies are interested in flash applications, but it has to be backed up by html site with highend products like this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by junior_ab
I dont see it as a risk

---

This is a huge risk for a company with such a wide user base. It's a smart move if you are only aiming at "young ones" with broadband connections but I think you'll find that's only a slice of ford's customer demos and this site is ford's gateway on the web, whether you're a kid looking for their first car, a grandmother looking for their last, or a farmer looking for a new truck.

If my mother had been presented with this site when she checked out cars online she would not be waiting for delivery of a new ford focus right now, that's just a fact. Sure it's my mother, but there must be literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people like her who won't use this site in the same way they would have used an HTML site, if at all. I showed this to her when I first posted it and her first instinct when things started flashing and loading was to get off it. Ford's UK site is poor from the point of view of a designer, but for users like my mother it's easier to use, despite its obvious clumsiness.

I've been to lots of user testing sessions over the last couple of years, and this is still a lot of people's reaction to seeing flash, not just older people either. It's the result of years of bad flash design, and will take a few more years yet for flash to gain more credibility. Companies like FI are giving flash that credibility, the Road Runner site is perfect for that, but I'm just not sure that a company like Ford is in a position to be so advanced.

Ford are taking a huge risk making this their do or die online presence. I'm all for evolutionary websites, and FI do great work, but without a simple HTML site to back this up they are going to be burning bridges.

Before anyone condemns me, I think it's a good risk, maybe not so much for Ford, but for web design it's a good thing. I don't know how this site will effect ford on the web and its customers, maybe they will gain more than they lose, I have no idea, but for flash and for web design this is a fascinating project and I envy FI for landing it (not that I would have known what to do with it if I had it!). It's a beautiful design, simpler and 'lighter' than RR, and the scripting seems solid.

I for one will be watching closely what happens here. I'm still a little unsettled by each section opening on a new page even though it provides some level of deep linking, maybe that's just because I'm only used to seeing amateur sites do that, but this is of course far from amateur.

There will be a html version ready soon. The priority was on the flash version as it caters for the majority of customers.
Aversion, you have excellent points there as usual.
Its vital for FI, our clients, to use flash (or sparkle) for the right reasons. The ironic thing is that when we design these projects, we try to make them feel like "html" to make them feel traditional, comfortable on first impression, so then we can slowly introduce users into a more impressive user experience.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FI
There will be a html version ready soon. The priority was on the flash version as it caters for the majority of customers.

---

That's good, and I definitely think the flash site should be front and centre. I trust Ford/JWT have the resources necessary to find out what their customers will respond to. I assume the success of the focus and f150 flash showcases helped them feel comfortable with this decision.

Quote:

---

Ford are taking a huge risk making this their do or die online presence.

---

I don't see how a Fortune 500 company would take a risk and certainly not a do or die cituation.I'm sure you just dont use catchy sales tactics and bs your way to doing this project. You need proof, statistical data.But I guess thats where i was trying to go with this. Your mother will not go online to shop for cars regardless of how its presented.She will want to go personally to the dealer and make that $20,000 decision.

She decided, like a lot of other people which dealers to visit after looking at information online. She's perfectly happy using the web for research, such as car buying, but hates flash, like a lot of people.

If there will be a HTML back up to this site then I think that's the bases covered, but to only have a purely flash site as your only web presence is extremely risky. There's more than one company that's paid for big budget all-flash sites, that have been featured in this forum as cool, only to be replaced with an old fashioned HTML site shortly after launch.

Yes, big companies do a lot of research, as I mentioned in my post, they also get it very wrong sometimes. As I've made clear this isn't necessarily one of those times....

wow!

I think it's a great site.

I do have a pretty quick computer so it ran seamlessly for me...

Maybe ford should impliment some tracking into the site to see the average users fps?

I think I posed this question in another thread where Aversion gave me his/her list of issues with all flash sites.

And I said then, as I'll say now, someday someone's going to have to break free of this flash stigma for the web. I'm hoping that the technology the "average user" has for viewing the internet will progress to the point where interactive experiences aren't hard on their systems or don't take twenty seconds to view.

I applaud FI for trying to push the envelope a bit. There are always going to be people going "God, I hate all flash sites ... it's like, visually appealing and stuff ... I just want to look at a flat document" ... to which I would say "someone can fax you the brochure". But there is something to be said for keeping an html version for those people where it's nothing but the facts.

I've always been an advocate for having the initial page giving visitors the option of viewing a highly interactive/visually stunning version of a site or a flat "just the Facts ma'am" version.

Good work FI. Keep it up ... PLEASE!

Quote:

---

Its vital for FI, our clients, to use flash (or sparkle) for the right reasons

---

Is Fantasy Interactive already working with Microsoft's Sparkle animation program? I know that Microsoft is one of their clients. I wonder if its going to be the Flash killer Microsoft is hoping for?

I think if macromedia Flash™ was owned by Microsoft™ we wouldn't have this discussion at all.

I think that the new styles of flash design are less conductive to people leaving a site because of it. I agree if someone saw an extremely busy site like 2A or something similar they might scream, crap their pants, and leave before their head exploded. Anyone who will leave a site just because its flash probably is not computer literate enough to even recognize that a site is flash unless there are things zipping around all over the place. People leave flash sites because they either take forever to load, or ar to busy. A site like this where the key purpose of the use of flash is to streamline the experience are not likely to have a large percentage of people running for the hills. Some people on dial up may have longer load times for some pages, but it shouldn't be to bad. I think this site is great, and the subtle effects for the most parts should not be a strain on average systems.

It all comes back to who the company is targeting.

1.) If you have a dial up connection most likely you dont surf the net. (even informative websites like yahoo run flash ad's)
ESPN.com is also sensory overload. So its not only the zips and zooms that annoy a visitor and have delayed download times.

2.)If the person is waiting for the site to load and closes the browser window before the 2 minutes are up it wasnt worth his or your time.Yes i know the average user waits no more than 15 seconds.
But if you sit outside Chilis,RoadHouse Grill,Outback SteakHouse for HOURS it was worth it to you and that restaurant. I personally wouldnt want to deal with a pushy customer complainning about the loading times, but then again they are not my targeting audience.

3.)Evolution, i would've never thought in a million years mc.donalds,wendys,burger king would come out with salad meals.

One last thing if you notice baseball games,nascar racing, golf etc are implementing 2d/3d graphics in a presentation like form to display stats,intros,bumps etc.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 7year
People leave flash sites because they either take forever to load, or ar to busy.

---

The reason some people leave a flash site is not necessarily because they don't want to wait for loading, professional testers tell me that a lot of people have had such bad experiences with bad flash design in the past that they have conditioned themselves to avoid flash sites.

It's hard to overestimate the damage done to flash by designers using it badly. It will take time to repair that damage with well designed usable sites.

But, as I stated before, I still don't believe that all flash site will become the norm for the web, no matter where broadband gets to. Some web interactive experiences will be best suited to flash, but for the most part I think hybrids will persist for the foreseeable future.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by junior_ab
1.) If you have a dial up connection most likely you dont surf the net.

---

as of february 55% of web users in north america were using dial up connections. I imagine that pretty much all of these people are using them to surf the internet, the odd flash ad isn't going to put them off, no one's saying that.

Site like ESPN are pretty hefty, but it's not the wait that puts a lot of people off flash, it's experience with flash equalling bad design. The more designers do to use flash 'properly', the more accepting users will be of flash.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aversion

But, as I stated before, I still don't believe that all flash site will become the norm for the web, no matter where broadband gets to. Some web interactive experiences will be best suited to flash, but for the most part I think hybrids will persist for the foreseeable future.

---

The Road Runner site has proved to be extremely successful due to seamless interaction and user experience. It handles millions of users per day. A hybrid is a solution for people not able to develop flash to its full extent. A hybrid limits design, layout, usability issues etc...
The key to the future is seamless user experience and interaction. A full flash sites gives that possibility while a hybrid you are stuck half way. As you said, bad flash has conditioned the public into avoiding flash. Sites like Road Runner and Ford are now conditioning the public to seek this kind of seamless experience instead of avoiding it.

very well put.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FI
The Road Runner site has proved to be extremely successful due to seamless interaction and user experience. It handles millions of users per day. A hybrid is a solution for people not able to develop flash to its full extent. A hybrid limits design, layout, usability issues etc...
The key to the future is seamless user experience and interaction. A full flash sites gives that possibility while a hybrid you are stuck half way. As you said, bad flash has conditioned the public into avoiding flash. Sites like Road Runner and Ford are now conditioning the public to seek this kind of seamless experience instead of avoiding it.

---

we'll have to agree to disagree somewhat.

I think the Road Runner site is a wonderful example of a full flash site, and it's suited for its target audience. I still think deep linking is a feature people will miss, but there's no doubt that the site succeeds. Whether the same can be said for the Ford site I think we will have to see. As I've said several times in this thead, I think it's very exciting that a company like Ford would be willing to take such a bold path with their site, I don't know if it's what's best for the company, I don't presume to know, I can only speak for the experience of one typical ford buyer, my mum :)

As a designer I couldn't be happier Ford have chosen this path, it's an interesting project whose fortunes will be followed by anyone with an a vested interest in web design.

I know that you are a determined and resolute futurist David, and I am always impressed by your convictions and rspect your talents. I'm just not convinced that an all-flash site is the right solution for Ford where it was for RR. It's an uninformed opinion of course, and I'll be perfectly willing to eat my hat if this doesn't alienate a chunk of Ford's web users, as it did my mother.

The only thing I strongly disagree with in your post is your statement that:

A hybrid is a solution for people not able to develop flash to its full extent. A hybrid limits design, layout, usability issues etc...

Designers who choose a hybrid solution may not be able to develop flash to it's utmost, but that doesn't mean that's why they made that decision, or that they are limited in any way by it.

Certainly when it comes to usablity any well-designed XHTML/hybrid site will have the edge on any equally well-designed flash site. The basic principles of bookmarking and deeplinking are absent from flash with any consistency and familiarity to the user.

It is good that users are being presented with more and more well-designed flash sites, that they are being 'conditioned' to accept flash as a valid medium for the web. There are less and less badly designed, designer-indulgent sites out there to put them off as well as client's wise up, another essential factor in flash's broadening acceptance.

But I think Macromedia, while screwing up with MX2004, do have their sights set on the correct future for flash, as a tool for developing web applications and interactive experiences. I'm aware that both of these descriptions could be applied to any dynamic web site, but MM's lack of support and general insouciance for using flash as a replacement for HTML indicates to me that they're looking to other applications.

I do think that in the future, a future that isn't around the corner, seamless integration and experience will be the key to the web, but in what form I don't foresee. In the near future I don't see all-flash sites as being the most practical solution to all my clients' needs.

Quote:

---

as of february 55% of web users in north america were using dial up connections.

---

Just to clarify things, as of july 04 broadband makes up 51% of total US Internet population.A 47% percent jump from last years.

http://news.com.com/Study:+Broadband...3-5314922.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by junior_ab
Just to clarify things, as of july 04 broadband makes up 51% of total US Internet population.A 47% percent jump from last years.

http://news.com.com/Study:+Broadband...3-5314922.html

---

ok, it doesn't change my point though. To say that half the people connected to the web in north america are not surfing the internet is spurious at best.

The issues I have aren't really related to the connection of the user. I think FI's Ford site probably works fine on a modem, there is a lot of study evidence that says modem users are will and accepting of having to wait, as long as the experience is worth it.

aversion,
so based on what you have seen, studied, and heard some people are terrified of flash. So with that being said (I agree) then if another company (microsoft) came up with a similar software, and marketing it differently do you think that would be accepted by users?

It just seems then that most sites that get "accepted" (like FI said) have to have the look of a html site. I know that my assistant looks at FWA everyday and half the sites she leaves or does not like because they are to "flashy". So I am just curious if you or anybody knows of ways other than time for this stigma to wear off.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mtpgoat
So I am just curious if you or anybody knows of ways other than time for this stigma to wear off.

---

Educate those who fear it.;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mtpgoat
aversion,
so based on what you have seen, studied, and heard some people are terrified of flash. So with that being said (I agree) then if another company (microsoft) came up with a similar software, and marketing it differently do you think that would be accepted by users?

It just seems then that most sites that get "accepted" (like FI said) have to have the look of a html site. I know that my assistant looks at FWA everyday and half the sites she leaves or does not like because they are to "flashy". So I am just curious if you or anybody knows of ways other than time for this stigma to wear off.

---

lol, no, no one said people are terrified of flash. People have an aversion to flash, that is true.

It's not that sites have to look like HTML sites to be accepted, it's that users have expectations they're used to - bookmarking, back button, etc - and they don't want to relearn how to use a site unless there is a specific reason, such as the exploration of a site is part of the site's experience. This kind of thing is for games sites, or movie sites.

People are never going to get conditioned to using 'flashy' sites. The vast majority of people on the web don't care whether your site is in flash html or whatever, they only care that their experience using that site is consistent, entertaining if appropriate, and productive. The majority of users are looking for information, they're not looking to be entertained by your bitmap animations, or your fancy buttons, they just want the site to work, to get them the information they want as efficiently as possible. Any animations or flashiness on the site should contribute to the users' experience through enhanced branding or interaction. I think the Ford site is a perfect example of good design in all these respects.

Only good design can get people to be less wary of flash sites. Bad design is bad design, you get mystery meat navigation as much in HTML as you do in flash, but flash has really been abused and a lot of users see a loading bar and have a pavlovian response.

That's the stigma, it's bad design, it's flash designers who don't care about designing for the user, they design for the client (the ones who only see the flashy possibilities) or, even worse, they design for themselves. There are plenty of sites that have been featured in this forum that fall into the latter category.

To get rid of it users need to see that flash has matured, that designers are creating sites that are usable and worthwhile.

The only people that need educating are designers, then users will evolve.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aversion
a lot of users see a loading bar and have a pavlovian response.

---

lol - so true.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aversion
ok, it doesn't change my point though. To say that half the people connected to the web in north america are not surfing the internet is spurious at best.

The issues I have aren't really related to the connection of the user. I think FI's Ford site probably works fine on a modem, there is a lot of study evidence that says modem users are will and accepting of having to wait, as long as the experience is worth it.

---

Past couple days I've been stuck on a modem (moved houses, waiting for dsl to be installed) and while it's still hard to go back to 56k, I'm going to agree with aversion here that you definitely need an html backup for this sort of thing. I was chekcing out some other html car sites to get a sense of the navigation, and I honestly found them to be more enjoyable to browse. I was looking at something like www.bmw.ca, which is beautifully designed as well, and I like how the html text and elements loaded pretty fast, and then flash pieces and extra stuff like that would come in after.

I think flash loading sequences tend to scare people off, because they're used to browser loading, with bits and pieces coming in. Though a flash and html site may be exact same filesize, the html appears to load faster (and is especially useful if the link you were looking for is the first to pop up) because text comes in, then images, etc, rather than waiting for a loading bar. I think hybrid sites make the best of both worlds, and use flash for what it does best> rich multimedia and interactive pieces.

With that all said, the site is very nice, well designed and everything. And as said also, its exciting to see a giant like ford taking this approach.

to understand bookmarking and back button...are you referring to something similar to www.pdk.pl and if so how is it done....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mtpgoat
to understand bookmarking and back button...are you referring to something similar to www.pdk.pl and if so how is it done....

---

the site that i've seen that best implements the back button and bookmarking is still www.teknision.com they do the best with what flash can offer using a combination of frames and hacking the javascript hash object. It fails if you try to hit two bookmarks in a row, but it's pretty rare you'd do that.

Any of the systems you can currently use have some compatibility problems, the hash system works with IE pretty well but beyond that it's patchy at best. The back button implementation is pretty solid though, using the hidden frame trick, but the fact that it's not native to flash indicates how they're thinking at macromedia.

MM did offer up 'named anchors' in flash with mx but they quirky at best and really weren't that well thought out.

To be fully compatible a site should act just like any other site, it should be up to the browser to work with the site, not for the designer to have to hack it up to trick the browser into working it. I think it's possible for flash to have these features but macromedia really aren't interested, John Dowdell, the MX developer, said on his blog that he didn't think these things were relevant to flash because it's not based on 'pages' but an interactive experience. Macromedia wants flash to be something separate from the browser.

i would like to learn how to do that is there a tutorial to point me there...I think I ask this not to long ago...sorry I just forgot

I think in the respect of Ford succeding and full flash being the answer, we will not know until its complete. However, its not perfect enough yet for us to be satisified. This is version 1, which we are going to optimize now and address some issues. When thats complete I feel our point of view will be more valid. The Road Runner portal is also going into its next version.

I'm taking issue with the "back" button thing.

I mean, what the heck? People don't use a back button for other apps (word etc.) on their computer, or for other programs. Is it really that hard to use the NAVIGATION buttons to NAVIGATE a website?

I understand the argument, but really, people can adjust to two ways of turning up their stereos: a round knob or an "up" and "down" button. Are we really THAT lazy and hard headed when it comes to websites?