Damned straight!
E.
PS. I think that's the first time I've been quoted, how exciting! Actually I think that's the first time anyone has agreed with me ever. Impressive, no?
Printable View
Damned straight!
E.
PS. I think that's the first time I've been quoted, how exciting! Actually I think that's the first time anyone has agreed with me ever. Impressive, no?
I disaggree! :(Quote:
Originally posted by evan224
Damned straight!
E.
PS. I think that's the first time I've been quoted, how exciting! Actually I think that's the first time anyone has agreed with me ever. Impressive, no?
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Just kidding! :D
Hi
Well i think that there's no generic rule or law how to build a web-site. It depends on who is going to use the site. flashkit can for example use flash banners. Yahoo can't because yahoo should be comfortable for everyone. and so on...
I'm working in an advertising agency and we have very different tasks to do. So we do a "jakob nielsen" site right after we developed a flash game for promoting a youth product for a phone company... So when physically challenged people (i think this is politically correct english now...) should be able to acces a page, flash is not the right tool. also when you want to sell a product/information - an intro scares people away. but if you want to show what stuff your agency can do - flash is perfect. or when a youth targeted product should be promoted flash is an option.
concerning usability there're only few pages that really achieve the title usable... i think we never made one of them ;) There's too much to think of... different browsers, people that display fonts at 120%, resolutions below 800x600, Lynx ;), self-explaining links/buttons, correct HTML, CSS, ECMA code standardized by W3C and ISO, ....
countless - we once for fun tried to make a page as the W3C and ISO prescribe it - Netscapes 4.x series screwed it totally, NS6 displayed it differently from MSIE - and both display differently between Mac and PC. So we gave up on this "project" and started again using our "illegal" tricks.
Doing a page for everyone is followed by dropping many design features like Mr Nielsen suggests, or you try your best and keep some people out of your site.
my 2 cents
Yours
HTD
Howard,Quote:
Originally posted by HowardTheDuck
Hi
Well i think that there's no generic rule or law how to build a web-site. It depends on who is going to use the site. flashkit can for example use flash banners. Yahoo can't because yahoo should be comfortable for everyone. and so on...
I'm working in an advertising agency and we have very different tasks to do. So we do a "jakob nielsen" site right after we developed a flash game for promoting a youth product for a phone company... So when physically challenged people (i think this is politically correct english now...) should be able to acces a page, flash is not the right tool. also when you want to sell a product/information - an intro scares people away. but if you want to show what stuff your agency can do - flash is perfect. or when a youth targeted product should be promoted flash is an option.
concerning usability there're only few pages that really achieve the title usable... i think we never made one of them ;) There's too much to think of... different browsers, people that display fonts at 120%, resolutions below 800x600, Lynx ;), self-explaining links/buttons, correct HTML, CSS, ECMA code standardized by W3C and ISO, ....
countless - we once for fun tried to make a page as the W3C and ISO prescribe it - Netscapes 4.x series screwed it totally, NS6 displayed it differently from MSIE - and both display differently between Mac and PC. So we gave up on this "project" and started again using our "illegal" tricks.
Doing a page for everyone is followed by dropping many design features like Mr Nielsen suggests, or you try your best and keep some people out of your site.
my 2 cents
Yours
HTD
THAT IS EXACTLY IT.... your final two paragraphs or so are exactly why flash will dominate.... NS3 or NS6, IE4 or IE6, mac or pc.... IT DOESNT MATTER if it is Flash all of the above will display the movie EXACTLY THE SAME thanks to the plugin.... It is the ultimate tool available for cross platform compatibility.
extract from create-online.co.uk
What about usability? Jakob Nielsen says over 90 per cent of Flash design is bad. In a couple of years, will we see Flash sites that are a lot more usable?
Jeremy: I think a lot of Nielsen's ideas are centred on the early days of the Web. His points are well meant. There are great uses for Flash, and Flash itself as a tool isn't necessarily the evil thing he's criticising - it's more the use and particularly the Skip Intro.
Jeffrey: I think one of the best ways to make sites usable is to not try and solve the same problems over and over again. There's lots and lots of conventional wisdom. Like there's conventions out there in the world. These are by no means standards. Things like a blue underlined link are not standards for how you should expose hypertext, but they're conventions, and these evolve over time so that people understand how something works. A shopping cart is a great example. If you're doing an ecommerce website, then a place you don't want to innovate is in the shopping cart interface. People understand how that works and they bring that knowledge to your site. One of the problems which I think Macromedia has identified is that Flash makes it much easier to abandon those conventions. Putting your entire site into a movie file means that you've broken the usability of the Back and Forward buttons. You have to reinvent that functionality. So you already have people who are used to a certain way of navigating and they now have to adapt to a new method for one particular site. Over time, innovation that's available with Flash will evolve with the conventions that we're used to. I'm not saying there is only one way to do things - I think that can be the Jakob syndrome - but I think these things evolve over time. I think links don't have to be blue any more. In fact, I don't even think they have to be underlined. But he was on to something when he said: "If you use a blue link, people will understand it's navigation and they'll use it that way." Conversely, if you use a blue underlined text style as your header style, you're going to confuse a lot of people. This all depends on what you're trying to do. If you're looking to get info quickly, you want to navigate through a site quickly. But there's a lot of really amazing sites out there where the art is the interface. And they're gorgeous. They're completely unusable and that's great. It encourages experimentation. It helps us come up with new ideas. I hope that never goes away.
Got a link to that article?
-scott
http://www.scottmanning.com
With equal respect to both sides, I very muchQuote:
Originally posted by ZeroGhost
dvkerns,
Though I understand your point in regards to my "somewhat" abrasive reaction to mr. neilsen's article, keep in mind that I based my email on a very comprehensive understanding of flash, html, and design for usability and entertainment principles. Where as mr. neilsen undercut, excused, and insulted an entire community of well established and talented designers and programmers without first fully understanding, or for that matter, understanding at all the potential of Flash to change the subset of rules written by, applied by, and enforced by himself. He is an endangered species that lashes out at things he perceives as dangerous to his original method of importance. For he believes flash represents the end to his dictorial control over a medium which brought him fame and respect. His views are extreme and insulting where they should be objective and sound. Nonetheless thanks for all the viewpoints and opinions transcribed here... please keep it going... everyone's point is valid. Oh and just for the record I am 23. ;0
enjoyed seeing a real know-it-all being told off.
Nice job. P**s on him! :D