fordvehicles.com

Quote:

---

Originally posted by villain2
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.

---

Some of the fancy flash sites do have usability problems, not particularly 2A's or FI's but others that are thought to be 'experts' in flash design by a lot of people in this forum, have serious problems for the user they're intended for. But those problems aren't really anything to do with flash, and aren't always navigation problems, they can be about a lot of things related to design.

Web design, unless you're a part of a team, requires a lot of skills and while some people might excel in some areas, they don't necessarily in others. A web designer who is good at all aspects of creating a site is hard to find. It just worries me when I see so many people in this forum and others, and on some award sites for that matter, giving unadulterated praise to sites that may look great but not always work great or look so great to the people it's intended for.

There's nothing in the navigation of 2a's site, or FI's site that the average user wouldn't be able to cope with at all. They might be put off by other elements of the sites, but they aren't the sites' intended audience so that's ok.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by aversion

It just worries me when I see so many people in this forum and others, and on some award sites for that matter, giving unadulterated praise to sites that may look great but not always work great or look so great to the people it's intended for.

---

Nice call aversion.
Exactly my point when I talk about 'client sponsored egocentrism'.

I'd like to see some examples of those kinds of sites. It's hard to get a clear picture on what people talk about when it comes to "good looking sites that navigate/work poorly" with no comparisons.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by villain2
I'd like to see some examples of those kinds of sites. It's hard to get a clear picture on what people talk about when it comes to "good looking sites that navigate/work poorly" with no comparisons.

---

certainly, well for a start we just swapped views about one last week where I said that exactly, www.funneldesigngroup.com

also, as a couple of other random examples, www.bryaningrammusic.com and www.simplyinteractive.net and if you want one by one of the big boys I'd say realtybid.com site by 2advanced which although functionally it seemed fine was taken down by the client.

It's worth noting that some of the 'failings' of these sites may be down to decisions on the client's part. That's something we haven't touched on here, that, while the designer should do everything to convince the client what is a usable site and what isn't, the final decisions often come from the client. As flashlevel said about the simplyinteractive site, the client wanted the bitmap animation on the logo going all the time so he had to shut down all the buttons and fields on the site whenever a button was pushed.

My reasoning and comments are in those respective threads.

Hmm, well we'll never agree on that funnelgroup site. The purpose is to show their portfolio and that's what it does. It's almost TOO simple a nav for me, but oh well.

The ingram site, I don't see what's wrong with it for the style they were going for ... the others I agree with, especially RealtyBid which was kind of complicated for the average user (too much stuff on the page).

So, I see where you're going with some, but the more "organic" if that's what you call them, sites like Ingram and funnel are DIFFERENT but that doesn't mean they're not FUNCTIONAL. They're rather easy to navigate and get where you want to go if you READ the BUTTONS ... but who reads anymore anyway :) hehehe

Read the comments I left in the respective threads, it's nothing to do with the style of any of those sites, organic or not, I purposely choose ones that I thought had exemplary visual design, it's to do with the way they function.

i don't want to wake up a sleeping dog...but has anybody notice how much ford is promoting the site...it seems every bannar on yahoo or cnn or anywhere else I go is a bannar for this site...they have confidence..which makes the outlook even better

Now thats all good in fine

David, isn't the fantasy-interactive is supposed to be released now?

I hope you guys are not having any problems.

Good Luck, and looking forward to seeing it!

Launched yesterday, the now finished and much faster optimized version.
http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/focus/

Flash being used effectively.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mobied

David, isn't the fantasy-interactive is supposed to be released now?

---

No, mid-november.

David thanks for posting the link to my Ford Focus site :) Although I dont think you were intending to really highlight the Focus module that I did.

* Disclaimer - the following comments are not a direct reflection of this specific site nor anything relating to FI (who are my friends).

Call me crazy but I still prefer the popping in of graphics one by one in an HTML site when viewing content...rather than watching a preloader bar go for every page. I also prefer the ability to send people links to 2 specific pages within a specific section of a site in order to compare 2 things within a section. For example comparing 2 different versions of the same product. This goes for all flash sites.

I still think hybrid flash sites or Full HTML sites are a much better option than full flash sites for informational portals. Full flash sites should only be used as additional and supportive information sites and only when the person can already get that information elsewhere in an HTML version. Call me crazy I still think that ANY HTML site is a better solution (not presentation) for ALL visitors and users of any informational site. They are accessible to ALL visitors, viewers and connections all the way down to someone coming in from a dialup connection in a trailer park in Indiana or a public library in Kentucky. All flash sites make it innaccessible to people with disabilities and people who aren't up to date with their browsers. While I was travelling thru Europe a few weeks ago, the most standard browser I was surfed from was Netscape 4.76 with Flash 4 installed and from Dialup moduems? This was in big huge hotels all the way down to friends living in major european cities. Essentially the average internet surfer.

Yes yes..i know I develop full flash sites all the time. Im just saying in the case of big informational site such as this I think it wasn't a good idea. I think that JWT erred in the decision to go with a full flash site. With that being said, this isn't FI's fault since JWT approached them to simply execute their design and vision of a full Flash site. I do not think we as developers should ever be blamed for executing a client dictated directive. Sure we have opinions but in the ends we provide a service. No one in their right minds would turn a client away and tell them not to do it in flash when that is what they came asking for. I think that by saying Flash is a better option because a visitor views it the same across all platforms and browsers is somewhat an egocentric designer opinion. In the end the user doesn't care that it looks the same across all browsers. Only designers do. Flash is a luxury in some ways for the designers. I just dont see that as a good argument for why a full flash portal site is done.

Call me crazy but I just dont think that the future of the internet and informational websites are full flash applications. Not as long as Search Engines, User's with disabilities, and connection speed are still an issue anyway. When you eat do you just use a knife? or do you take advantage of the spoon, the fork and your hands as well. Flash is the knife but its not always the best tool in the drawer.

On a somewhat related note, a while back I was tasked with designing and developing locksoflove.org The question i asked myself was..do I develop a full flash site and have fun with it and use flash just for the sake of using flash? Or do I develop an HTML site...and sprinkle it with flash making it accessible to the widest amount of people who would essentially come from the widest background of individuals possible. Rich or Poor. Fast connection or slow connection. New Browser or Old Browser. The thought in my mind was that for such an honorable and great service such as Locks of Love, there was no way I could deprive them of even one visitor to the site who might donate to such a worthy cause. In my mind if one person couldn't view or experience the site then it was a lost donation. In the end I decided upon a full html version that had flash detection and deliver to the user small areas of flash that would enhance their experience but by no means impair their decision.

With all that being said at the end of the day I know I design full flash sites as well. It is what pays my bills. :) Truth be known, although full flash sites are fun as heck to surf and build, many times I do not agree with them. I still think HTML is a much better solution for most cases. But in the end, it is our job as flash developers to go out and give the client the best flash sites that we can possibly give them and I do that to the best of my abilities every day just like FI did here in this situation. Great design by JWT, great execution for FI and overall a great presentation.

Shane
www.pixelranger.com

Shane, your points are pretty much clear, you backed up ur opinion with good supporting details.


But you did notice that this ford site has different pages of swf, so when u click on a link it doesn't load a new movie, instead it takes you to a different url. I did a 56k test a minute ago, and it didn't really take that long to wait. IMO (never tested), i think this site will load as fast as a regurlar html would do.

There isn't really any heavy motioned graphics on there, everything is simple and friendly.

David does this site have flash detection? if it does then it shouldn't be this big of a deal site loads smooth as silk.

But your point still stands regarding browser's problem, it's really is a problem....

pixelranger check the post of FI two comments above yours, he made a much more optimized version http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/focus/
where flash is being used as effectively as in http://www.locksoflove.org/ in my eyes.

Not Really. Its still all one flash movie.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/?v=html

there is now a html version too, so nothing to worry about.
All in all, a very cool release from FI/Ford.
I personaly think FI are getting closer and closer to creating the perfect 'all flash' app.

Yes and I knew an HTML version was coming.

Like i said earlier, my point wasn't so much about this site since I knew an HTML version was being finalized. It was more just voicing a concern and opinion that I had. Although we all deal in flash every single day and we have clients coming to us asking us to do things in flash there are just certain types of sites that i think shouldn't cross that bridge. Certain sites shouldn't be "all flash" apps while other sites most definitely should be. Informational sites with lots of content should not be flash driven. Call me old fashioned but we still need to consider people with disabilites, search engines, people surfing from cell phones, download times and a whole slew of other items that come into consideration when we as developers approach a site.

Trust me I am just as guilty as any of us in what I am talking about. I am merely just expressing something i have felt for a while now. Call me old school but for me Flash is merely a presentation tool while XHTML is still the future of displaying content on the web. There is a time and a place for everything. Like I said before, a knife isn't always the best utensil to eat with.

^^
I agree with you, any site that is heavily information based, I would much rather be viewing it in html as would every non-designer I know.

The only exception to this rule is a site that contains lots of info and also lots of video.
I think flash is now capable of handling the info (obviously deep linking etc are still problems) but it is a dream for displaying video whereas html will have to rely on standalone software such as WMP or QT.

Good thread, it has been interesting reading :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pixelranger

Call me crazy but I still prefer the popping in of graphics one by one in an HTML site when viewing content...rather than watching a preloader bar go for every page.

---

The Ford flash site has no loaders or preloaders. It has pre-caching. The popping in of graphics on the Ford flash site is fluid in comparison to the html version.
Flash Example: http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escapehybrid/
Html Example: http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escapehybrid/?v=html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pixelranger
I also prefer the ability to send people links to 2 specific pages within a specific section of a site in order to compare 2 things within a section. For example comparing 2 different versions of the same product. This goes for all flash sites.

---

This is possible with flash.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pixelranger
All flash sites make it innaccessible to people with disabilities and people who aren't up to date with their browsers. While I was travelling thru Europe a few weeks ago, the most standard browser I was surfed from was Netscape 4.76 with Flash 4 installed and from Dialup moduems? This was in big huge hotels all the way down to friends living in major european cities. Essentially the average internet surfer.

---

Indeed they do. This percentage however is very small but we do provide the standard html version and will continue to do so until flash supports people with disabilities.
The statisitics of our clients’ customers show a 75-99% flash penetration level. They also show between 95-100% of users have a modern browser that supports flash.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pixelranger
Im just saying in the case of big informational site such as this I think it wasn't a good idea. I think that JWT erred in the decision to go with a full flash site. With that being said, this isn't FI's fault since JWT approached them to simply execute their design and vision of a full Flash site. I do not think we as developers should ever be blamed for executing a client dictated directive. Sure we have opinions but in the ends we provide a service.

---

Part of FI's service is to consult and advice based on our experience and expertise. If we felt a full flash platform was not the right decision it is our duty to raise this concern seriously with the client. Fantasy Interactive was very confident with Ford/JWT's decision for a full flash platform and backed it 100%. We knew that a perfectly executed flash platform for the Ford target audience could offer a seamless, speedy and efficent navigational platform that would not be possible via a hybrid or html platform.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pixelranger
I think that by saying Flash is a better option because a visitor views it the same across all platforms and browsers is somewhat an egocentric designer opinion. In the end the user doesn't care that it looks the same across all browsers. Only designers do. Flash is a luxury in some ways for the designers. I just dont see that as a good argument for why a full flash portal site is done.

---

Agreed. As designers and developers we have a role to deliver the most suitable and easily accessible experience to the target user. Flash is massively abused as a tool/platform by designers and developers for years.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pixelranger
Call me crazy but I just dont think that the future of the internet and informational websites are full flash applications. Not as long as Search Engines, User's with disabilities, and connection speed are still an issue anyway.

---

Yes, today that is a fair statement. But if we think of tomorrow and flash or sparkle as a platform that will be accessible by 99.9% of the public and the fact that this can offer so much more than a traditional html platform, this is the future. Search engines can now access and index the latest flash site using the latest player. In the meantime there are other methods to facilitate search engine indexing of a full flash site. The huge majority of users accessing our clients’ sites today are broadband users.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pixelranger
On a somewhat related note, a while back I was tasked with designing and developing locksoflove.org The question i asked myself was..do I develop a full flash site and have fun with it and use flash just for the sake of using flash? Or do I develop an HTML site...and sprinkle it with flash making it accessible to the widest amount of people who would essentially come from the widest background of individuals possible. Rich or Poor. Fast connection or slow connection. New Browser or Old Browser. The thought in my mind was that for such an honorable and great service such as Locks of Love, there was no way I could deprive them of even one visitor to the site who might donate to such a worthy cause. In my mind if one person couldn't view or experience the site then it was a lost donation. In the end I decided upon a full html version that had flash detection and deliver to the user small areas of flash that would enhance their experience but by no means impair their decision.

---

We have the same mentality when developing our solutions. We design and develop the full flash version used by almost all the users and a html version for the minority that have a dialup connection and no flash player yet installed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pixelranger
Call me old fashioned but we still need to consider people with disabilites, search engines, people surfing from cell phones, download times and a whole slew of other items that come into consideration when we as developers approach a site.

---

The target audiences of our clients, Ford/JWT, Microsoft, Time Warner for example, have collectively 10's of millions of users per day. The clear majority of these users do not surf from a cellphone, do not have a disability and do not have a dial-up connection.

Our 100% flash portals are accessbile by search engines, do have deep linking and bookmarking. They offer a more seamless experience than any other platform. They are as fast if not faster than html versions and have been extremely successful for our clients and their customers. Fantasy Interactive have been intensively and passionately working for 5 years on the full flash portal. Both, www.rr.com/flash and www.fordvehicles.com are the most recent examples of that work. We are striving to continuously improve and strengthen the seamless user experience and together with Macromedia the accessibility issues, which are although the minority portion of our clients customers, are extremely important for us to address so everyone can be entitled to the same seamless interactive experince.

Shane, you are not old-fashioned, you are an icon for the future. You and your team develop in FI's opinion the best and most professional Hybrid and html sites with a passion. Your executions are perfect which make your choice of portal platform, hybrid or html a great solution for your clients. However you are among a very small portion of people who can execute it correctly.

Both you and David are futurists. And you both have the user in mind 100% of the time which is what is important.

This has been a very long and interesting thread for the community. Flash Vs Html. In the case of the threads topic, Fordvehicles.com

http://www.fordvehicles.com/ Flash platform (default)
http://www.fordvehicles.com/?v=html HTML platform

you choose. There is something for everyone.

- FI / Team +

Hmm, interesting developments since I stopped arguing in this thread.

I can see both, and the designer/developer really has to decide what the site is going to be. Personally, I wouldn't suggest doing the Ford site all in Flash BUT FI did prove it can be done and done well. So, it kind of kills the argument that it shouldn't be done BECAUSE you can't make a robust All Flash site.

They've done it twice now.

So, kudos for them. I'd rather make web pages in flash, but there are still things that it cannot do that (coupled with the fact faster connections are still not universal) need to be considered.

I hope that made sense, I'm tired from this election!

I just took a survey on my experience on the site...I was wandering if FI getting that info...and if so would he be so kind to tell us the general response...