fordvehicles.com

[sense]

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

[7year]

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.

[junior_ab]

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.

[aversion]

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.

[aversion]

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.

[FI]

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.

[7year]

very well put.

[aversion]

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.

[junior_ab]

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

[aversion]

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.

[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.

[Adixx]

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.

[aversion]

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.

[Adixx]

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

lol - so true.

[stevietat]

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.

[mtpgoat]

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

[aversion]

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.

[mtpgoat]

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

[FI]

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.

[villain2]

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?