[Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] [Resolved] SWITCHING TO MX

[Markosef]

When do you profesional designers mean to swith your work from F5 to F MX, when will you start offering pages in MX to your clients.

[nocrapchurch]

I will offer MX for any client that wants it, but I will not suggest until its been out for about a year and a half. I will wait until MX has become more of a standard on the internet.

All of MX's new features are great, but you have to have the Flash 6 Player in order to view any of them. That sucks!

-scott
http://www.scottmanning.com/

[JabezStone]

Since most of my development work is CDrom-based, I welcome MX with open arms... it will make my work a breeze. As far as websites go, we will still be developing with Flash 5.

regarding the new features in FlashMX, I believe many of the new features that are workflow-related can still be exported as Flash5, 4, etc. (such as components, layer folders, etc.). The interface for the new MX is very nice, and mimicks much of Dreamweaver. The common, familiar layout is very nice, and not hard at all to adjust to.
[Edited by JabezStone on 03-17-2002 at 11:50 PM]

[nocrapchurch]

Ya know, Jabez, I just wasn't thinking in terms of CD-Rom. In that case, Flash MX kicks some serious butt. I just haven't had too maney CD-Rom projects in my belt. Most of the stuff my company has done is web-based.

I'm going to need to take another look at Flash MX from the CD-Rom perspective.

-scott
http://www.scottmanning.com/

[Aehrick]

The company i work for does web-based systems & sites only and we've been looking for some features quite a while in F5 that have become reality in FMX. We love the enhancements for the programmers (movieload jpg is just too powerful in combo with php or similar, and the actionscript tools became soo much more). We've ordered it and have 2 recent projects we will even implement it in for maintenance' sake.

Flashplayer 6? We foresee that will spread the internet faster than Melissa. It's so small we'll take the step to demand it for our sites (and our target group of visitors of course).

// aehrick.

[Web Fan]

We'll probably use it on our Intranet and then start working with it for public use in the second half of the year. Hopefully more users will be able to upgrade their player and utilize some of these new features and provide a better user experience.

It really is difficult sometimes to justify the use of Flash for anything more than branding and marketing emphasis. For corporate use, it's a great tool, but when you tell someone that isn't in the fray that you may lose 5 users over it, they freak out. So many people think it's just eye candy and and so many designers use it only for that. We know it has much more potential than that.

I also like the cd rom and localized aspects.

Ciao!

Support web standards - http://www.webstandards.org
[Edited by Web Fan on 03-19-2002 at 09:37 PM]

[ryanjcooper]

I agree with aerick, this player has the potential to spread like wildfire, for one, because the web is still dominated by IE, and the ActiveX F6 player control downloads Flash 6 without requiring a redirect if Flash 5 is installed. In addition, I think the public's overall awareness and/or trust of the Macromedia brand and Flash Player is pervasive.

I suspect most users will be OK with downloading the new player since many have already gone to MM to download the FP once in the past and are aware of the concept, and also because the download can be made to take place without significant user interaction, and it's very fast.

I plan to aggressively promote Flash 6 to my web clients, Particularly through the large-scale membership-oriented sites I work with. I figure, when your members are paying to be a part of the web community, they need to be compelled to stay ahead of the times. I have already added ubiquitous links on my sites and started implementing F6 movies with new script features like the textFormat object, UI Components, and streaming video stuff. Of course, It's always going to be wise to create some alternative content for those who still dial-up or can't see flash due to a firewall or company policy.

As flash developers, we are extremely influential on the acceptance of the product in the mass market... If we all agree to promote the F6P aggresively on our sites (within reason) we can assure that this product we have all learned so painstakingly, will continue to be a widely accepted medium on the web. On the other hand, if we all tip-toe around and act like people will have heart-attacks when they see a ActiveX download security warning, this could take a while to catch on.

It's up to us people... I say let's hog-tie 'em and force the flash player down their throats... it's for their own good.

[nocrapchurch]

Originally posted by ryanjcooper
It's up to us people... I say let's hog-tie 'em and force the flash player down their throats... it's for their own good.

Not everyone is as trusting of Macromedia as you may think. In fact many people have decided to turn off the Flash Player.

Anytime anyone is asked to download a new plugin while one the interent, they are either confused (because they are new) or they are very weary to do so (from past experience). That's why I still don't have Java installed on my XP machine. I am sick of new downloads.

Forcing Flash 6 down my clients' throats is a good way to lose my clients. Most of my website is compatible with Flash 3. That way nearly everyone can view it without any problems. If I use Flash 4 or 5 for something on the site, then it is only because I had to. Also, I let the user know that they will need that particular plugin.

Flash 6 is not a standard yet. Flash 4 almost is and Flash 5 still has some time to go. Once someone has to install a plugin to be at your site, then you are losing visitors.

-scott
http://www.scottmanning.com/

[ryanjcooper]

I guess my real issue here is that we, as developers of Flash content, have to start the ball rolling toward market acceptance. Part of the reason it takes so long for new versions of plug-ins to catch on, is that developers are always targeting content to the "lowest common denominator", but often don't even attempt to tell a backwards user "Hey buddy, your Internet experience is really not what it could be, because you are using old technology... here's a link to some free stuff that will improve your experience of the web."

Sure, it's understandable not to compel the installation, if that entails sending your user away from your site and making them wait 20 minutes to download something. But the Flash plugin is tiny, it's a fairly transparent download process, and each new version of the player has so many worthwhile features, that it seems a fair tradeoff to make your users who don't know any better, download for a few seconds, rather than subjecting them and yourself to the rather limited capabilities of old flash versions. If you don't "Make them Do It" then at least give them the option.

Sure, you ALWAYS have to have alternate content for those users who CHOOSE not to install Flash- whether they are paranoid, "flash-annoyed", subject to a restrictive company policy, on a slow connection, etc. But must the entire unwitting community of average web users who would benefit from this, suffer for the setbacks of the few?

I feel that in a way, putting Flash 3 content up on the web without encouraging an upgrade, does a disservice to Flash developers worldwide, by planting a public perception that Flash is this simplistic, superflous animation plugin with poor performance, rather than what it has become-- a powerful, must have, plugin that greatly enhances user experience on the web. There will always be abuses of flash content, and and there will always be a vocal minority who oppose change. But if everybody deferred the reponsibility to inform the public of their obselesence or prompt to download a new version, then the only way it would ever gain acceptance is through browser-bundling of the product.

That is why I mentioned membership sites in my previous post. I have hundreds of people paying monthly fees to be a part of my "web-community." If they are willing to pay me for access to my site, that implies they trust me in some way, and if they trust me, why wouldn't they want me to give them advice on how to have a better experience on the web? Especially if they can do it through such a painless process...

This is the real difference between a server-side vs. a client-side technology. While Microsoft .NET can gobble up market share, gung-ho based simply on the acceptance of developers willing to embrace the technology, Flash MX depends on the community of users, and the development community. And the community of users in this case, only knows what we tell them.

I guess it all comes down to the way in which you use Flash - whether you are into the simple animation side or the complex scripting side. I've been using Flash since FutureSplash, and I am excited to have watched the product go from a hokey vector animator to a full-fledged App development platform. I am happy to lose a few alienated, low-quality users in exchange for the users I will gain by producing a superior website with powerful functionality and a more engaging interface- which I just can't get with old versions.

[nocrapchurch]

ryanjcooper,

I agree with most of what you're saying. But what it comes down to is the client.

Clients don't care about "upgrading us to a better web experience". They care about making sure their content is viewable immediately.

We really make installing the Flash plugin like a piece of cake, but this is only the case for people who know what their doing. Installing the Flash plugin can be confusing and require a reboot. By the time a user is able to view your content, chances are they forgot why they were even there.

So my clients have two options:

1. Make a site that is viewable by viturally everyone on the internet, but doesn't have all the bells and whistles.

or

2. Make a superb site with all the bells and whistles, but some of your visitors may have to install Flash and reboot their computer to see your site.

Three out of five of my clients choose option one.

Flash is not a religion; Flash is a tool. Macromedia is not a god; they are a company that wants money. My goal for my clients is not to make sure they have the latest version of Flash, but to make sure they're visitors are satisfied.

I've lost clients by making them use a version of Flash they didn't need.

But I would still use Flash 6 if...
I would still use Flash 6 if it had some features I needed on a site. I would recommend it to my clients. If Flash 6 can do something that Flash 1-5, HTML, or backend scripting can't, then I would use it in a heartbeat.

So my point is that we are to use Flash 6 to our advantage; not let Flash 6 use us. Flash 6 is the tool; don't let Flash 6 use you.

-scott
http://www.scottmanning.com/

[IsuckWithFlash]

Well you will never be a cutting edge web developer. you will just be an average developer doing average sites, i hope your happy with that. as for my clients they trust me with the web and if i suggest something to them they listen. and if people do not know how to download a plug-in they should not be using a computer. nor would i want them to visit any of my sites, i mean isnt the web for information? what would total idiots want with information? im sure your clients are happy catering to hopeless idiots, the same idiots who are scared to use there credit cards over the internet because they dont want to give there credit card number out. so what use are they to your clients site if they dont want to buy anything? there not. so i say use mx to your fullest. oh another question do all your users use mosaic still? what you should do just use flash 1 and tell all the people visiting your site to use mosaic. haha that way youll be sure to cater to everyone who is waaay behind the times like your company.

[nocrapchurch]

Originally posted by IsuckWithFlash
Well you will never be a cutting edge web developer. you will just be an average developer doing average sites, i hope your happy with that. as for my clients they trust me with the web and if i suggest something to them they listen. and if people do not know how to download a plug-in they should not be using a computer. nor would i want them to visit any of my sites, i mean isnt the web for information? what would total idiots want with information? im sure your clients are happy catering to hopeless idiots, the same idiots who are scared to use there credit cards over the internet because they dont want to give there credit card number out. so what use are they to your clients site if they dont want to buy anything? there not. so i say use mx to your fullest. oh another question do all your users use mosaic still? what you should do just use flash 1 and tell all the people visiting your site to use mosaic. haha that way youll be sure to cater to everyone who is waaay behind the times like your company.

That's a pretty big opinion there. I can tell you have a lot of experience in web development. I think Amazon.com should probably listen to you. Maybe we can get Ebay.com on your trail of thinking as well. I mean, they are the biggest e-businesses out there and they use Flash M... wait. They don't use Flash at all. I'll be damned. All those idiots on Amazon and Ebay just have no idea what they're missing.

Maybe you should contact Amazon and Ebay about updating their websites. They don't have Flash at all and they're getting millions of hits a day. Think of all those millions of people who are missing out on the wonderful Flash experience they could be having.

You better get to it. Those are some large jobs you'll have to do with those sites. I'm sure you'll make a fortune. Good luck.

-scott
http://www.scottmanning.com/

[IsuckWithFlash]

flash is used for people who need its functionality and want a nice looking entertaining site. those sites are just programs to buy things and it would cost them way too much money to redesign everything in flash, although they could and im sure they would get alot more hits. all i'm saying is if your going to use flash you should use the newest version and if yoiu think people dont want to download anything then dont use flash at all, its those old flash sites that give flash a bad name. they are just lower sized animated gifs. and ussually dont have preloaders or anything else that makes the new flash programs great. just keep using your flash 3 animated gif program and be left behind when the whole web is flash 6. good luck! neanderthal.

[ryanjcooper]

Originally posted by IsuckWithFlash
Well you will never be a cutting edge web developer...

Hey Scott- And I thought I was pushing the envelope of acceptable "forced flash content"... apparently not! ...

Take a look at the F6 HTML editor I'm developing-
http://www.ryancooper.com/SmartEdit/selection.html
this is an example of how I feel that Flash 6 functionality could really benefit users who want to get more out of the plugin. This thing uses literally every Object and Listener available in the new version, plus UI components, and the FSCommand. And all the 250 lines of code are on one frame of my movie. To me, that's beautiful.

As far as I'm concerned, if the user would prefer a plain old text-box, that's their perogative. But they should at least know what they are missing!

I just want it to be clear that I do NOT share I Suck's opinion. I was just saying, why not inform the unfortunate souls who want to view flash, but have crummy old versions, that they are out of date. Obviously, there are a thousand reasons to create alternate content, number one, that there's a hell of a lot more than 2 percent of the web who are not viewing flash. My wife's company doesn't even allow the flash plugin on their systems.

Anyways, installing plug-ins should not be an imposed standard, it should be voluntary. I did make a joke about "forcing it down their throats" but I didn't really mean it like that. What I meant is, if the user truly WANT'S flash, give them the best you can. I just can't imagine some user saying "Wow, I love flash content, but I am not willing to wait 1 minute to get the latest version. I am happy with version 3 and don't want to upgrade..." Most people appreciate "free upgrades" if they are informed of them and like the product. But it's gotta be voluntary. Otherwise it's no better than annoying pop-up ads forced on users without their approval.

[nocrapchurch]

Originally posted by IsuckWithFlash
flash is used for people who need its functionality and want a nice looking entertaining site. those sites are just programs to buy things and it would cost them way too much money to redesign everything in flash, although they could and im sure they would get alot more hits. all i'm saying is if your going to use flash you should use the newest version and if yoiu think people dont want to download anything then dont use flash at all, its those old flash sites that give flash a bad name. they are just lower sized animated gifs. and ussually dont have preloaders or anything else that makes the new flash programs great. just keep using your flash 3 animated gif program and be left behind when the whole web is flash 6. good luck! neanderthal.

Well, I'm being really patient with you here. I still believe that you can understand where I'm coming from without insulting me with name-calling and fragment sentences.

I took a look at your homepage. It really looks like you're using just as much Flash as I am. All of your actual content is in HTML. The actual Flash you've used could have been published in version 3 or 4. There ain't much to it. So you're telling me that you make people download the Flash MX player to view Flash content that would be compatible with version 3 or 4? That seems very neanderthalish to me.

I am all for using Flash MX... when its necessary. Its very pointless to make someone use a bulldozer when they could have done the same job with a shovel. Don't you think? Or are you in love with bulldozers and think that everyone should use them? Maybe people who don't want to make others use bulldozers for a shovel job are neanderthals.

Now don't get me wrong here. I've used some serious Flash 5 scripting for sites, but it was necessary for the project. The shovel wouldn't do the job.

isuckwithflash, do you see what I'm saying?

-scott
http://www.scottmanning.com/

[phonytony]

Well, goodevening ladies and gents... i have been away for quite a long time (about 8 months) and have come back to catch up with what has been going on here and this post gotmy attention, so here i am...

IsuckwithFlash > You must be able to see where nocrapchurch is coming from, although that by no means you have to agree, but bashing him will not make him change his opinion.

Nocrapchurch > i applaud your patience and i completely see your side of the debate and half of me agrees but the more vocal side is protesting!!

If you don't mind a little ramble i will through in my tuppence worth...

We (as the developers) are in a difficult position, a catch 22 perhaps, because without us implementing the latest and greatest stuff (excuse the technical term) the majority of clients will remain ignorant to what is out there to enhance their web experience (and this is purely directed at the web) and if the majority are ignorant, then companies that we develop for will of course be dubious about putting users off their site as they will have to download yet another plugin and so often keen to keep things things 'as they are'..

Can you all agree to that? I hope so.. ( I suckwithflash, what about you?)

I put this as a point to you.... If we all want things to move on, and use the latest and greatest (which i know i do, and i make the presumption that you also do) then we have to do more than just be developers... we need to SELL to the clients. nocrapchurch yes, amazon / ebay are built in flash, but, when were those sights built? Flash has really exploded in the last 2 years, far more than ever before, and things have progresses so far there are really no excuses not too use it anymore.. Sites like that must cater for every type of internet user, but that is not the majoirty of business sites... the majority of the time they are aiming primarily at a particular area.

Ahh, i am getting off the point, but, to cut things short and save you all a lot of reading... It is up to us to SELL FlashMX and to show the benefits and tell them why they must have it... what sort of company to you want to go with? The sort of company that always plays safe and sticks with what is know and proven? OK, if so, fair enough, no-one can blame you, it is the safe bet... But personaly, i would prefer to go with the forward thinking, innovative companies as they are the future... riskier? maybe, i don't really think so.. but the rewards are far, far greater...

If we all push it at the same time then it will be accepted. If we side step around it then it will take a long time... For crying out loud, don't be so scared as to really push your ideas, most of the time they don't really have a clue about what is out there and need educating on the possibilties.

I say push it forward, push it down there throats, ram it at them from behind, anyway... i think it is great and should be marketed, and most of us don't really realise that that largely falls down to us to do. ( and someone said about Macromedia are a company and after money.. Well, yes they are, but so what? You show us something else as good that can deliver the same and show me the people giving it away for free, because they won't be able to exist for very long!)

[nocrapchurch]

I think I'm still having trouble getting my point across.

I use Flash. I love Flash. I wrote the article on Selling Flash to Your Clients.

But Flash is not the end all of Web Development. Flash is a tool. Flash does some things very well that other tools do not. In some cases, using Flash would not be as effective if you were using other tools such as straight HTML (when I say "HTML", this includes pages like the one you're viewing which is a php page generated from a database).

Example: Amazon and eBay. These sites were developed a while ago, but if they were redone completely in Flash, they would bomb. Even if they were started from scratch today and developed completely in Flash, people would hate them. Why? I don't even need to point out the massive, programming nightmare this would be, but those sites need to be in HTML. People need to be able to send links with no problems and they need to be able to enlarge text, the pages need to fit the full width of the screen, etc. These are things that Flash couldn't handle as well.

These sites are also continually expanding and changing. Flash just doesn't handle expansion and changes 1/100th as well as HTML does.

And shall I point out that Flash Kit is done in HTML?

My Point
You don't use a hammer to screw in a screw. Although the hammer is a great tool, its not the only tool you will ever need or use.

-scott
http://www.scottmanning.com/

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Me thinks everyone is actually going down the same path if only they'd look up from their toes...

The right tool for the right job, and if your job is developing the latest interactive applications for web, CD-ROM, and wireless apps then you'll most likely use Flash MX. If you're developing relatively simple functionality mainly for the average majority then you'll stick to something less leading edge.

As for me, developing for high end Internet, CD-ROM, DVD, and wireless apps, I'm embracing MX with all my heart - I mean with dynamic images, video, and huge improvements in scripting how could I not?!?!

Cheers
Dave

[Hellsbellboy]

From what nocrapchurch is saying this is what I understand. That if u don't need "leading edge" why use it. Why make a HTML webpage with a few buttons in Flash MX forcing everyone to download the player if you don't need to? Or why even use Flash at all if you don't need too. You have to base the use on what tools to use on the target audience. If you have a big site like Amazon.com or eBay.com and force everyone to download a new plug-in just for the sake of having the latest and greatest you could end up losing a lot of customers. And that's not selling Flash. If a company like those two used flash and started losing customers and money cause people either couldn't or wouldn't download the plug-in, then that would make Flash look bad. Then no company would want to use Flash.So tell me is that helping or hurting the Flash communitry and flash in general? Is that selling Flash.

[phonytony]

Hellsbellboy i completely agree with you, yes there is definitely no point in using it in many simple basic situations, i was really only refering to the slightly bigger jobs, sorry, i should have made that clearer, and nocrapchurch i do understand your point and as i said in my first post, half of me completely agrees, it is just that i think that it is really down to us to sell it if we want it to work....and i want it to work.

TheOriginalFlashDavo but i have the most beatuiful pair of new shoes...do i have to reallt rake my eyes off them...arrghh ok if i must!! )