Is Flash really THAT good?

This is a bit off topic but I wanted to ask this question specifically to this audience. There seems to be a sence that Flash is this awesome platform for rich internet applications that thats where "everything is going". All you hear about is how fast it is, how good looking it is, and so on. Maybe I'm the only one but Flash drives me crazy. Even though it has database connectivity, I still see it as a frustrating way to create needless animations. Maybe I'm wrong. I admit I have only got into Flash a little bit but every time I do, I end up asking myself why I am wasting my time with this tool. As application developers, do you take Flash seriously? Do you think it does or will ever make since to use it for your full blown applications? I just read over the message thread at: http://www.dack.com/web/flash_evil.html and I found it very interesting and I sort of agree with the author. He's also got an interesting usability test posted at: http://www.dack.com/web/flashVhtml/ I'm interested as to what you guys think. Thanks, Jon

Oh dear...this is going to be another one of those Friday threads. :) Friday, June 20, 2003, 9:33:41 AM, you wrote: JB> This is a bit off topic but I wanted to ask this question specifically to JB> this audience. There seems to be a sence that Flash is this awesome platform JB> for rich internet applications that thats where "everything is going". All JB> you hear about is how fast it is, how good looking it is, and so on. Maybe JB> I'm the only one but Flash drives me crazy. Even though it has database JB> connectivity, I still see it as a frustrating way to create needless JB> animations. I would agree today, but at least for me, stuff like Royale looks like it may make it less frustrating. Of course...the needless animations are always going to be a problem, but animation can also have an overall positive effect on the user experience if used correctly. JB> Maybe I'm wrong. I admit I have only got into Flash a little bit but every JB> time I do, I end up asking myself why I am wasting my time with this tool. JB> As application developers, do you take Flash seriously? Do you think it does JB> or will ever make since to use it for your full blown applications? Why waste the time? Because people like to pay for useless moving things...might as well learn to like it. The clients will demand it sooner or later. The fact that Microsoft has cancelled standalone IE versions, effectively killing any innovation in the html UI field for at least the next 5-10 years until everyone has upgraded to Longhorn, or a better non-MS browser more of a motivational factor than the problems with Flash. At least Flash is moving forward. JB> I just read over the message thread at: JB> http://www.dack.com/web/flash_evil.html Unfortunately, Flash is the lesser of the evils... JB> and I found it very interesting and I sort of agree with the author. He's JB> also got an interesting usability test posted at: JB> http://www.dack.com/web/flashVhtml/ Heck, just go to Macromedia.com to see the problems with Flash usability. JB> I'm interested as to what you guys think. -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net

Ok, first off, that article was written years ago.  Although there are probably more flash animations online than back then, Flash has still made leaps and bounds of progress. Secondly, how much DHTML have you done?  Now, how much cross browser DHTML have you done?  How much database driven DHTML have you done?  Although it's not apples to apples, you can deliver cross browser / stand alone apps, in flash that are practically impossible in DHTML. Thirdly, if we didn't have flash, it'd be some other replacement for the animated gifs that people would be complaining about. Fourthly, I understand where you are coming from since I have heard other people say the same thing about flash. However, with a thread like this, it makes me think that you are like the others who bitch about flash yet haven't seen any flash movies worth while.  Here are a few flash sites that I consider to be worth your viewing. http://www.2advanced.com/flashindex.htm http://www.egomedia.com http://www.estudio.com just about any flash site on http://www.cwd.dk http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail.html (had to throw this is for the humor) Just to name a few. E This is a bit off topic but I wanted to ask this question specifically to this audience. There seems to be a sence that Flash is this awesome platform for rich internet applications that thats where "everything is going". All you hear about is how fast it is, how good looking it is, and so on. Maybe I'm the only one but Flash drives me crazy. Even though it has database connectivity, I still see it as a frustrating way to create needless animations. Maybe I'm wrong. I admit I have only got into Flash a little bit but every time I do, I end up asking myself why I am wasting my time with this tool. As application developers, do you take Flash seriously? Do you think it does or will ever make since to use it for your full blown applications? I just read over the message thread at: http://www.dack.com/web/flash_evil.html and I found it very interesting and I sort of agree with the author. He's also got an interesting usability test posted at: http://www.dack.com/web/flashVhtml/ I'm interested as to what you guys think. Thanks, Jon

This seems relevant enough: Here are the entries for Flash Forward 2003. Get your vote on! http://www.flashforward2003.com/nyc/ Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division Ok, first off, that article was written years ago.  Although there are probably more flash animations online than back then, Flash has still made leaps and bounds of progress. Secondly, how much DHTML have you done?  Now, how much cross browser DHTML have you done?  How much database driven DHTML have you done?  Although it's not apples to apples, you can deliver cross browser / stand alone apps, in flash that are practically impossible in DHTML. Thirdly, if we didn't have flash, it'd be some other replacement for the animated gifs that people would be complaining about. Fourthly, I understand where you are coming from since I have heard other people say the same thing about flash. However, with a thread like this, it makes me think that you are like the others who bitch about flash yet haven't seen any flash movies worth while.  Here are a few flash sites that I consider to be worth your viewing. http://www.2advanced.com/flashindex.htm http://www.egomedia.com http://www.estudio.com just about any flash site on http://www.cwd.dk http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail.html (had to throw this is for the humor) Just to name a few. E This is a bit off topic but I wanted to ask this question specifically to this audience. There seems to be a sence that Flash is this awesome platform for rich internet applications that thats where "everything is going". All you hear about is how fast it is, how good looking it is, and so on. Maybe I'm the only one but Flash drives me crazy. Even though it has database connectivity, I still see it as a frustrating way to create needless animations. Maybe I'm wrong. I admit I have only got into Flash a little bit but every time I do, I end up asking myself why I am wasting my time with this tool. As application developers, do you take Flash seriously? Do you think it does or will ever make since to use it for your full blown applications? I just read over the message thread at: http://www.dack.com/web/flash_evil.html and I found it very interesting and I sort of agree with the author. He's also got an interesting usability test posted at: http://www.dack.com/web/flashVhtml/ I'm interested as to what you guys think. Thanks, Jon

Friday, June 20, 2003, 10:27:56 AM, you wrote: CD> Secondly, how much DHTML have you done?  Now, how much cross browser DHTML have you done?  How much database driven CD> DHTML have you done?  Although it's not apples to apples, you can deliver cross browser / stand alone apps, in flash CD> that are practically impossible in DHTML. Really? Name just one UI component/paradigm that is possible in Flash that isn't possible in DHTML. CD> Thirdly, if we didn't have flash, it'd be some other replacement for the animated gifs that people would be complaining CD> about. Like applets...which are deader than a doornail these days. CD> Fourthly, I understand where you are coming from since I have heard other people say the same thing about flash. CD> However, with a thread like this, it makes me think that you are like the others who bitch about flash yet haven't seen CD> any flash movies worth while.  Here are a few flash sites that I consider to be worth your viewing. CD> http://www.2advanced.com/flashindex.htm Marketing without meaningful content, usability problems out the read end. This is not an application. It was also state of the art two years ago...now it's old. Same goes for the rest. CD> http://www.egomedia.com CD> http://www.estudio.com CD> just about any flash site on http://www.cwd.dk CD> http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail.html (had to throw this is for the humor) CD> Just to name a few.

At 10:27 AM 06/20/03 -0400, CF Dude wrote: While I having nothing against Flash itself, I do find it is often poorly used (but so are graphics, and that doesn't make them bad.  Some comments on the pages you show. >http://www.2advanced.com/flashindex.htm Cool.  But it makes my cable feel like my dial up.  Does it offer anything in return for the waiting that a faster HTML page doesn't?  Not in the pages I looked at (this was a very quick look.)  Perhaps it is 2 advanced for my system, however. :) >http://www.egomedia.com This is a very impressive use of Flash.  Slower than HTML, but it offers a lot more.  There are some bugs in the implementation, but I think this is a great site to show people why Flash is good. >http://www.estudio.com Way too slow and irritating.  Perhaps other people find it's clever to chase after the enter button, but I don't. >http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail.html (had to throw this is for the >humor) This page is a great use of Flash.  A friend of mine is huge fan.  I don't find it hilarious, but I love the concept of fast, online movies. T Tired of your bookmarks/favourites being limited to one computer?  Move them to the Net! www.stuffbythane.com/webfavourites makes it easy to keep all your favourites in one place and access them from any computer that's attached to the Internet.

J > > Maybe I'm wrong. I admit I have only got into Flash a little bit but every > time I do, I end up asking myself why I am wasting my time with this tool. > As application developers, do you take Flash seriously? Yes. > Do you think it does > or will ever make since to use it for your full blown applications? Yes. I doubt it will ever make sense for a whole websites. Content oriented sites for the general public can reach a level of functionality in XHTML that I don't see Flash reach anytime soon, not even at the current speed it is developed. But integration of Flash components can already make sense (but not for splash screens, never). However, for client-server applications that are now mostly written in C++/VB/Java and run over an intranet, I think Flash is a real killer. All those SAP/PeopleSoft/BAAN/MedWare etc. applications now require extensive installations on the client, with all the problems they generate (dependencies, incompatibilities with applications requiring a different MDAC version, no client available for platform X etc.). In this area, Flash can shine. Jochem

Yep, Flash is that good. You need to trust me, not this author. Flash does a lot right now, and this guy chose to focus on it's usefulness in animation and graphics. That's a very poor representation of Flash's abilities, and the article is anything other than a critique of it's role in application development. In fact, this article is so bad I am adding it to my "Big Book of Useless Rubbish No One Should Waste Their Time" reading. Laters, M This is a bit off topic but I wanted to ask this question specifically to this audience. There seems to be a sence that Flash is this awesome platform for rich internet applications that thats where "everything is going". All you hear about is how fast it is, how good looking it is, and so on. Maybe I'm the only one but Flash drives me crazy. Even though it has database connectivity, I still see it as a frustrating way to create needless animations. Maybe I'm wrong. I admit I have only got into Flash a little bit but every time I do, I end up asking myself why I am wasting my time with this tool. As application developers, do you take Flash seriously? Do you think it does or will ever make since to use it for your full blown applications? I just read over the message thread at: http://www.dack.com/web/flash_evil.html and I found it very interesting and I sort of agree with the author. He's also got an interesting usability test posted at: http://www.dack.com/web/flashVhtml/ I'm interested as to what you guys think. Thanks, Jon

Well I'm feeling adventurous... I think all the points this author makes are valid. In fact it's something our industry should heed well. As developers when we leave the browser, it's easy to get carried away. Normally we have all these constraints like 'form controls' and 'underlined hyperlinks', components that are universal across the board. Our end users are extremely familiar with these items, so they can navigate anywhere in the web with moderate ease. Now when we move into RIA everything the user knows about navigation... is gone. The developers now take on much more responsibility and usability (which most developers ignore all together) becomes mission critical. I don't think anyone can disagree that there are a tremendous amount of _shitty_ flash sites out there as a result. But I don't want to fully defend the a-hole who wrote this article (if you can even call it that). His points are valid, but they do not equate to "Flash is Evil" or "Flash sucks". Splash pages _are_ useless, flaming logos are soooooo 1997, and doing an entire site in flash, just for the sake of doing it is retarded. But just because there is a lot of crap built with the tools, doesn't mean the technology is evil. It's quite the opposite. The technology is so great, and so easy to use... that any shmuck can do it. (We run into this same issue with CF, it leads to bad programming tendencies, because it's so easy to use.) Now let's turn the tables here. Is this guy color blind, is the theme a tribute the short bus he rode to school in? Further more he doesn't even have a single image on his page, just text. (Is he Amish or something?) Additionally all his article are like 250px wide so every page is like 4 screens vertical. The right justified nav bar serves only one purpose.... to create dead space. I think considering his site, the author is discredited and possibly just jealous of designers in general. You know what pisses me off more than splash pages and pointless animations? The fact that any shmuck with notepad can have a web site. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division Yep, Flash is that good. You need to trust me, not this author. Flash does a lot right now, and this guy chose to focus on it's usefulness in animation and graphics. That's a very poor representation of Flash's abilities, and the article is anything other than a critique of it's role in application development. In fact, this article is so bad I am adding it to my "Big Book of Useless Rubbish No One Should Waste Their Time" reading. Laters, M This is a bit off topic but I wanted to ask this question specifically to this audience. There seems to be a sence that Flash is this awesome platform for rich internet applications that thats where "everything is going". All you hear about is how fast it is, how good looking it is, and so on. Maybe I'm the only one but Flash drives me crazy. Even though it has database connectivity, I still see it as a frustrating way to create needless animations. Maybe I'm wrong. I admit I have only got into Flash a little bit but every time I do, I end up asking myself why I am wasting my time with this tool. As application developers, do you take Flash seriously? Do you think it does or will ever make since to use it for your full blown applications? I just read over the message thread at: http://www.dack.com/web/flash_evil.html and I found it very interesting and I sort of agree with the author. He's also got an interesting usability test posted at: http://www.dack.com/web/flashVhtml/ I'm interested as to what you guys think. Thanks, Jon

Wow...if Tim Berners-Lee read that, he would probably be incredibly saddened. Is this what it's come too? The entire reason for the success of the web is now the reasoning behind making it proprietary and in the hands of corporations? -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net Friday, June 20, 2003, 10:46:16 AM, you wrote: AWL> You know what pisses me off more than splash pages and pointless AWL> animations? The fact that any shmuck with notepad can have a web site.

Originally Published: September 1, 1999 Last Updated: April 26, 2000 Today: June 20, 2003  - a lot(stress that) has been added to flash since then This is a bit off topic but I wanted to ask this question specifically to this audience. There seems to be a sence that Flash is this awesome platform for rich internet applications that thats where "everything is going". All you hear about is how fast it is, how good looking it is, and so on. Maybe I'm the only one but Flash drives me crazy. Even though it has database connectivity, I still see it as a frustrating way to create needless animations. Maybe I'm wrong. I admit I have only got into Flash a little bit but every time I do, I end up asking myself why I am wasting my time with this tool. As application developers, do you take Flash seriously? Do you think it does or will ever make since to use it for your full blown applications? I just read over the message thread at: http://www.dack.com/web/flash_evil.html and I found it very interesting and I sort of agree with the author. He's also got an interesting usability test posted at: http://www.dack.com/web/flashVhtml/ I'm interested as to what you guys think. Thanks, Jon

Seth, What is interesting is that even though this article is 4 years old, all of his points are still valid. Sure Flash has new features but his points are in regards to how Flash is used, not what it's features are. -Jon Originally Published: September 1, 1999 Last Updated: April 26, 2000 Today: June 20, 2003  - a lot(stress that) has been added to flash since then This is a bit off topic but I wanted to ask this question specifically to this audience. There seems to be a sence that Flash is this awesome platform for rich internet applications that thats where "everything is going". All you hear about is how fast it is, how good looking it is, and so on. Maybe I'm the only one but Flash drives me crazy. Even though it has database connectivity, I still see it as a frustrating way to create needless animations. Maybe I'm wrong. I admit I have only got into Flash a little bit but every time I do, I end up asking myself why I am wasting my time with this tool. As application developers, do you take Flash seriously? Do you think it does or will ever make since to use it for your full blown applications? I just read over the message thread at: http://www.dack.com/web/flash_evil.html and I found it very interesting and I sort of agree with the author. He's also got an interesting usability test posted at: http://www.dack.com/web/flashVhtml/ I'm interested as to what you guys think. Thanks, Jon

Can we get a link to your "Big Book of Useless Rubbish No One Should Waste Their Time"? (just so we don't waste any more time reading useless rubbish) <gd&r> ~~ Stephenie Yep, Flash is that good. You need to trust me, not this author. Flash does a lot right now, and this guy chose to focus on it's usefulness in animation and graphics. That's a very poor representation of Flash's abilities, and the article is anything other than a critique of it's role in application development. In fact, this article is so bad I am adding it to my "Big Book of Useless Rubbish No One Should Waste Their Time" reading. Laters, M --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003

I've actually read Mike Haggerty's "Big Book of Useless Rubbish No One Should Waste Their Time", so I didn't bother reading :) I've made some Flash applications that would never be possible in straight html, ie look at PocketPc development.  I won't use it for everything though, it's just one choice I have when planning on developing something. And as for the process of creating apps in flash, once you get the hang of it and if you start using/creating components, your development time rapidly decreases.   Seth, What is interesting is that even though this article is 4 years old, all of his points are still valid. Sure Flash has new features but his points are in regards to how Flash is used, not what it's features are. -Jon Originally Published: September 1, 1999 Last Updated: April 26, 2000 Today: June 20, 2003  - a lot(stress that) has been added to flash since then This is a bit off topic but I wanted to ask this question specifically to this audience. There seems to be a sence that Flash is this awesome platform for rich internet applications that thats where "everything is going". All you hear about is how fast it is, how good looking it is, and so on. Maybe I'm the only one but Flash drives me crazy. Even though it has database connectivity, I still see it as a frustrating way to create needless animations. Maybe I'm wrong. I admit I have only got into Flash a little bit but every time I do, I end up asking myself why I am wasting my time with this tool. As application developers, do you take Flash seriously? Do you think it does or will ever make since to use it for your full blown applications? I just read over the message thread at: http://www.dack.com/web/flash_evil.html and I found it very interesting and I sort of agree with the author. He's also got an interesting usability test posted at: http://www.dack.com/web/flashVhtml/ I'm interested as to what you guys think. Thanks, Jon

Adam; This author makes no valid points. He simply takes shots at what he doesn't like to condemn a product wholly. The author criticizes the work of individual authors, and holds Flash to blame as an 'enabler'. This assertion is a non sequitur, and justifies my comment about the article being nothing but useless rubbish. People make Web sites, Web sites do not make themselves and Flash can certainly be used for better purposes. Flash is ANYTHING but evil, and I would say your comments about navigation are invalid in the same way. Authors make movies accessible, navigable, etc., not Flash - if you want to talk aesthetics, you need to talk with the aesthetes, not the assembly programmers who have nothing to do with this at all whatsoever. That being said, I have an RIA project underway that I am planning to market as an RIA development platform and, without saying too much before the big release, it has no animation, no funny navigation, and nothing that would offend 'serious' application developer's sensible yearnings for the old blue and gray. There is so much more that can be done with Flash it dwarfs the animation aspects, and it is time for people's perceptions to change about the product. Useless prattling like this only makes me mad... M Well I'm feeling adventurous... I think all the points this author makes are valid. In fact it's something our industry should heed well. As developers when we leave the browser, it's easy to get carried away. Normally we have all these constraints like 'form controls' and 'underlined hyperlinks', components that are universal across the board. Our end users are extremely familiar with these items, so they can navigate anywhere in the web with moderate ease. Now when we move into RIA everything the user knows about navigation... is gone. The developers now take on much more responsibility and usability (which most developers ignore all together) becomes mission critical. I don't think anyone can disagree that there are a tremendous amount of _shitty_ flash sites out there as a result. But I don't want to fully defend the a-hole who wrote this article (if you can even call it that). His points are valid, but they do not equate to "Flash is Evil" or "Flash sucks". Splash pages _are_ useless, flaming logos are soooooo 1997, and doing an entire site in flash, just for the sake of doing it is retarded. But just because there is a lot of crap built with the tools, doesn't mean the technology is evil. It's quite the opposite. The technology is so great, and so easy to use... that any shmuck can do it. (We run into this same issue with CF, it leads to bad programming tendencies, because it's so easy to use.) Now let's turn the tables here. Is this guy color blind, is the theme a tribute the short bus he rode to school in? Further more he doesn't even have a single image on his page, just text. (Is he Amish or something?) Additionally all his article are like 250px wide so every page is like 4 screens vertical. The right justified nav bar serves only one purpose.... to create dead space. I think considering his site, the author is discredited and possibly just jealous of designers in general. You know what pisses me off more than splash pages and pointless animations? The fact that any shmuck with notepad can have a web site. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division

I agree full heartedly. The only thing I'm saying was valid is that there is indeed a lot of crappy flash out there. But that is neither here nor there in regards to Flash as a technology. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division Adam; This author makes no valid points. He simply takes shots at what he doesn't like to condemn a product wholly. The author criticizes the work of individual authors, and holds Flash to blame as an 'enabler'. This assertion is a non sequitur, and justifies my comment about the article being nothing but useless rubbish. People make Web sites, Web sites do not make themselves and Flash can certainly be used for better purposes. Flash is ANYTHING but evil, and I would say your comments about navigation are invalid in the same way. Authors make movies accessible, navigable, etc., not Flash - if you want to talk aesthetics, you need to talk with the aesthetes, not the assembly programmers who have nothing to do with this at all whatsoever. That being said, I have an RIA project underway that I am planning to market as an RIA development platform and, without saying too much before the big release, it has no animation, no funny navigation, and nothing that would offend 'serious' application developer's sensible yearnings for the old blue and gray. There is so much more that can be done with Flash it dwarfs the animation aspects, and it is time for people's perceptions to change about the product. Useless prattling like this only makes me mad... M Well I'm feeling adventurous... I think all the points this author makes are valid. In fact it's something our industry should heed well. As developers when we leave the browser, it's easy to get carried away. Normally we have all these constraints like 'form controls' and 'underlined hyperlinks', components that are universal across the board. Our end users are extremely familiar with these items, so they can navigate anywhere in the web with moderate ease. Now when we move into RIA everything the user knows about navigation... is gone. The developers now take on much more responsibility and usability (which most developers ignore all together) becomes mission critical. I don't think anyone can disagree that there are a tremendous amount of _shitty_ flash sites out there as a result. But I don't want to fully defend the a-hole who wrote this article (if you can even call it that). His points are valid, but they do not equate to "Flash is Evil" or "Flash sucks". Splash pages _are_ useless, flaming logos are soooooo 1997, and doing an entire site in flash, just for the sake of doing it is retarded. But just because there is a lot of crap built with the tools, doesn't mean the technology is evil. It's quite the opposite. The technology is so great, and so easy to use... that any shmuck can do it. (We run into this same issue with CF, it leads to bad programming tendencies, because it's so easy to use.) Now let's turn the tables here. Is this guy color blind, is the theme a tribute the short bus he rode to school in? Further more he doesn't even have a single image on his page, just text. (Is he Amish or something?) Additionally all his article are like 250px wide so every page is like 4 screens vertical. The right justified nav bar serves only one purpose.... to create dead space. I think considering his site, the author is discredited and possibly just jealous of designers in general. You know what pisses me off more than splash pages and pointless animations? The fact that any shmuck with notepad can have a web site. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Well, call me old school, but I find these sites annoying and difficult to use.   It is my firm opinion that the vast majority of web users do not care for this stuff.  It is meant to impress developers, techies and managers but it is hopelessly unfriendly to the majority of users who simply want to accomplish a task on a site.  They do not want to wait for these gee-whiz animations to load or to figure out which widget does what--they just want to get what they are there for, and making them wait while your site goes into these gyrations is just bad business.  Who wants aggravated customers? Customer service always wins over gimmicks.  On the web, "speed and usability" = good customer service, "splash pages and non-standard navigation" = bad service. This is going to be hotly denounced by those who love the bleeding edge, but plain HTML (black text, white BG, blue links, no fancy DHTML) is almost always the best choice to let the user get what they want fast.  Unless your product IS multimedia-based, or you are using Flash (or any other plugin/gizmo) to make your service easier/faster to use or to provide some vital capabilities--like enhanced form validation/processing--I wouldn't use it.  For whom do we develop our web apps?  The developers or the users?  If you are an online business, you'd better think about it!  Look at Yahoo and Google.  It's no coincidence that they are successful and they both use simple designs. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ OK, Flame on!  :) Chris

>Well, call me old school, but I find these sites annoying and difficult to use.  It is my firm opinion that the vast majority of web users do not care for this stuff.  It is meant to impress developers, techies and managers but it is hopelessly unfriendly to the majority of users who simply want to accomplish a task on a site. Yeah, but this list is made up of developers and techies, not johnSmith@aol.com. >Who wants aggravated customers? F*&( the customer.  We're not talking about customers. >This is going to be hotly denounced by those who love the bleeding edge, but plain HTML (black text, white BG, blue links, no fancy DHTML) is almost always the best choice to let the user get what they want fast. Yes.  Flash is like so many other technologies, it has it's place.   Unfortunately, too many people see simple uses for flash, and not the good uses.  At the same time, the "vast majority of web users" probably don't even know what flash is.  They don't like popups, but they don't know that it's flash. E

Uh oh, here we go again. I've taken the 'flash is unnecessary' side before. So I'll try my hand at the argument that flash is the future. Usability, usability, usability. I'd imagine that probably only 5% (if we're lucky) of web developers have studied usability at all. As for designers, I'd like to say that the percentage is more, but all the designers I know are 'artists' and have no clue about application design or usability. They know what is visually appealing, not functional. If developers put as much time into usability, case studies, and actually perform usability tests (which I'm sure most companies will view as a worthless expense) as we do coding, I think the perception of the flash RIA would dramatically improve. Bottom line is, if a flash application is done correctly, with enough focus on usability, then it will smoke any comparable HTML application. As for google and yahoo's success. I can think of a million ways google would be better as an RIA. As for weight, this comes back to the application's design. Which can very from app to app, so it's unfair the generalize RIA as being heavy just because a few are. Not to mention you can conserve a lot more bandwidth and download time with a flash app. Maybe there is an initial download of 50k, but every time you want to refresh the screen, or pull in some db data, you don't have to make another page call. You can get only the minimum data necessary, rather than load the same html and images over... and over... and over... and over again. As for non-standard navigation, what make flash navigation non-standard in compared to HTML. What is standard navigation anyhow? Standard navigation doesn't exist. It's just a concept. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Well, call me old school, but I find these sites annoying and difficult to use.  It is my firm opinion that the vast majority of web users do not care for this stuff.  It is meant to impress developers, techies and managers but it is hopelessly unfriendly to the majority of users who simply want to accomplish a task on a site.  They do not want to wait for these gee-whiz animations to load or to figure out which widget does what--they just want to get what they are there for, and making them wait while your site goes into these gyrations is just bad business. Who wants aggravated customers? Customer service always wins over gimmicks.  On the web, "speed and usability" = good customer service, "splash pages and non-standard navigation" = bad service. This is going to be hotly denounced by those who love the bleeding edge, but plain HTML (black text, white BG, blue links, no fancy DHTML) is almost always the best choice to let the user get what they want fast. Unless your product IS multimedia-based, or you are using Flash (or any other plugin/gizmo) to make your service easier/faster to use or to provide some vital capabilities--like enhanced form validation/processing--I wouldn't use it.  For whom do we develop our web apps?  The developers or the users?  If you are an online business, you'd better think about it!  Look at Yahoo and Google.  It's no coincidence that they are successful and they both use simple designs. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ OK, Flame on!  :) Chris

Fridays are such fertile ground for technology debates. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division Uh oh, here we go again. I've taken the 'flash is unnecessary' side before. So I'll try my hand at the argument that flash is the future. Usability, usability, usability. I'd imagine that probably only 5% (if we're lucky) of web developers have studied usability at all. As for designers, I'd like to say that the percentage is more, but all the designers I know are 'artists' and have no clue about application design or usability. They know what is visually appealing, not functional. If developers put as much time into usability, case studies, and actually perform usability tests (which I'm sure most companies will view as a worthless expense) as we do coding, I think the perception of the flash RIA would dramatically improve. Bottom line is, if a flash application is done correctly, with enough focus on usability, then it will smoke any comparable HTML application. As for google and yahoo's success. I can think of a million ways google would be better as an RIA. As for weight, this comes back to the application's design. Which can very from app to app, so it's unfair the generalize RIA as being heavy just because a few are. Not to mention you can conserve a lot more bandwidth and download time with a flash app. Maybe there is an initial download of 50k, but every time you want to refresh the screen, or pull in some db data, you don't have to make another page call. You can get only the minimum data necessary, rather than load the same html and images over... and over... and over... and over again. As for non-standard navigation, what make flash navigation non-standard in compared to HTML. What is standard navigation anyhow? Standard navigation doesn't exist. It's just a concept. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Well, call me old school, but I find these sites annoying and difficult to use.  It is my firm opinion that the vast majority of web users do not care for this stuff.  It is meant to impress developers, techies and managers but it is hopelessly unfriendly to the majority of users who simply want to accomplish a task on a site.  They do not want to wait for these gee-whiz animations to load or to figure out which widget does what--they just want to get what they are there for, and making them wait while your site goes into these gyrations is just bad business. Who wants aggravated customers? Customer service always wins over gimmicks.  On the web, "speed and usability" = good customer service, "splash pages and non-standard navigation" = bad service. This is going to be hotly denounced by those who love the bleeding edge, but plain HTML (black text, white BG, blue links, no fancy DHTML) is almost always the best choice to let the user get what they want fast. Unless your product IS multimedia-based, or you are using Flash (or any other plugin/gizmo) to make your service easier/faster to use or to provide some vital capabilities--like enhanced form validation/processing--I wouldn't use it.  For whom do we develop our web apps?  The developers or the users?  If you are an online business, you'd better think about it!  Look at Yahoo and Google.  It's no coincidence that they are successful and they both use simple designs. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ OK, Flame on!  :) Chris

This thread has been the most interesting part of my day. Fridays are such fertile ground for technology debates. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division Uh oh, here we go again. I've taken the 'flash is unnecessary' side before. So I'll try my hand at the argument that flash is the future. Usability, usability, usability. I'd imagine that probably only 5% (if we're lucky) of web developers have studied usability at all. As for designers, I'd like to say that the percentage is more, but all the designers I know are 'artists' and have no clue about application design or usability. They know what is visually appealing, not functional. If developers put as much time into usability, case studies, and actually perform usability tests (which I'm sure most companies will view as a worthless expense) as we do coding, I think the perception of the flash RIA would dramatically improve. Bottom line is, if a flash application is done correctly, with enough focus on usability, then it will smoke any comparable HTML application. As for google and yahoo's success. I can think of a million ways google would be better as an RIA. As for weight, this comes back to the application's design. Which can very from app to app, so it's unfair the generalize RIA as being heavy just because a few are. Not to mention you can conserve a lot more bandwidth and download time with a flash app. Maybe there is an initial download of 50k, but every time you want to refresh the screen, or pull in some db data, you don't have to make another page call. You can get only the minimum data necessary, rather than load the same html and images over... and over... and over... and over again. As for non-standard navigation, what make flash navigation non-standard in compared to HTML. What is standard navigation anyhow? Standard navigation doesn't exist. It's just a concept. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Well, call me old school, but I find these sites annoying and difficult to use.  It is my firm opinion that the vast majority of web users do not care for this stuff.  It is meant to impress developers, techies and managers but it is hopelessly unfriendly to the majority of users who simply want to accomplish a task on a site.  They do not want to wait for these gee-whiz animations to load or to figure out which widget does what--they just want to get what they are there for, and making them wait while your site goes into these gyrations is just bad business. Who wants aggravated customers? Customer service always wins over gimmicks.  On the web, "speed and usability" = good customer service, "splash pages and non-standard navigation" = bad service. This is going to be hotly denounced by those who love the bleeding edge, but plain HTML (black text, white BG, blue links, no fancy DHTML) is almost always the best choice to let the user get what they want fast. Unless your product IS multimedia-based, or you are using Flash (or any other plugin/gizmo) to make your service easier/faster to use or to provide some vital capabilities--like enhanced form validation/processing--I wouldn't use it.  For whom do we develop our web apps?  The developers or the users?  If you are an online business, you'd better think about it!  Look at Yahoo and Google.  It's no coincidence that they are successful and they both use simple designs. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ OK, Flame on!  :) Chris

Unfortunately, There are a ton of Flash web sites, that are either media centric, cartoon centric, or game centric, and there is a dearth of business/commerce centric Flash sites. Referring a potential commercial client to the Macromedia.com or many of the other "sample" Flash sites, which are full of slow loading, multiple popup windows, and other absolutely useless functionality, while noisy and show pretty animations and colors, will surely turn most of them completely off. There have been a very few (unfortunately) Web sites that use flash as an adjunct to conventional commercial development languages, such as CFMX, CF 5.0, PHP or even ASP can do much more IMHO, in creating a user friendly, well designed, bandwidth conservative, presentation of the business entity, including our by-words; "Dynamic data-driven web application" The competition is on for the most eye-catching presentation of the business "face" done with the mission of bringing the client back often. I believe all of the software publishers are throwing marketing (name-your-currency-here) to try to corner the market where the big bucks are.  Be it .NET, ASP, ASPX, CF, CFMX, PHP, and others. A web developer must keep in mind that all of these are tools to get the job done.   The focus should be on doing the job and meeting the customer's needs. Managers, frequently either fall for the marketing hype, or will choose a technology based on the in-house skillsets.  I can quote example after example of businesses that have wasted a tremendous amount of development money in trying to develop in, or convert to a particular technology, just because it seemed to be the "in" thing to do at the time, and was getting quite a bit of attention in articles written in the various "free" trade publications., whose focus changes from issue to issue. The practice of management dictating the technology before development starts, is, in most cases, a costly, very costly mistake, and not only hurts the bottom line, but wastes developer resources.  The previous sentence, I believe, is probably the greatest contributor to developer unhappiness with his job, and also contributes to developers moving from job to job.  Two very large scale operations come to mind, but I will not name names here.   In one, the IT manager dictated three years ago a complete switch from a ColdFusion data driven web site, which included a high volume order entry and shopping cart, to pure Java.   They had a twenty developer ColdFusion developer team, 18 of which have since left the company, and the new technology has not yet been fully implemented.  The two remaining CF coders, are kept busy with updates on the existing site, but literally thousands upon thousands of dollars have been thrown down a empty hole with little or no progress, mainly due to the moving target of the adopted technology.   The other made a deal with Oracle for enterprise licensing, and the attending Java hype, and is spending millions to convert a Hodge-podge of database programs that previously worked well, but were not integrated, and a blind insistence on writing all applications in pure Java, which we all recognize is still a moving target. As a Macromedia User group manager, I have been exposed from among our membership, all of the above.  We have a wide diversity of developer and management types among our membership.  There are some really atrociously designed web sites that, while full of eye candy, are really short on functionality.  There are some web sites that function fairly well, but are poorly organized and suffer from design effort.   Even fewer are the web sites that bring together both design and functionality.  Each of us have that area in which we excel, and that is a good thing, but all of us must widen our skills to at least have a working knowledge of each technology, as it applied to the project(s) in hand.   We must remain focused on the solution to the customer's needs and wants, and should integrate their input every step of the way. Bottom, line, as one who is intimate with several technologies, and centered on ColdFusion, I am still convinced, that while Flash has a niche place in enterprise development, it is not the complete answer, and as CF install, documentation and performance issues continue to be addressed, and the Red Sky beta becomes a release, developers will come to recognize that CF is a very reasonable and efficient alternative to these much-hyped new technologies.   It takes less lines of code to produce results than any of the other languages and is considered by many a standard for Rapid Application Development (RAD) What is wrong with the KISS methodology?  (Keep It Simple, Stupid) I will stop here as I think I have gone over my 0.02 worth.  feel free to add or comment. ====================================== Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772 ====================================== If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! | > However, with a thread like this, it makes me think that you | > are like the others who bitch about flash yet haven't seen | > any flash movies worth while.  Here are a few flash sites | > that I consider to be worth your viewing. | > | > http://www.2advanced.com/flashindex.htm | > | > http://www.egomedia.com | > | > http://www.estudio.com | > | > just about any flash site on http://www.cwd.dk | > | > http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail.html (had to throw this | > is for the humor) | > | > Just to name a few. | | Well, call me old school, but I find these sites annoying and difficult to use.  It is my firm opinion that the vast majority of web users do not care for this stuff.  It is meant to impress developers, techies and managers but it is hopelessly unfriendly to the majority of users who simply want to accomplish a task on a site.  They do not want to wait for these gee-whiz animations to load or to figure out which widget does what--they just want to get what they are there for, and making them wait while your site goes into these gyrations is just bad business.  Who wants aggravated customers? | | Customer service always wins over gimmicks.  On the web, "speed and usability" = good customer service, "splash pages and non-standard navigation" = bad service. | | This is going to be hotly denounced by those who love the bleeding edge, but plain HTML (black text, white BG, blue links, no fancy DHTML) is almost always the best choice to let the user get what they want fast.  Unless your product IS multimedia-based, or you are using Flash (or any other plugin/gizmo) to make your service easier/faster to use or to provide some vital capabilities--like enhanced form validation/processing--I wouldn't use it.  For whom do we develop our web apps?  The developers or the users?  If you are an online business, you'd better think about it!  Look at Yahoo and Google.  It's no coincidence that they are successful and they both use simple designs. | | http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ | | OK, Flame on!  :) | | Chris |

Ok, here is a simplified version of what I did for my company. http://www.solowebworx.com/search.html Now, this is a quick example and not a FULL example of what I was talking about. If anyone is interested in the code, I will post a zip of it on my site. thanks, Clint > Unfortunately, There are a ton of Flash web sites, that are either media > centric, cartoon centric, or game centric, and there is a dearth of > business/commerce centric Flash sites. > > Referring a potential commercial client to the Macromedia.com or many of the > other "sample" Flash sites, which are full of slow loading, multiple popup > windows, and other absolutely useless functionality, while noisy and show pretty > animations and colors, will surely turn most of them completely off. > > There have been a very few (unfortunately) Web sites that use flash as an > adjunct to conventional commercial development languages, such as CFMX, CF 5.0, > PHP or even ASP can do much more IMHO, in creating a user friendly, well > designed, bandwidth conservative, presentation of the business entity, including > our by-words; "Dynamic data-driven web application" > > The competition is on for the most eye-catching presentation of the business > "face" done with the mission of bringing the client back often. I believe all of > the software publishers are throwing marketing (name-your-currency-here) to try > to corner the market where the big bucks are.  Be it .NET, ASP, ASPX, CF, CFMX, > PHP, and others. > > A web developer must keep in mind that all of these are tools to get the job > done.   The focus should be on doing the job and meeting the customer's needs. > Managers, frequently either fall for the marketing hype, or will choose a > technology based on the in-house skillsets.  I can quote example after example > of businesses that have wasted a tremendous amount of development money in > trying to develop in, or convert to a particular technology, just because it > seemed to be the "in" thing to do at the time, and was getting quite a bit of > attention in articles written in the various "free" trade publications., whose > focus changes from issue to issue. > > The practice of management dictating the technology before development starts, > is, in most cases, a costly, very costly mistake, and not only hurts the bottom > line, but wastes developer resources.  The previous sentence, I believe, is > probably the greatest contributor to developer unhappiness with his job, and > also contributes to developers moving from job to job.  Two very large scale > operations come to mind, but I will not name names here.   In one, the IT > manager dictated three years ago a complete switch from a ColdFusion data driven > web site, which included a high volume order entry and shopping cart, to pure > Java.   They had a twenty developer ColdFusion developer team, 18 of which have > since left the company, and the new technology has not yet been fully > implemented.  The two remaining CF coders, are kept busy with updates on the > existing site, but literally thousands upon thousands of dollars have been > thrown down a empty hole with little or no progress, mainly due to the moving > target of the adopted technology.   The other made a deal with Oracle for > enterprise licensing, and the attending Java hype, and is spending millions to > convert a Hodge-podge of database programs that previously worked well, but were > not integrated, and a blind insistence on writing all applications in pure Java, > which we all recognize is still a moving target. > > As a Macromedia User group manager, I have been exposed from among our > membership, all of the above.  We have a wide diversity of developer and > management types among our membership.  There are some really atrociously > designed web sites that, while full of eye candy, are really short on > functionality.  There are some web sites that function fairly well, but are > poorly organized and suffer from design effort.   Even fewer are the web sites > that bring together both design and functionality.  Each of us have that area in > which we excel, and that is a good thing, but all of us must widen our skills to > at least have a working knowledge of each technology, as it applied to the > project(s) in hand.   We must remain focused on the solution to the customer's > needs and wants, and should integrate their input every step of the way. > > Bottom, line, as one who is intimate with several technologies, and centered on > ColdFusion, I am still convinced, that while Flash has a niche place in > enterprise development, it is not the complete answer, and as CF install, > documentation and performance issues continue to be addressed, and the Red Sky > beta becomes a release, developers will come to recognize that CF is a very > reasonable and efficient alternative to these much-hyped new technologies. It > takes less lines of code to produce results than any of the other languages and > is considered by many a standard for Rapid Application Development (RAD) > > What is wrong with the KISS methodology?  (Keep It Simple, Stupid) > > I will stop here as I think I have gone over my 0.02 worth.  feel free to add or ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- to > use.  It is my firm opinion that the vast majority of web users do not care for > this stuff.  It is meant to impress developers, techies and managers but it is > hopelessly unfriendly to the majority of users who simply want to accomplish a > task on a site.  They do not want to wait for these gee-whiz animations to load > or to figure out which widget does what--they just want to get what they are > there for, and making them wait while your site goes into these gyrations is > just bad business.  Who wants aggravated customers? > | > | Customer service always wins over gimmicks.  On the web, "speed and usability" > = good customer service, "splash pages and non-standard navigation" = bad > service. > | > | This is going to be hotly denounced by those who love the bleeding edge, but > plain HTML (black text, white BG, blue links, no fancy DHTML) is almost always > the best choice to let the user get what they want fast.  Unless your product IS > multimedia-based, or you are using Flash (or any other plugin/gizmo) to make > your service easier/faster to use or to provide some vital capabilities--like > enhanced form validation/processing--I wouldn't use it.  For whom do we develop > our web apps?  The developers or the users?  If you are an online business, > you'd better think about it!  Look at Yahoo and Google.  It's no coincidence ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I personally dislike flash forms where you can't tab from field to field, and when you hit "enter" with the cursor in any of the fields, the form won't submit. That in my experience is the way users are "trained" to use a form. Greg Ok, here is a simplified version of what I did for my company. http://www.solowebworx.com/search.html Now, this is a quick example and not a FULL example of what I was talking about. If anyone is interested in the code, I will post a zip of it on my site. thanks, Clint > Unfortunately, There are a ton of Flash web sites, that are either > media centric, cartoon centric, or game centric, and there is a dearth > of business/commerce centric Flash sites. > > Referring a potential commercial client to the Macromedia.com or many > of the > other "sample" Flash sites, which are full of slow loading, multiple > popup windows, and other absolutely useless functionality, while noisy > and show pretty > animations and colors, will surely turn most of them completely off. > > There have been a very few (unfortunately) Web sites that use flash as > an adjunct to conventional commercial development languages, such as > CFMX, CF 5.0, > PHP or even ASP can do much more IMHO, in creating a user friendly, > well designed, bandwidth conservative, presentation of the business > entity, including > our by-words; "Dynamic data-driven web application" > > The competition is on for the most eye-catching presentation of the business > "face" done with the mission of bringing the client back often. I > believe all of > the software publishers are throwing marketing > (name-your-currency-here) to try > to corner the market where the big bucks are.  Be it .NET, ASP, ASPX, > CF, CFMX, > PHP, and others. > > A web developer must keep in mind that all of these are tools to get > the job > done.   The focus should be on doing the job and meeting the customer's needs. > Managers, frequently either fall for the marketing hype, or will > choose a technology based on the in-house skillsets.  I can quote > example after example > of businesses that have wasted a tremendous amount of development > money in trying to develop in, or convert to a particular technology, > just because it > seemed to be the "in" thing to do at the time, and was getting quite a > bit of > attention in articles written in the various "free" trade > publications., whose > focus changes from issue to issue. > > The practice of management dictating the technology before development starts, > is, in most cases, a costly, very costly mistake, and not only hurts > the bottom > line, but wastes developer resources.  The previous sentence, I > believe, is > probably the greatest contributor to developer unhappiness with his > job, and > also contributes to developers moving from job to job.  Two very large scale > operations come to mind, but I will not name names here.   In one, the IT > manager dictated three years ago a complete switch from a ColdFusion > data driven > web site, which included a high volume order entry and shopping cart, > to pure > Java.   They had a twenty developer ColdFusion developer team, 18 of which have > since left the company, and the new technology has not yet been fully > implemented.  The two remaining CF coders, are kept busy with updates > on the > existing site, but literally thousands upon thousands of dollars have > been thrown down a empty hole with little or no progress, mainly due > to the moving > target of the adopted technology.   The other made a deal with Oracle for > enterprise licensing, and the attending Java hype, and is spending millions to > convert a Hodge-podge of database programs that previously worked > well, but were > not integrated, and a blind insistence on writing all applications in > pure Java, ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- are > poorly organized and suffer from design effort.   Even fewer are the web sites > that bring together both design and functionality.  Each of us have > that area in > which we excel, and that is a good thing, but all of us must widen our skills to > at least have a working knowledge of each technology, as it applied to the > project(s) in hand.   We must remain focused on the solution to the customer's > needs and wants, and should integrate their input every step of the > way. > > Bottom, line, as one who is intimate with several technologies, and centered on > ColdFusion, I am still convinced, that while Flash has a niche place > in enterprise development, it is not the complete answer, and as CF > install, documentation and performance issues continue to be > addressed, and the Red Sky > beta becomes a release, developers will come to recognize that CF is a very > reasonable and efficient alternative to these much-hyped new > technologies. It > takes less lines of code to produce results than any of the other languages and > is considered by many a standard for Rapid Application Development > (RAD) > > What is wrong with the KISS methodology?  (Keep It Simple, Stupid) > > I will stop here as I think I have gone over my 0.02 worth.  feel free > to add or ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- to > use.  It is my firm opinion that the vast majority of web users do not care for > this stuff.  It is meant to impress developers, techies and managers > but it is > hopelessly unfriendly to the majority of users who simply want to accomplish a > task on a site.  They do not want to wait for these gee-whiz > animations to load > or to figure out which widget does what--they just want to get what > they are > there for, and making them wait while your site goes into these > gyrations is > just bad business.  Who wants aggravated customers? > | > | Customer service always wins over gimmicks.  On the web, "speed and usability" > = good customer service, "splash pages and non-standard navigation" = > bad service. > | > | This is going to be hotly denounced by those who love the bleeding > | edge, but > plain HTML (black text, white BG, blue links, no fancy DHTML) is > almost always > the best choice to let the user get what they want fast.  Unless your product IS > multimedia-based, or you are using Flash (or any other plugin/gizmo) > to make > your service easier/faster to use or to provide some vital capabilities--like > enhanced form validation/processing--I wouldn't use it.  For whom do > we develop > our web apps?  The developers or the users?  If you are an online business, > you'd better think about it!  Look at Yahoo and Google.  It's no coincidence ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Here is a good use of Flash. http://www.3dfestival.com/tmp/kozoFlash.htm I personally dislike flash forms where you can't tab from field to field, and when you hit "enter" with the cursor in any of the fields, the form won't submit. That in my experience is the way users are "trained" to use a form. Greg Ok, here is a simplified version of what I did for my company. http://www.solowebworx.com/search.html Now, this is a quick example and not a FULL example of what I was talking about. If anyone is interested in the code, I will post a zip of it on my site. thanks, Clint > Unfortunately, There are a ton of Flash web sites, that are either > media centric, cartoon centric, or game centric, and there is a dearth > of business/commerce centric Flash sites. > > Referring a potential commercial client to the Macromedia.com or many > of the > other "sample" Flash sites, which are full of slow loading, multiple > popup windows, and other absolutely useless functionality, while noisy > and show pretty > animations and colors, will surely turn most of them completely off. > > There have been a very few (unfortunately) Web sites that use flash as > an adjunct to conventional commercial development languages, such as > CFMX, CF 5.0, > PHP or even ASP can do much more IMHO, in creating a user friendly, > well designed, bandwidth conservative, presentation of the business > entity, including > our by-words; "Dynamic data-driven web application" > > The competition is on for the most eye-catching presentation of the business > "face" done with the mission of bringing the client back often. I > believe all of > the software publishers are throwing marketing > (name-your-currency-here) to try > to corner the market where the big bucks are.  Be it .NET, ASP, ASPX, > CF, CFMX, > PHP, and others. > > A web developer must keep in mind that all of these are tools to get > the job > done.   The focus should be on doing the job and meeting the customer's needs. > Managers, frequently either fall for the marketing hype, or will > choose a technology based on the in-house skillsets.  I can quote > example after example > of businesses that have wasted a tremendous amount of development > money in trying to develop in, or convert to a particular technology, > just because it > seemed to be the "in" thing to do at the time, and was getting quite a > bit of > attention in articles written in the various "free" trade > publications., whose > focus changes from issue to issue. > > The practice of management dictating the technology before development starts, > is, in most cases, a costly, very costly mistake, and not only hurts > the bottom > line, but wastes developer resources.  The previous sentence, I > believe, is > probably the greatest contributor to developer unhappiness with his > job, and > also contributes to developers moving from job to job.  Two very large scale > operations come to mind, but I will not name names here.   In one, the IT > manager dictated three years ago a complete switch from a ColdFusion > data driven > web site, which included a high volume order entry and shopping cart, > to pure > Java.   They had a twenty developer ColdFusion developer team, 18 of which have > since left the company, and the new technology has not yet been fully > implemented.  The two remaining CF coders, are kept busy with updates > on the > existing site, but literally thousands upon thousands of dollars have > been thrown down a empty hole with little or no progress, mainly due > to the moving > target of the adopted technology.   The other made a deal with Oracle for > enterprise licensing, and the attending Java hype, and is spending millions to > convert a Hodge-podge of database programs that previously worked > well, but were > not integrated, and a blind insistence on writing all applications in > pure Java, ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- are > poorly organized and suffer from design effort.   Even fewer are the web sites > that bring together both design and functionality.  Each of us have > that area in > which we excel, and that is a good thing, but all of us must widen our skills to > at least have a working knowledge of each technology, as it applied to the > project(s) in hand.   We must remain focused on the solution to the customer's > needs and wants, and should integrate their input every step of the > way. > > Bottom, line, as one who is intimate with several technologies, and centered on > ColdFusion, I am still convinced, that while Flash has a niche place > in enterprise development, it is not the complete answer, and as CF > install, documentation and performance issues continue to be > addressed, and the Red Sky > beta becomes a release, developers will come to recognize that CF is a very > reasonable and efficient alternative to these much-hyped new > technologies. It > takes less lines of code to produce results than any of the other languages and > is considered by many a standard for Rapid Application Development > (RAD) > > What is wrong with the KISS methodology?  (Keep It Simple, Stupid) > > I will stop here as I think I have gone over my 0.02 worth.  feel free > to add or ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- to > use.  It is my firm opinion that the vast majority of web users do not care for > this stuff.  It is meant to impress developers, techies and managers > but it is > hopelessly unfriendly to the majority of users who simply want to accomplish a > task on a site.  They do not want to wait for these gee-whiz > animations to load > or to figure out which widget does what--they just want to get what > they are > there for, and making them wait while your site goes into these > gyrations is > just bad business.  Who wants aggravated customers? > | > | Customer service always wins over gimmicks.  On the web, "speed and usability" > = good customer service, "splash pages and non-standard navigation" = > bad service. > | > | This is going to be hotly denounced by those who love the bleeding > | edge, but > plain HTML (black text, white BG, blue links, no fancy DHTML) is > almost always > the best choice to let the user get what they want fast.  Unless your product IS > multimedia-based, or you are using Flash (or any other plugin/gizmo) > to make > your service easier/faster to use or to provide some vital capabilities--like > enhanced form validation/processing--I wouldn't use it.  For whom do > we develop > our web apps?  The developers or the users?  If you are an online business, > you'd better think about it!  Look at Yahoo and Google.  It's no coincidence ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

just bad flash programming.. someone not knowing or understanding the focus features or key trapping in flash. jay miller Greg Luce wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Ok, here is the code for the simple example that I showed earlier. http://www.solowebworx.com/download.cfm Now, let me say this again... this is not a FULL example of this kinda of app. This is a small taste that was built specifically to show this kind of search interface. Please feel free to ask me any questions about this example OFF list, please. Thanks, Clint

That has nothing to do with flash though, but rather bad movie design. Flash has support for tabbing between fields (and submitting the form on hitting enter). You can see an example here: http://www.markme.com/mxna/emaillink.cfm?id=E67CA192-A2FA-0E9B-DC5FC160C6E6460E mike chambers mesh@macromedia.com ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I'd love to see the code. Did you package it as a component? Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division Ok, here is a simplified version of what I did for my company. http://www.solowebworx.com/search.html Now, this is a quick example and not a FULL example of what I was talking about. If anyone is interested in the code, I will post a zip of it on my site. thanks, Clint > Unfortunately, There are a ton of Flash web sites, that are either media > centric, cartoon centric, or game centric, and there is a dearth of > business/commerce centric Flash sites. > > Referring a potential commercial client to the Macromedia.com or many of the > other "sample" Flash sites, which are full of slow loading, multiple popup > windows, and other absolutely useless functionality, while noisy and show pretty > animations and colors, will surely turn most of them completely off. > > There have been a very few (unfortunately) Web sites that use flash as an > adjunct to conventional commercial development languages, such as CFMX, CF 5.0, > PHP or even ASP can do much more IMHO, in creating a user friendly, well > designed, bandwidth conservative, presentation of the business entity, including > our by-words; "Dynamic data-driven web application" > > The competition is on for the most eye-catching presentation of the business > "face" done with the mission of bringing the client back often. I believe all of > the software publishers are throwing marketing (name-your-currency-here) to try > to corner the market where the big bucks are.  Be it .NET, ASP, ASPX, CF, CFMX, > PHP, and others. > > A web developer must keep in mind that all of these are tools to get the job > done.   The focus should be on doing the job and meeting the customer's needs. > Managers, frequently either fall for the marketing hype, or will choose a > technology based on the in-house skillsets.  I can quote example after example > of businesses that have wasted a tremendous amount of development money in > trying to develop in, or convert to a particular technology, just because it > seemed to be the "in" thing to do at the time, and was getting quite a bit of > attention in articles written in the various "free" trade publications., whose > focus changes from issue to issue. > > The practice of management dictating the technology before development starts, > is, in most cases, a costly, very costly mistake, and not only hurts the bottom > line, but wastes developer resources.  The previous sentence, I believe, is > probably the greatest contributor to developer unhappiness with his job, and > also contributes to developers moving from job to job.  Two very large scale > operations come to mind, but I will not name names here.   In one, the IT > manager dictated three years ago a complete switch from a ColdFusion data driven > web site, which included a high volume order entry and shopping cart, to pure > Java.   They had a twenty developer ColdFusion developer team, 18 of which have > since left the company, and the new technology has not yet been fully > implemented.  The two remaining CF coders, are kept busy with updates on the > existing site, but literally thousands upon thousands of dollars have been > thrown down a empty hole with little or no progress, mainly due to the moving > target of the adopted technology.   The other made a deal with Oracle for > enterprise licensing, and the attending Java hype, and is spending millions to > convert a Hodge-podge of database programs that previously worked well, but were > not integrated, and a blind insistence on writing all applications in pure Java, > which we all recognize is still a moving target. > > As a Macromedia User group manager, I have been exposed from among our > membership, all of the above.  We have a wide diversity of developer and > management types among our membership.  There are some really atrociously > designed web sites that, while full of eye candy, are really short on > functionality.  There are some web sites that function fairly well, but are > poorly organized and suffer from design effort.   Even fewer are the web sites > that bring together both design and functionality.  Each of us have that area in > which we excel, and that is a good thing, but all of us must widen our skills to > at least have a working knowledge of each technology, as it applied to the > project(s) in hand.   We must remain focused on the solution to the customer's > needs and wants, and should integrate their input every step of the way. > > Bottom, line, as one who is intimate with several technologies, and centered on > ColdFusion, I am still convinced, that while Flash has a niche place in > enterprise development, it is not the complete answer, and as CF install, > documentation and performance issues continue to be addressed, and the Red Sky > beta becomes a release, developers will come to recognize that CF is a very > reasonable and efficient alternative to these much-hyped new technologies. It > takes less lines of code to produce results than any of the other languages and > is considered by many a standard for Rapid Application Development (RAD) > > What is wrong with the KISS methodology?  (Keep It Simple, Stupid) > > I will stop here as I think I have gone over my 0.02 worth.  feel free to add or ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- difficult to > use.  It is my firm opinion that the vast majority of web users do not care for > this stuff.  It is meant to impress developers, techies and managers but it is > hopelessly unfriendly to the majority of users who simply want to accomplish a > task on a site.  They do not want to wait for these gee-whiz animations to load > or to figure out which widget does what--they just want to get what they are > there for, and making them wait while your site goes into these gyrations is > just bad business.  Who wants aggravated customers? > | > | Customer service always wins over gimmicks.  On the web, "speed and usability" > = good customer service, "splash pages and non-standard navigation" = bad > service. > | > | This is going to be hotly denounced by those who love the bleeding edge, but > plain HTML (black text, white BG, blue links, no fancy DHTML) is almost always > the best choice to let the user get what they want fast.  Unless your product IS > multimedia-based, or you are using Flash (or any other plugin/gizmo) to make > your service easier/faster to use or to provide some vital capabilities--like > enhanced form validation/processing--I wouldn't use it.  For whom do we develop > our web apps?  The developers or the users?  If you are an online business, > you'd better think about it!  Look at Yahoo and Google.  It's no coincidence ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Actually, Seth has a very valid point (perhaps more so than he realizes). While it is natural for us, as faithful pupils of Macromedia technologies, to promote and defend the product lines, it is important to keep an open mind about technology in general. The article that was acknowledged was not an open view. In fact, I have numerous other articles just like it from 1995, saying things like "The internet is a fad, and will not fade" and "it will never replace the way we do business". Well, guess what? It has... and as far as I can see... so will flash. I say this not from brainwashing, but from experience. I have recently been able to create an application that I never could come close to developing well in DHTML because of its real-time nature. The only other option I had was to build it in C++ or VB, and have every user download it. Flash facilitates many things, and merging conventional desktop apps with web apps is one of them. Try building a Napster in DHTML... How about MS Excel or Access? Not gonna happen. But in Flash it becomes quite easy. Flash is not mainly about allowing you to do things you could not do before... but about allowing you to do them faster and easier. Truthfully, most of what you see in Flash apps you could build in a Java Applet. But that is extremely difficult for a web developer to do. That is why Flash is REALLY THAT GOOD. Again, I do not defend flash because I was convinced about its future potential... but because of the Money it generates for me today. -Igor Quick Example: I buy the DCK (FireFly - Flash Connection kit w/ Remoting) for ($300) I run through Ben Forta's New article showing how to build a employee admin system. (2 hours)  http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/coldfusion/articles/data_conn.html I use the same exact components to build a user administration module for my client. (20 minutes) They love it... I Charge them $300 for the module, and continue to build more such apps.- In under 3 hours, and only 1 client, I just broke even on the DCK... Imagine how little time, and how much I can charge to get the rest of the Admin Application complete... All with the same code. Seth, What is interesting is that even though this article is 4 years old, all of his points are still valid. Sure Flash has new features but his points are in regards to how Flash is used, not what it's features are. -Jon Originally Published: September 1, 1999 Last Updated: April 26, 2000 Today: June 20, 2003  - a lot(stress that) has been added to flash since then This is a bit off topic but I wanted to ask this question specifically to this audience. There seems to be a sence that Flash is this awesome platform for rich internet applications that thats where "everything is going". All you hear about is how fast it is, how good looking it is, and so on. Maybe I'm the only one but Flash drives me crazy. Even though it has database connectivity, I still see it as a frustrating way to create needless animations. Maybe I'm wrong. I admit I have only got into Flash a little bit but every time I do, I end up asking myself why I am wasting my time with this tool. As application developers, do you take Flash seriously? Do you think it does or will ever make since to use it for your full blown applications? I just read over the message thread at: http://www.dack.com/web/flash_evil.html and I found it very interesting and I sort of agree with the author. He's also got an interesting usability test posted at: http://www.dack.com/web/flashVhtml/ I'm interested as to what you guys think. Thanks, Jon

> Really? Name just one UI component/paradigm that is possible > in Flash that isn't possible in DHTML. How about an org chart? http://www.figleaf.com/development/flash4/orgchart/orgchart.cfm (Actually, you could do this in DHTML, but it wouldn't be cross-browser, and it wouldn't work very well, and it would be expensive to support, and you'd lose all your hair.) How about a whiteboard? http://products.figleaf.com/ Good luck with that DHTML. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444

I have an interactive search that as you type filters the data that you see. This could be done in DHTML, but in NOT 10 minutes, NOT outside a browser, and NOT as easy to change as the Flash interface. Clint ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- and > it wouldn't work very well, and it would be expensive to support, and you'd ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I doubt the 10 minute figure, but with some forethought I could write a script that onKeyUp change the contents of an html widget fairly quickly. Say 20 minutes...I've done this in the past. Changing the look would be as easy as changing the css definition. -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net Friday, June 20, 2003, 11:22:54 AM, you wrote: C> I have an interactive search that as you type filters the data that you see. C> This could be done in DHTML, but in NOT 10 minutes, NOT outside a browser, C> and NOT as easy to change as the Flash interface. C> Clint C> ----- Original Message ----- C> From: "Dave Watts" <dwatts@figleaf.com> C> To: "CF-Talk" <cf-talk@houseoffusion.com> C> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:22 AM C> Subject: RE: Is Flash really THAT good? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- C> and >> it wouldn't work very well, and it would be expensive to support, and C> you'd ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- C>

How about running this app OUTSIDE the browser? AFAIK, DHTML cannot be run outside the browser, my Flash App can, and still talk to the database. All I am saying is that for some things, like applications(not entire websites that are content based), using Flash as the UI is going to be better than using HTML or DHTML. If anyone cares, I will post and an example of my search app to show you what I mean. Clint ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- see. > > C> This could be done in DHTML, but in NOT 10 minutes, NOT outside a browser, ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- cross-browser, ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I had forgotten to mention what Clint does below.. I have done quite a few little mini desktop flash apps that allow clients to modify products and e commerce products instead of opening a brower and such. They just mouse over a little icon hanging out on their desktop - it expands with some menu choices - they grab data from online and modify and add products. Has a powerful use. Clint wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I've always equated Flash movies with special effects in movies. The best special effects in movies are the ones you don't even know are there. Sometimes I'm on a site and I realize wow how'd they do that ... and then a right click on a certain area of the screen reveals its a Flash movie. Thats where I think Flash is best used. Something else that I wanted to mention... if you load a JPG in your browser, would you consider it to be a website? Probably not. If you load a quicktime movie in your browser, is that a web site? I would say "no". Same is true for a Java applet. By the same logic, I think that when a flash movie is loaded into a web browser and its the only thing on the page, its really not a "web site" but instead a Flash movie running in your browser. When I hear that someone is "doing a website in Flash", that never sits well with me. If you are building an application that doesn't use HTML, doesn't reload, can't be indexed by Google, doesn't even need to run in a web browser in the first place, is it really a web site or is it something else? If we were to all use Flash to build our internet applications, there would be no practical use for the web browser in the first place and suddenly the web is a propritary place. So the question I pose is this: If someone were to ask you to build them a website and your final product is a URL to a web page that runs a full page Flash movie, did you build them what they asked for? Did you build a website? Thoughts? -Jon

Can Flash be run outside of the Flash plugin? Uh no. Can you guarantee to me that the Flash plugin, and API will forever be free and open? Don't need the code...thanks though. -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net Friday, June 20, 2003, 11:36:31 AM, you wrote: C> How about running this app OUTSIDE the browser? AFAIK, DHTML cannot be run C> outside the browser, my Flash App can, and still talk to the database. C> All I am saying is that for some things, like applications(not entire C> websites that are content based), using Flash as the UI is going to be C> better than using HTML or DHTML. C> If anyone cares, I will post and an example of my search app to show you C> what I mean. C> Clint C> ----- Original Message ----- C> From: "jon hall" <jonhall@ozline.net> C> To: "CF-Talk" <cf-talk@houseoffusion.com> C> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:34 AM C> Subject: Re: Is Flash really THAT good? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- C> see. >> >> C> This could be done in DHTML, but in NOT 10 minutes, NOT outside a C> browser, ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

The fact of the matter is that Flash IS around now. The free plugin IS on almost every computer. Personally I think you should be updating your application. It is fool hearted to think that your application cannot be improved with the changing technology. Take a javascript/html based calculator written in 1995. It will still work in today's browsers (maybe... if you managed to avoid any of the thousands of changes made to JavaScript and HTML since, which is highly unlikely). Anyway, regardless of how unlikely it is, lets just say that its true. Now I come out with a flash bases calculator, which looks incredible, has some nifty little sounds, and overall provides a better user experience. Now the logic in both are exactly the same, but I think you'll agree the flash based application will be preferred by every user. Ford sold the model T for over 20 years, and claimed that no person would ever need more. Sure the technology behind the model T still holds true today, but I happen to enjoy power steering, brakes, windshield wipers... etc. (I recently heard a piece on Ford's 100 year history on NPR) Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division Can Flash be run outside of the Flash plugin? Uh no. Can you guarantee to me that the Flash plugin, and API will forever be free and open? Don't need the code...thanks though. -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net Friday, June 20, 2003, 11:36:31 AM, you wrote: C> How about running this app OUTSIDE the browser? AFAIK, DHTML cannot be run C> outside the browser, my Flash App can, and still talk to the database. C> All I am saying is that for some things, like applications(not entire C> websites that are content based), using Flash as the UI is going to be C> better than using HTML or DHTML. C> If anyone cares, I will post and an example of my search app to show you C> what I mean. C> Clint C> ----- Original Message ----- C> From: "jon hall" <jonhall@ozline.net> C> To: "CF-Talk" <cf-talk@houseoffusion.com> C> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:34 AM C> Subject: Re: Is Flash really THAT good? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- that you C> see. >> >> C> This could be done in DHTML, but in NOT 10 minutes, NOT outside a C> browser, ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

>I could write a script that onKeyUp change the contents of an html widget fairly Hmm. I tried the following code in IE6, MOZ1.1, and Opera6 and it didn't work in Opera6 <input type="Text" name="test" onkeyup="alert('yo');"> Flash will work in all 3 browsers. DHTML - 0 FLASH - 1 E

Ehh...onKeyPress then? I would think that would be self evident. jon Friday, June 20, 2003, 11:41:21 AM, you wrote: >>I could write a script that onKeyUp change the contents of an html widget fairly CD> Hmm. I tried the following code in IE6, MOZ1.1, and Opera6 and it didn't work in Opera6 CD> <input type="Text" name="test" onkeyup="alert('yo');"> CD> Flash will work in all 3 browsers. CD> DHTML - 0 CD> FLASH - 1 CD> E

Friday, June 20, 2003, 11:22:21 AM, you wrote: >> Really? Name just one UI component/paradigm that is possible >> in Flash that isn't possible in DHTML. DW> How about an org chart? DW> http://www.figleaf.com/development/flash4/orgchart/orgchart.cfm DW> (Actually, you could do this in DHTML, but it wouldn't be cross-browser, and DW> it wouldn't work very well, and it would be expensive to support, and you'd DW> lose all your hair.) Piece of cake...I can visualize the code, but no NS4 would not be supported, but IE5+, NS7+, and Opera would on their various platforms. DW> How about a whiteboard? DW> http://products.figleaf.com/ The UI could be done in DHTML fairly easily as well, the communications part could be done but inefficiently. The browser is not really suited for this kind of app though. The subject was UI though. DW> Good luck with that DHTML.

>The subject was UI though. I thought the topic was "Is flash really that good" and "Flash is evil", not flash doesn't look good.

Friday, June 20, 2003, 11:30:41 AM, you wrote: >>The subject was UI though. CD> I thought the topic was "Is flash really that good" and "Flash is evil", not flash doesn't look good. You are getting semantic. I'll spell it out though 1. The subject of the original post was what you say. 2. One of the reasons given for supporting the fact that, yes, Flash    really is that good, what that you could do stuff in Flash that was    practically impossible in DHTML. (This is true, but practically is    a relative term). The poster chose the word "you" instead of "I"    meaning that he felt that his statements were more than an opinion,    but fact. I took the opportunity to inject some truth. 3. I chose to take out of context the UI bit, and concentrate on that.    (my fault) should have addressed the cross-platform issue as well.    The subject of my sentence however, was the UI layer, which is    Flash. The root issue is that I don't believe that the future of the web should be defined by one company, whether I like that companies products or not. I've been floating around the internet since before the web existed, and it's been coming along nicely. I see no reason for us to sell it out for fancier user interfaces. -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net  

> Really? Name just one UI component/paradigm that is possible  in Flash that isn't possible in DHTML. The point I was making was that you can't take the EXACT same code from a DHTML app and run it in all of the browsers that support flash.  With flash you can. E

CF Dude wrote: > > The point I was making was that you can't take the EXACT same code from a DHTML app and run it in all of the browsers > that support flash.  With flash you can. Safari & Opera + new Macromedia website??? How quickly we forget. Jochem

>Safari I wish I had a MAC to test this, but I don't. >Opera + new Macromedia website??? On a pc, I went and only had a problem because I had JS turned off.  File / enable Javascript got me going.   I thought we were talking about flash E

CF Dude wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Search the archives for the complaints. The site has been changed after that and some progress has been made on making Flash work all the way on Opera and Safari, but when the Macromedia site was launched it was pretty much IE and Mozilla/Netscape only. Jochem

>Search the archives for the complaints. The site has been changed after that and some progress has been made on making Flash work all the way on Opera and Safari, but when the Macromedia site was launched it was pretty much IE and Mozilla/Netscape only. I was not aware of that.  I still think Flash has the upper hand on DHTML in most scenarios.

I am cautiously stepping into this conversation.. And I wish I had a different sample to post then my own - because I am sure their will be a issue or too... But - everyone just started tossing around "cool" and "pretty" sites - 2advanced etc, estudio, ego - I think these are typical of the 2000 to 2002 era.. certainly graphically inspiring  - but an odd url to post for "if flash is that good" - the demos don't show flash being used other than pretty animations. I don't know - the insides may be powerful database driven ria's - which I wouldn't be surprised.. but on surfing that site -it's all pretty. Except the ones that force full screen.. i will close the browser and refuse to visit any site that does that.. on triple monitors it is amazingly frustrating. I am NOT AT ALL comparing on of my sites to any others.. but I think where the power of flash really lies is in hybrid pages. One of my sites, www.speedpeople.com on the upper right side of the page has a vehicle search. I chose flash to drill through an access database.. to come up with acurate db results instead of pre querying lists and getting to a dead end - you know those "sorry - no match". I also avoided the walk through refresh issue.. I don't want a user to refresh all the same graphics on a page like that.. Let them drill down - and choose if they want to leave the page or find something new through the search. And impressive usage of a hybrid is http://www.westonfl.org/ - That has very useful information.. great interface, pretty on top of it.. and easy to use. I think there in lies the power of flash. I think if someone has to mention that they are angry at splash pages.. they perhaps haven't read any posts or updated flash since "future splash" or flash 4 even. Most are angry at splash pages.. and I find it amazing that flash still is fighting to seperate itself from that.. Jay Miller P.S. - Fantastic samples below Dave. As always amazing stuff. Dave Watts wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

>But - everyone just started tossing around "cool" and "pretty" sites - 2advanced etc, estudio, ego - I think these are typical of the 2000 to 2002 era.. certainly graphically inspiring  - but an odd url to post for "if flash is that good" - the demos don't show flash being used other than pretty animations. I don't know - the insides may be powerful database driven ria's - which I wouldn't be surprised.. but on surfing that site -it's all pretty. Yes I agree completely.  I was not prepared for the 'flash is bad' convo and therefore there were the only sites I could think of off the top of my head >Except the ones that force full screen.. i will close the browser and refuse to visit any site that does that.. on triple monitors it is amazingly frustrating. Don't even get me started. E

> Yeah, but this list is made up of developers and techies, not > johnSmith@aol.com. Yes, developers and techies who talk about using Flash and other technologies in the real world to deliver real apps for real users.  The list also includes many professionals who need to understand the needs of users/customers and apply their skills in the real business world. > F*&( the customer.  We're not talking about customers. Yikes!  Do you develop business-related web apps?  If so, double yikes! > Unfortunately, too many people see simple uses for flash, and not the good uses. Again, yikes!  Simple vs. good?  These are rarely opposites.  They are almost always synonymous. The "never mind the customer" and "fancy/complicated = good" mindset leads to user-unfriendly designs and--even worse from a business standpoint--lost customers.  It's OK among techies, but it's horrible in the business world. > the "vast majority of web users" probably don't even know what flash is. The point is users don't like being aggravated by poor designs, whether it's Flash, HTML, DHTML or some other unnecessary but "cool" gizmo.  Using Flash for its own sake or because you can do things that impress you and other developers does not mean it's appropriate for the "vast majority of web users", who usually make up your customer base.  When building business apps, a developer must keep their eye on the goal, not what thrills THEM as a developer.  But if Flash delivers something that cannot be delivered better (or at all) in another simpler/faster way, then use it.  But IMHO, using it like the sites you cited is not good design or business. Chris

F*&( the customer.  We're not talking about customers. >Yikes!  Do you develop business-related web apps?  If so, double yikes! I'll stand by what I said, but only in this context only. > Unfortunately, too many people see simple uses for flash, and not the good uses. >Again, yikes!  Simple vs. good?  These are rarely opposites.  They are almost always synonymous. Yes.  That was poor choice of wording (just like above) on my part because I was trying to describe the constant pop-ups/downs or over web site ads that seem to be the rage right now. >The "never mind the customer" and "fancy/complicated = good" mindset leads to user-unfriendly designs and--even worse from a business standpoint--lost customers.  It's OK among techies, but it's horrible in the business world. Yes, the sites I submitted fall into this category, and despite my earlier customer comment, I like lists like this because I consider it mostly if not only techies.

"I see no reason for us to sell it out for fancier user interfaces." Did you say that when Mosaic came along, why didn't you stick with Lynx? Friday, June 20, 2003, 11:30:41 AM, you wrote: >>The subject was UI though. CD> I thought the topic was "Is flash really that good" and "Flash is evil", not flash doesn't look good. You are getting semantic. I'll spell it out though 1. The subject of the original post was what you say. 2. One of the reasons given for supporting the fact that, yes, Flash    really is that good, what that you could do stuff in Flash that was    practically impossible in DHTML. (This is true, but practically is    a relative term). The poster chose the word "you" instead of "I"    meaning that he felt that his statements were more than an opinion,    but fact. I took the opportunity to inject some truth. 3. I chose to take out of context the UI bit, and concentrate on that.    (my fault) should have addressed the cross-platform issue as well.    The subject of my sentence however, was the UI layer, which is    Flash. The root issue is that I don't believe that the future of the web should be defined by one company, whether I like that companies products or not. I've been floating around the internet since before the web existed, and it's been coming along nicely. I see no reason for us to sell it out for fancier user interfaces. -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net  

I did...I didn't go Windows, X or otherwise, until Win95b (Memphis). Besides, I think stuff like http://www.csszengarden.com/ is incredible and quite "fancy" enough for any site, application or content oriented. -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net Friday, June 20, 2003, 12:07:08 PM, you wrote: TS> "I see no reason for us to sell it out for fancier user interfaces." TS> Did you say that when Mosaic came along, why didn't you stick with Lynx? TS> -----Original Message----- TS TS> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:50 AM TS> To: CF-Talk TS> Subject: Re: Is Flash really THAT good? TS> Friday, June 20, 2003, 11:30:41 AM, you wrote: >>>The subject was UI though. CD>> I thought the topic was "Is flash really that good" and "Flash is evil", not flash doesn't look good. TS> You are getting semantic. I'll spell it out though TS> 1. The subject of the original post was what you say. TS> 2. One of the reasons given for supporting the fact that, yes, Flash TS>    really is that good, what that you could do stuff in Flash that was TS>    practically impossible in DHTML. (This is true, but practically is TS>    a relative term). The poster chose the word "you" instead of "I" TS>    meaning that he felt that his statements were more than an opinion, TS>    but fact. I took the opportunity to inject some truth. TS> 3. I chose to take out of context the UI bit, and concentrate on that. TS>    (my fault) should have addressed the cross-platform issue as well. TS>    The subject of my sentence however, was the UI layer, which is TS>    Flash. TS> The root issue is that I don't believe that the future of the web TS> should be defined by one company, whether I like that companies TS> products or not. I've been floating around the internet since before TS> the web existed, and it's been coming along nicely. I see no reason TS> for us to sell it out for fancier user interfaces.

I feel that flash is a good TOOL to extend the functionality or design of an application.  When used as a tool, flash is very powerful and has it's place.  It is when it is abused that it becomes combersome.  I equate it to using a hammer to drive screws; when you use the right tool, you'll get the desired results. I've always equated Flash movies with special effects in movies. The best special effects in movies are the ones you don't even know are there. Sometimes I'm on a site and I realize wow how'd they do that ... and then a right click on a certain area of the screen reveals its a Flash movie. Thats where I think Flash is best used. Something else that I wanted to mention... if you load a JPG in your browser, would you consider it to be a website? Probably not. If you load a quicktime movie in your browser, is that a web site? I would say "no". Same is true for a Java applet. By the same logic, I think that when a flash movie is loaded into a web browser and its the only thing on the page, its really not a "web site" but instead a Flash movie running in your browser. When I hear that someone is "doing a website in Flash", that never sits well with me. If you are building an application that doesn't use HTML, doesn't reload, can't be indexed by Google, doesn't even need to run in a web browser in the first place, is it really a web site or is it something else? If we were to all use Flash to build our internet applications, there would be no practical use for the web browser in the first place and suddenly the web is a propritary place. So the question I pose is this: If someone were to ask you to build them a website and your final product is a URL to a web page that runs a full page Flash movie, did you build them what they asked for? Did you build a website? Thoughts? -Jon

<cfinclude template="kaczynski_joke.cfm"> too tired to think of it myself i think as developers we should accept trends in technology, not fight them off.   this is why developers read other developers' blogs, to keep current. as for the site you sent, sure it's nice and somewhat soothing and no i wouldn't make it into a flash movie as it doesn't do anything.  i'm not defending flash as an animation tool, but as a tool that can do much much more. I did...I didn't go Windows, X or otherwise, until Win95b (Memphis). Besides, I think stuff like http://www.csszengarden.com/ is incredible and quite "fancy" enough for any site, application or content oriented. -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net Friday, June 20, 2003, 12:07:08 PM, you wrote: TS> "I see no reason for us to sell it out for fancier user interfaces." TS> Did you say that when Mosaic came along, why didn't you stick with Lynx? TS> -----Original Message----- TS TS> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:50 AM TS> To: CF-Talk TS> Subject: Re: Is Flash really THAT good? TS> Friday, June 20, 2003, 11:30:41 AM, you wrote: >>>The subject was UI though. CD>> I thought the topic was "Is flash really that good" and "Flash is evil", not flash doesn't look good. TS> You are getting semantic. I'll spell it out though TS> 1. The subject of the original post was what you say. TS> 2. One of the reasons given for supporting the fact that, yes, Flash TS>    really is that good, what that you could do stuff in Flash that was TS>    practically impossible in DHTML. (This is true, but practically is TS>    a relative term). The poster chose the word "you" instead of "I" TS>    meaning that he felt that his statements were more than an opinion, TS>    but fact. I took the opportunity to inject some truth. TS> 3. I chose to take out of context the UI bit, and concentrate on that. TS>    (my fault) should have addressed the cross-platform issue as well. TS>    The subject of my sentence however, was the UI layer, which is TS>    Flash. TS> The root issue is that I don't believe that the future of the web TS> should be defined by one company, whether I like that companies TS> products or not. I've been floating around the internet since before TS> the web existed, and it's been coming along nicely. I see no reason TS> for us to sell it out for fancier user interfaces.

I disagree, I think it's our duty to fight off trends in technology that are focused more on marketing than on getting stuff done more efficiently (I don't think Flash necessarily fits in this category). That's why computers were invented, and that's why I buy books on Amazon instead of going down to the book store. So, whether or not I end up a flash partisan after Royale comes out...I feel the negatives and positives of any technology that affects out industry should be argued about ad nauseum by us. If we don't do it, no one else will, because no one else understands the technology. -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net Friday, June 20, 2003, 12:40:07 PM, you wrote: TS> <cfinclude template="kaczynski_joke.cfm"> too tired to think of it myself TS> i think as developers we should accept trends in technology, not fight them off.  this is why developers read other developers' blogs, to keep current. TS> as for the site you sent, sure it's nice and somewhat soothing and no i wouldn't make it into a flash movie as it doesn't do anything.  i'm not defending flash as an animation tool, but as a tool TS> that can do much much more. TS> -----Original Message----- TS TS> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:21 PM TS> To: CF-Talk TS> Subject: Re: Is Flash really THAT good? TS> I did...I didn't go Windows, X or otherwise, until Win95b (Memphis). TS> Besides, I think stuff like http://www.csszengarden.com/ is TS> incredible and quite "fancy" enough for any site, application or TS> content oriented.

Yes. We just need to make sure that we separate the technology, from implementations of the technology. A bad implementation does not mean that the technology itself is bad. my two cents... mike chambers mesh@macromedia.com ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I agree with you on that one! Discover card has a little desktop app. Flash or generator. You have to tab 2x to get from username to Password and enter doesn't work, you have to click submit. PITA I personally dislike flash forms where you can't tab from field to field, and when you hit "enter" with the cursor in any of the fields, the form won't submit. That in my experience is the way users are "trained" to use a form. Greg Ok, here is a simplified version of what I did for my company. http://www.solowebworx.com/search.html Now, this is a quick example and not a FULL example of what I was talking about. If anyone is interested in the code, I will post a zip of it on my site. thanks, Clint > Unfortunately, There are a ton of Flash web sites, that are either > media centric, cartoon centric, or game centric, and there is a dearth > of business/commerce centric Flash sites. > > Referring a potential commercial client to the Macromedia.com or many > of the > other "sample" Flash sites, which are full of slow loading, multiple > popup windows, and other absolutely useless functionality, while noisy > and show pretty > animations and colors, will surely turn most of them completely off. > > There have been a very few (unfortunately) Web sites that use flash as > an adjunct to conventional commercial development languages, such as > CFMX, CF 5.0, > PHP or even ASP can do much more IMHO, in creating a user friendly, > well designed, bandwidth conservative, presentation of the business > entity, including > our by-words; "Dynamic data-driven web application" > > The competition is on for the most eye-catching presentation of the business > "face" done with the mission of bringing the client back often. I > believe all of > the software publishers are throwing marketing > (name-your-currency-here) to try > to corner the market where the big bucks are.  Be it .NET, ASP, ASPX, > CF, CFMX, > PHP, and others. > > A web developer must keep in mind that all of these are tools to get > the job > done.   The focus should be on doing the job and meeting the customer's needs. > Managers, frequently either fall for the marketing hype, or will > choose a technology based on the in-house skillsets.  I can quote > example after example > of businesses that have wasted a tremendous amount of development > money in trying to develop in, or convert to a particular technology, > just because it > seemed to be the "in" thing to do at the time, and was getting quite a > bit of > attention in articles written in the various "free" trade > publications., whose > focus changes from issue to issue. > > The practice of management dictating the technology before development starts, > is, in most cases, a costly, very costly mistake, and not only hurts > the bottom > line, but wastes developer resources.  The previous sentence, I > believe, is > probably the greatest contributor to developer unhappiness with his > job, and > also contributes to developers moving from job to job.  Two very large scale > operations come to mind, but I will not name names here.   In one, the IT > manager dictated three years ago a complete switch from a ColdFusion > data driven > web site, which included a high volume order entry and shopping cart, > to pure > Java.   They had a twenty developer ColdFusion developer team, 18 of which have > since left the company, and the new technology has not yet been fully > implemented.  The two remaining CF coders, are kept busy with updates > on the > existing site, but literally thousands upon thousands of dollars have > been thrown down a empty hole with little or no progress, mainly due > to the moving > target of the adopted technology.   The other made a deal with Oracle for > enterprise licensing, and the attending Java hype, and is spending millions to > convert a Hodge-podge of database programs that previously worked > well, but were > not integrated, and a blind insistence on writing all applications in > pure Java, ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- are > poorly organized and suffer from design effort.   Even fewer are the web sites > that bring together both design and functionality.  Each of us have > that area in > which we excel, and that is a good thing, but all of us must widen our skills to > at least have a working knowledge of each technology, as it applied to the > project(s) in hand.   We must remain focused on the solution to the customer's > needs and wants, and should integrate their input every step of the > way. > > Bottom, line, as one who is intimate with several technologies, and centered on > ColdFusion, I am still convinced, that while Flash has a niche place > in enterprise development, it is not the complete answer, and as CF > install, documentation and performance issues continue to be > addressed, and the Red Sky > beta becomes a release, developers will come to recognize that CF is a very > reasonable and efficient alternative to these much-hyped new > technologies. It > takes less lines of code to produce results than any of the other languages and > is considered by many a standard for Rapid Application Development > (RAD) > > What is wrong with the KISS methodology?  (Keep It Simple, Stupid) > > I will stop here as I think I have gone over my 0.02 worth.  feel free > to add or ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- to > use.  It is my firm opinion that the vast majority of web users do not care for > this stuff.  It is meant to impress developers, techies and managers > but it is > hopelessly unfriendly to the majority of users who simply want to accomplish a > task on a site.  They do not want to wait for these gee-whiz > animations to load > or to figure out which widget does what--they just want to get what > they are > there for, and making them wait while your site goes into these > gyrations is > just bad business.  Who wants aggravated customers? > | > | Customer service always wins over gimmicks.  On the web, "speed and usability" > = good customer service, "splash pages and non-standard navigation" = > bad service. > | > | This is going to be hotly denounced by those who love the bleeding > | edge, but > plain HTML (black text, white BG, blue links, no fancy DHTML) is > almost always > the best choice to let the user get what they want fast.  Unless your product IS > multimedia-based, or you are using Flash (or any other plugin/gizmo) > to make > your service easier/faster to use or to provide some vital capabilities--like > enhanced form validation/processing--I wouldn't use it.  For whom do > we develop > our web apps?  The developers or the users?  If you are an online business, > you'd better think about it!  Look at Yahoo and Google.  It's no coincidence ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Again, bad design. Here is the code necessary to add tabbing and enter support. ------- userNameField.tabIndex = 0; passWordField.tabIndex = 1; Object listener = new Object(); listener.onKeyDown = function() {     if(Key.getCode() == Key.ENTER)     {         submitForm();     } } Key.addListener(listener); --------- mike chambers mesh@macromedia.com > I agree with you on that one! Discover card has a little desktop app. Flash > or generator. You have to tab 2x to get from username to Password and enter > doesn't work, you have to click submit. PITA

These are things a good developer handles for. Tab controls are certainly easy to add to a form in Flash. M I personally dislike flash forms where you can't tab from field to field, and when you hit "enter" with the cursor in any of the fields, the form won't submit. That in my experience is the way users are "trained" to use a form. Greg Ok, here is a simplified version of what I did for my company. http://www.solowebworx.com/search.html Now, this is a quick example and not a FULL example of what I was talking about. If anyone is interested in the code, I will post a zip of it on my site. thanks, Clint > Unfortunately, There are a ton of Flash web sites, that are either > media centric, cartoon centric, or game centric, and there is a dearth > of business/commerce centric Flash sites. > > Referring a potential commercial client to the Macromedia.com or many > of the > other "sample" Flash sites, which are full of slow loading, multiple > popup windows, and other absolutely useless functionality, while noisy > and show pretty > animations and colors, will surely turn most of them completely off. > > There have been a very few (unfortunately) Web sites that use flash as > an adjunct to conventional commercial development languages, such as > CFMX, CF 5.0, > PHP or even ASP can do much more IMHO, in creating a user friendly, > well designed, bandwidth conservative, presentation of the business > entity, including > our by-words; "Dynamic data-driven web application" > > The competition is on for the most eye-catching presentation of the business > "face" done with the mission of bringing the client back often. I > believe all of > the software publishers are throwing marketing > (name-your-currency-here) to try > to corner the market where the big bucks are.  Be it .NET, ASP, ASPX, > CF, CFMX, > PHP, and others. > > A web developer must keep in mind that all of these are tools to get > the job > done.   The focus should be on doing the job and meeting the customer's needs. > Managers, frequently either fall for the marketing hype, or will > choose a technology based on the in-house skillsets.  I can quote > example after example > of businesses that have wasted a tremendous amount of development > money in trying to develop in, or convert to a particular technology, > just because it > seemed to be the "in" thing to do at the time, and was getting quite a > bit of > attention in articles written in the various "free" trade > publications., whose > focus changes from issue to issue. > > The practice of management dictating the technology before development starts, > is, in most cases, a costly, very costly mistake, and not only hurts > the bottom > line, but wastes developer resources.  The previous sentence, I > believe, is > probably the greatest contributor to developer unhappiness with his > job, and > also contributes to developers moving from job to job.  Two very large scale > operations come to mind, but I will not name names here.   In one, the IT > manager dictated three years ago a complete switch from a ColdFusion > data driven > web site, which included a high volume order entry and shopping cart, > to pure > Java.   They had a twenty developer ColdFusion developer team, 18 of which have > since left the company, and the new technology has not yet been fully > implemented.  The two remaining CF coders, are kept busy with updates > on the > existing site, but literally thousands upon thousands of dollars have > been thrown down a empty hole with little or no progress, mainly due > to the moving > target of the adopted technology.   The other made a deal with Oracle for > enterprise licensing, and the attending Java hype, and is spending millions to > convert a Hodge-podge of database programs that previously worked > well, but were > not integrated, and a blind insistence on writing all applications in > pure Java, ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- are > poorly organized and suffer from design effort.   Even fewer are the web sites > that bring together both design and functionality.  Each of us have > that area in > which we excel, and that is a good thing, but all of us must widen our skills to > at least have a working knowledge of each technology, as it applied to the > project(s) in hand.   We must remain focused on the solution to the customer's > needs and wants, and should integrate their input every step of the > way. > > Bottom, line, as one who is intimate with several technologies, and centered on > ColdFusion, I am still convinced, that while Flash has a niche place > in enterprise development, it is not the complete answer, and as CF > install, documentation and performance issues continue to be > addressed, and the Red Sky > beta becomes a release, developers will come to recognize that CF is a very > reasonable and efficient alternative to these much-hyped new > technologies. It > takes less lines of code to produce results than any of the other languages and > is considered by many a standard for Rapid Application Development > (RAD) > > What is wrong with the KISS methodology?  (Keep It Simple, Stupid) > > I will stop here as I think I have gone over my 0.02 worth.  feel free > to add or ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- to > use.  It is my firm opinion that the vast majority of web users do not care for > this stuff.  It is meant to impress developers, techies and managers > but it is > hopelessly unfriendly to the majority of users who simply want to accomplish a > task on a site.  They do not want to wait for these gee-whiz > animations to load > or to figure out which widget does what--they just want to get what > they are > there for, and making them wait while your site goes into these > gyrations is > just bad business.  Who wants aggravated customers? > | > | Customer service always wins over gimmicks.  On the web, "speed and usability" > = good customer service, "splash pages and non-standard navigation" = > bad service. > | > | This is going to be hotly denounced by those who love the bleeding > | edge, but > plain HTML (black text, white BG, blue links, no fancy DHTML) is > almost always > the best choice to let the user get what they want fast.  Unless your product IS > multimedia-based, or you are using Flash (or any other plugin/gizmo) > to make > your service easier/faster to use or to provide some vital capabilities--like > enhanced form validation/processing--I wouldn't use it.  For whom do > we develop > our web apps?  The developers or the users?  If you are an online business, > you'd better think about it!  Look at Yahoo and Google.  It's no coincidence ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

true true. I think it just is easy to not go that extra mile and those are the sites that incur this terrible reputation for flash. These are things a good developer handles for. Tab controls are certainly easy to add to a form in Flash. M I personally dislike flash forms where you can't tab from field to field, and when you hit "enter" with the cursor in any of the fields, the form won't submit. That in my experience is the way users are "trained" to use a form. Greg Ok, here is a simplified version of what I did for my company. http://www.solowebworx.com/search.html Now, this is a quick example and not a FULL example of what I was talking about. If anyone is interested in the code, I will post a zip of it on my site. thanks, Clint > Unfortunately, There are a ton of Flash web sites, that are either > media centric, cartoon centric, or game centric, and there is a dearth > of business/commerce centric Flash sites. > > Referring a potential commercial client to the Macromedia.com or many > of the > other "sample" Flash sites, which are full of slow loading, multiple > popup windows, and other absolutely useless functionality, while noisy > and show pretty > animations and colors, will surely turn most of them completely off. > > There have been a very few (unfortunately) Web sites that use flash as > an adjunct to conventional commercial development languages, such as > CFMX, CF 5.0, > PHP or even ASP can do much more IMHO, in creating a user friendly, > well designed, bandwidth conservative, presentation of the business > entity, including > our by-words; "Dynamic data-driven web application" > > The competition is on for the most eye-catching presentation of the business > "face" done with the mission of bringing the client back often. I > believe all of > the software publishers are throwing marketing > (name-your-currency-here) to try > to corner the market where the big bucks are.  Be it .NET, ASP, ASPX, > CF, CFMX, > PHP, and others. > > A web developer must keep in mind that all of these are tools to get > the job > done.   The focus should be on doing the job and meeting the customer's needs. > Managers, frequently either fall for the marketing hype, or will > choose a technology based on the in-house skillsets.  I can quote > example after example > of businesses that have wasted a tremendous amount of development > money in trying to develop in, or convert to a particular technology, > just because it > seemed to be the "in" thing to do at the time, and was getting quite a > bit of > attention in articles written in the various "free" trade > publications., whose > focus changes from issue to issue. > > The practice of management dictating the technology before development starts, > is, in most cases, a costly, very costly mistake, and not only hurts > the bottom > line, but wastes developer resources.  The previous sentence, I > believe, is > probably the greatest contributor to developer unhappiness with his > job, and > also contributes to developers moving from job to job.  Two very large scale > operations come to mind, but I will not name names here.   In one, the IT > manager dictated three years ago a complete switch from a ColdFusion > data driven > web site, which included a high volume order entry and shopping cart, > to pure > Java.   They had a twenty developer ColdFusion developer team, 18 of which have > since left the company, and the new technology has not yet been fully > implemented.  The two remaining CF coders, are kept busy with updates > on the > existing site, but literally thousands upon thousands of dollars have > been thrown down a empty hole with little or no progress, mainly due > to the moving > target of the adopted technology.   The other made a deal with Oracle for > enterprise licensing, and the attending Java hype, and is spending millions to > convert a Hodge-podge of database programs that previously worked > well, but were > not integrated, and a blind insistence on writing all applications in > pure Java, ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- are > poorly organized and suffer from design effort.   Even fewer are the web sites > that bring together both design and functionality.  Each of us have > that area in > which we excel, and that is a good thing, but all of us must widen our skills to > at least have a working knowledge of each technology, as it applied to the > project(s) in hand.   We must remain focused on the solution to the customer's > needs and wants, and should integrate their input every step of the > way. > > Bottom, line, as one who is intimate with several technologies, and centered on > ColdFusion, I am still convinced, that while Flash has a niche place > in enterprise development, it is not the complete answer, and as CF > install, documentation and performance issues continue to be > addressed, and the Red Sky > beta becomes a release, developers will come to recognize that CF is a very > reasonable and efficient alternative to these much-hyped new > technologies. It > takes less lines of code to produce results than any of the other languages and > is considered by many a standard for Rapid Application Development > (RAD) > > What is wrong with the KISS methodology?  (Keep It Simple, Stupid) > > I will stop here as I think I have gone over my 0.02 worth.  feel free > to add or ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- to > use.  It is my firm opinion that the vast majority of web users do not care for > this stuff.  It is meant to impress developers, techies and managers > but it is > hopelessly unfriendly to the majority of users who simply want to accomplish a > task on a site.  They do not want to wait for these gee-whiz > animations to load > or to figure out which widget does what--they just want to get what > they are > there for, and making them wait while your site goes into these > gyrations is > just bad business.  Who wants aggravated customers? > | > | Customer service always wins over gimmicks.  On the web, "speed and usability" > = good customer service, "splash pages and non-standard navigation" = > bad service. > | > | This is going to be hotly denounced by those who love the bleeding > | edge, but > plain HTML (black text, white BG, blue links, no fancy DHTML) is > almost always > the best choice to let the user get what they want fast.  Unless your product IS > multimedia-based, or you are using Flash (or any other plugin/gizmo) > to make > your service easier/faster to use or to provide some vital capabilities--like > enhanced form validation/processing--I wouldn't use it.  For whom do > we develop > our web apps?  The developers or the users?  If you are an online business, > you'd better think about it!  Look at Yahoo and Google.  It's no coincidence ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

So is this: http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail57.html ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Well, these days I don't know if even that is true. There are a lot of good sites being done by good developers that are really slick in how they handle, where things like tab stops are the least of what they handle for. The problem, IMHO, is that not enough people 'see' RIAs. They are not ubiquitous, there are no big RIA sites the general public visits (MM  is not a site for the general public), and there are many, many brocureware-style projects out there for each application oriented project. The perception of Flash these days is still that of about two or three years ago. I would love it if a big auto company, a major online retailer, or someone that the general public sees would switch to an RIA. M true true. I think it just is easy to not go that extra mile and those are the sites that incur this terrible reputation for flash.

example:  i work for a large company, car rides home are free after a certain hour since public transp is deemed unsafe...previously the dispatcher was doing this all by paper, i wrote a flash app on a PocketPC for him, now he scans id cards and a barcode on the car into a flash form, gets about a hundred of these.   submits them all, gets stored locally(no internet connection), synches it up at night...done with sharedObjects in Flash and remoting.  we looked at other ways to do this, and flash was the easiest and quickest way to get this going for him. so you can say flash doesn't make things more efficient...but you'd be wrong I disagree, I think it's our duty to fight off trends in technology that are focused more on marketing than on getting stuff done more efficiently (I don't think Flash necessarily fits in this category). That's why computers were invented, and that's why I buy books on Amazon instead of going down to the book store. So, whether or not I end up a flash partisan after Royale comes out...I feel the negatives and positives of any technology that affects out industry should be argued about ad nauseum by us. If we don't do it, no one else will, because no one else understands the technology. -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net Friday, June 20, 2003, 12:40:07 PM, you wrote: TS> <cfinclude template="kaczynski_joke.cfm"> too tired to think of it myself TS> i think as developers we should accept trends in technology, not fight them off.  this is why developers read other developers' blogs, to keep current. TS> as for the site you sent, sure it's nice and somewhat soothing and no i wouldn't make it into a flash movie as it doesn't do anything.  i'm not defending flash as an animation tool, but as a tool TS> that can do much much more. TS> -----Original Message----- TS TS> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:21 PM TS> To: CF-Talk TS> Subject: Re: Is Flash really THAT good? TS> I did...I didn't go Windows, X or otherwise, until Win95b (Memphis). TS> Besides, I think stuff like http://www.csszengarden.com/ is TS> incredible and quite "fancy" enough for any site, application or TS> content oriented.

Friday, June 20, 2003, 1:32:25 PM, you wrote: TS> example:  i work for a large company, car rides home are free after a certain hour since public transp is deemed unsafe...previously the dispatcher was doing this all by paper, i wrote a flash TS> app on a PocketPC for him, now he scans id cards and a barcode on the car into a flash form, gets about a hundred of these.  submits them all, gets stored locally(no internet connection), synches TS> it up at night...done with sharedObjects in Flash and remoting.  we looked at other ways to do this, and flash was the easiest and quickest way to get this going for him. Look at the developer exchange. It takes me longer than it used to to find what I want to in order to download it than it did before, even on Allaire's old overloaded servers. It wont even work at all for people who don't have permission to install plugins on their work computers. TS> so you can say flash doesn't make things more efficient...but you'd be wrong per example above, I can say it makes things (another relative term) less efficient...and be right as well. I happen to think MM.com's use of MX is pretty much state of the art as well, and it's not working more efficiently (from my pov) than it did before all the time and money were invested in it. It follows that the majority of other implementations will have similar problems. TS> -----Original Message----- TS TS> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:26 PM TS> To: CF-Talk TS> Subject: Re: Is Flash really THAT good? TS> I disagree, I think it's our duty to fight off trends in technology TS> that are focused more on marketing than on getting stuff done more TS> efficiently (I don't think Flash necessarily fits in this category). TS> That's why computers were invented, and that's why I buy books on TS> Amazon instead of going down to the book store. TS> So, whether or not I end up a flash partisan after Royale comes TS> out...I feel the negatives and positives of any technology that TS> affects out industry should be argued about ad nauseum by us. TS> If we don't do it, no one else will, because no one else understands TS> the technology.

> As for non-standard navigation, what make flash navigation > non-standard > in compared to HTML. What is standard navigation anyhow? Standard > navigation doesn't exist. It's just a concept. I don't agree.  Blue, underlined text is nearly universally understood as a clickable link, and the vast majority of users recognize a standard HTML button widget.  These are instantly recognizable and usable.  I'd argue that for all practical purposes this is as close to a standard as you can get. Using different link styles, custom buttons and clickable "hot spots" is nonstandard, and forces the user to learn how to use the app.  Make the widgets different enough, and users just won't do it.  Unless the site is the only place to get what they want, they will go find another site that is easier to use.  And this is especially true of the non-techie "johndoe@aol.com"s who makes up a large portion of the user/customer pool. So why put a user through it?  They want fast and easy to use.  What's wrong with giving them what they want?  And a simple way to do that is to stick as closely as possible to design "standards". I love the ease of use at Google and am thankful that they don't force me to endure their idea of an "experience" to get what I want.  They use standard navigation links and buttons and my user experience is great. Chris

Blue, underlined text is hardly navigation. That's just a common identifier for a link, which in HTML is an action, not necessarily navigation. A link can do a number of things like execute a javascript function or dhtml. Google, since you mention how standard it is, does not use this for it's core navigation. Web, Images, Groups, Directory, and News (The four categories of google) are represented with blue text in a box. If selected the box is blue, if not it's gray. This is hardly a standard, but none the less is effective because users are familiar with tabular menus. Users however familiar with blue underline text (the majority of site on the internet apply different colors, so I'd say the universal sign of a link is just the underline), are also familiar with a drop down window. They are familiar with side bar menus and horizontal tabs. Every site, whether flash or html, navigate completely different. From how the menu is displayed, to how it's organized. This is what I mean by no such thing a standard navigation. However, I think the closest thing you could call standard navigation is underlined test links centered at the bottom of a page. It's an extremely common practice, but not very effective. Could you imagine having to scroll to the bottom of each page to navigate a site? Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division > As for non-standard navigation, what make flash navigation > non-standard > in compared to HTML. What is standard navigation anyhow? Standard > navigation doesn't exist. It's just a concept. I don't agree.  Blue, underlined text is nearly universally understood as a clickable link, and the vast majority of users recognize a standard HTML button widget.  These are instantly recognizable and usable.  I'd argue that for all practical purposes this is as close to a standard as you can get. Using different link styles, custom buttons and clickable "hot spots" is nonstandard, and forces the user to learn how to use the app.  Make the widgets different enough, and users just won't do it.  Unless the site is the only place to get what they want, they will go find another site that is easier to use.  And this is especially true of the non-techie "johndoe@aol.com"s who makes up a large portion of the user/customer pool. So why put a user through it?  They want fast and easy to use.  What's wrong with giving them what they want?  And a simple way to do that is to stick as closely as possible to design "standards". I love the ease of use at Google and am thankful that they don't force me to endure their idea of an "experience" to get what I want.  They use standard navigation links and buttons and my user experience is great. Chris

There have been numerous scientific studies and papers on web site navigation and user experience, which suggest the user does expect a certain standard navigation. Vertical-Left, and Horizontal-Upper-Right are where most users expect the nav to be. I can't recall a "look" study offhand but it probably exists out there. Search on Google. boxesandarrows.com is a good place to look as well. -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net Friday, June 20, 2003, 2:01:47 PM, you wrote: AWL> Blue, underlined text is hardly navigation. That's just a common AWL> identifier for a link, which in HTML is an action, not necessarily AWL> navigation. A link can do a number of things like execute a javascript AWL> function or dhtml. AWL> Google, since you mention how standard it is, does not use this for it's AWL> core navigation. Web, Images, Groups, Directory, and News (The four AWL> categories of google) are represented with blue text in a box. If AWL> selected the box is blue, if not it's gray. This is hardly a standard, AWL> but none the less is effective because users are familiar with tabular AWL> menus. AWL> Users however familiar with blue underline text (the majority of site on AWL> the internet apply different colors, so I'd say the universal sign of a AWL> link is just the underline), are also familiar with a drop down window. AWL> They are familiar with side bar menus and horizontal tabs. AWL> Every site, whether flash or html, navigate completely different. From AWL> how the menu is displayed, to how it's organized. This is what I mean by AWL> no such thing a standard navigation. AWL> However, I think the closest thing you could call standard navigation is AWL> underlined test links centered at the bottom of a page. It's an AWL> extremely common practice, but not very effective. Could you imagine AWL> having to scroll to the bottom of each page to navigate a site? AWL> Adam Wayne Lehman AWL> Web Systems Developer AWL> Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health AWL> Distance Education Division AWL> -----Original Message----- AWL AWL> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:36 PM AWL> To: CF-Talk AWL> Subject: RE: Is Flash really THAT good? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- AWL> I don't agree.  Blue, underlined text is nearly universally understood AWL> as a clickable link, and the vast majority of users recognize a standard AWL> HTML button widget.  These are instantly recognizable and usable.  I'd AWL> argue that for all practical purposes this is as close to a standard as AWL> you can get. AWL> Using different link styles, custom buttons and clickable "hot spots" is AWL> nonstandard, and forces the user to learn how to use the app.  Make the AWL> widgets different enough, and users just won't do it.  Unless the site AWL> is the only place to get what they want, they will go find another site AWL> that is easier to use.  And this is especially true of the non-techie AWL> "johndoe@aol.com"s who makes up a large portion of the user/customer AWL> pool. AWL> So why put a user through it?  They want fast and easy to use.  What's AWL> wrong with giving them what they want?  And a simple way to do that is AWL> to stick as closely as possible to design "standards". AWL> I love the ease of use at Google and am thankful that they don't force AWL> me to endure their idea of an "experience" to get what I want.  They use AWL> standard navigation links and buttons and my user experience is great. AWL> Chris AWL>

Yes, I complete agree that users expect some navigation. I just disagree that there is a standard. Vertical-left, horizontal-upper-right, horizontal top, horizontal-top with drop down... only one can be the standard. I think we're confusing what's traditional and what's a standard. To bring it back to flash, the same types of navigation schemes listed above are used in flash also. The traditions/standards above are universal to all application design, not just the browser and web sites. I'm all up on boxesandarrows.com. Great site, but you'll notice, they don't underline their links. Nor are they the traditional blue. But to keep this inline with what were talking about, I just don't see any standard navigation, just traditional approaches. Regardless, whether its in a browser, a flash plugin, or a windows form, it's the designer who defines navigation. Not the medium. (Which is what I think we're talking about) Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division There have been numerous scientific studies and papers on web site navigation and user experience, which suggest the user does expect a certain standard navigation. Vertical-Left, and Horizontal-Upper-Right are where most users expect the nav to be. I can't recall a "look" study offhand but it probably exists out there. Search on Google. boxesandarrows.com is a good place to look as well. -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net Friday, June 20, 2003, 2:01:47 PM, you wrote: AWL> Blue, underlined text is hardly navigation. That's just a common AWL> identifier for a link, which in HTML is an action, not necessarily AWL> navigation. A link can do a number of things like execute a javascript AWL> function or dhtml. AWL> Google, since you mention how standard it is, does not use this for it's AWL> core navigation. Web, Images, Groups, Directory, and News (The four AWL> categories of google) are represented with blue text in a box. If AWL> selected the box is blue, if not it's gray. This is hardly a standard, AWL> but none the less is effective because users are familiar with tabular AWL> menus. AWL> Users however familiar with blue underline text (the majority of site on AWL> the internet apply different colors, so I'd say the universal sign of a AWL> link is just the underline), are also familiar with a drop down window. AWL> They are familiar with side bar menus and horizontal tabs. AWL> Every site, whether flash or html, navigate completely different. From AWL> how the menu is displayed, to how it's organized. This is what I mean by AWL> no such thing a standard navigation. AWL> However, I think the closest thing you could call standard navigation is AWL> underlined test links centered at the bottom of a page. It's an AWL> extremely common practice, but not very effective. Could you imagine AWL> having to scroll to the bottom of each page to navigate a site? AWL> Adam Wayne Lehman AWL> Web Systems Developer AWL> Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health AWL> Distance Education Division AWL> -----Original Message----- AWL AWL> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:36 PM AWL> To: CF-Talk AWL> Subject: RE: Is Flash really THAT good? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- AWL> I don't agree.  Blue, underlined text is nearly universally understood AWL> as a clickable link, and the vast majority of users recognize a standard AWL> HTML button widget.  These are instantly recognizable and usable. I'd AWL> argue that for all practical purposes this is as close to a standard as AWL> you can get. AWL> Using different link styles, custom buttons and clickable "hot spots" is AWL> nonstandard, and forces the user to learn how to use the app.  Make the AWL> widgets different enough, and users just won't do it.  Unless the site AWL> is the only place to get what they want, they will go find another site AWL> that is easier to use.  And this is especially true of the non-techie AWL> "johndoe@aol.com"s who makes up a large portion of the user/customer AWL> pool. AWL> So why put a user through it?  They want fast and easy to use. What's AWL> wrong with giving them what they want?  And a simple way to do that is AWL> to stick as closely as possible to design "standards". AWL> I love the ease of use at Google and am thankful that they don't force AWL> me to endure their idea of an "experience" to get what I want. They use AWL> standard navigation links and buttons and my user experience is great. AWL> Chris AWL>

I did my first Flash MX nav system a few weeks back and it took about 12 hours (ouch).  My second one (also from scratch) took about 6 hours, so my learning curve is getting shorter. For a long time I have been put off by Flash MX's interface, but decided to delve into it because of market demand.  It's a different way of thinking than using CFMX.  I would hope / guess that Royale would make the whole process of using/integrating Flash a lot easier. Here's what really concerns me, though.  We are all beginning to see the presence of flash popup marketing ads which take up a sizeable amount of screen real estate and block the content you came to the site for (you know the ones --  with exceedingly small [close] buttons).  With JS popups, a market quickly grew for popup stoppers which kills not only the annoying popups, but also some legitimate popups used for data presentation.  These JS popup stoppers are now installed at some large ISP's. I now am seeing software that will allow an end user to turn off Flash in the browser (they don't just turn off the popup, but all Flash). So, over time, more and more apps built in Flash will be crippled or rendered useless by "flash stoppers".  As I have found with popup stoppers, end users complain about not being able to see legitimate data viewed in a popup window.  It's always resolved by having the end user disable the popup stopper. Do a search at google for "Flash popup stoppers" This is yet another example of marketers ruining it for everyone. -- Thanks, Mark There have been numerous scientific studies and papers on web site navigation and user experience, which suggest the user does expect a certain standard navigation. Vertical-Left, and Horizontal-Upper-Right are where most users expect the nav to be. I can't recall a "look" study offhand but it probably exists out there. Search on Google. boxesandarrows.com is a good place to look as well. -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net Friday, June 20, 2003, 2:01:47 PM, you wrote: AWL> Blue, underlined text is hardly navigation. That's just a common AWL> identifier for a link, which in HTML is an action, not necessarily AWL> navigation. A link can do a number of things like execute a AWL> javascript function or dhtml. AWL> Google, since you mention how standard it is, does not use this for AWL> it's core navigation. Web, Images, Groups, Directory, and News (The AWL> four categories of google) are represented with blue text in a box. AWL> If selected the box is blue, if not it's gray. This is hardly a AWL> standard, but none the less is effective because users are familiar AWL> with tabular menus. AWL> Users however familiar with blue underline text (the majority of AWL> site on the internet apply different colors, so I'd say the AWL> universal sign of a link is just the underline), are also familiar AWL> with a drop down window. They are familiar with side bar menus and AWL> horizontal tabs. AWL> Every site, whether flash or html, navigate completely different. AWL> From how the menu is displayed, to how it's organized. This is what AWL> I mean by no such thing a standard navigation. AWL> However, I think the closest thing you could call standard AWL> navigation is underlined test links centered at the bottom of a AWL> page. It's an extremely common practice, but not very effective. AWL> Could you imagine having to scroll to the bottom of each page to AWL> navigate a site? AWL> Adam Wayne Lehman AWL> Web Systems Developer AWL> Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health AWL> Distance Education Division AWL> -----Original Message----- AWL AWL> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:36 PM AWL> To: CF-Talk AWL> Subject: RE: Is Flash really THAT good? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- AWL> I don't agree.  Blue, underlined text is nearly universally AWL> understood as a clickable link, and the vast majority of users AWL> recognize a standard HTML button widget.  These are instantly AWL> recognizable and usable.  I'd argue that for all practical purposes AWL> this is as close to a standard as you can get. AWL> Using different link styles, custom buttons and clickable "hot AWL> spots" is nonstandard, and forces the user to learn how to use the AWL> app.  Make the widgets different enough, and users just won't do AWL> it.  Unless the site is the only place to get what they want, they AWL> will go find another site that is easier to use.  And this is AWL> especially true of the non-techie "johndoe@aol.com"s who makes up a AWL> large portion of the user/customer pool. AWL> So why put a user through it?  They want fast and easy to use.   AWL> What's wrong with giving them what they want?  And a simple way to AWL> do that is to stick as closely as possible to design "standards". AWL> I love the ease of use at Google and am thankful that they don't AWL> force me to endure their idea of an "experience" to get what I AWL> want.  They use standard navigation links and buttons and my user AWL> experience is great. AWL> Chris AWL>

i agree, as i'm one of those people that can't install plugins at work, and i take that into account when developing...many times I've had to settle exporting to flash 5 so the users won't run into problems.  efficiency and usability should be huge factors in using flash we could go on all day, trying to change each other's opinions...just don't rule out flash because of people's poor uses or because MM is trying to push the package and show what they can do with their own technologies. Friday, June 20, 2003, 1:32:25 PM, you wrote: TS> example:  i work for a large company, car rides home are free after a certain hour since public transp is deemed unsafe...previously the dispatcher was doing this all by paper, i wrote a flash TS> app on a PocketPC for him, now he scans id cards and a barcode on the car into a flash form, gets about a hundred of these.  submits them all, gets stored locally(no internet connection), synches TS> it up at night...done with sharedObjects in Flash and remoting.  we looked at other ways to do this, and flash was the easiest and quickest way to get this going for him. Look at the developer exchange. It takes me longer than it used to to find what I want to in order to download it than it did before, even on Allaire's old overloaded servers. It wont even work at all for people who don't have permission to install plugins on their work computers. TS> so you can say flash doesn't make things more efficient...but you'd be wrong per example above, I can say it makes things (another relative term) less efficient...and be right as well. I happen to think MM.com's use of MX is pretty much state of the art as well, and it's not working more efficiently (from my pov) than it did before all the time and money were invested in it. It follows that the majority of other implementations will have similar problems. TS> -----Original Message----- TS TS> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:26 PM TS> To: CF-Talk TS> Subject: Re: Is Flash really THAT good? TS> I disagree, I think it's our duty to fight off trends in technology TS> that are focused more on marketing than on getting stuff done more TS> efficiently (I don't think Flash necessarily fits in this category). TS> That's why computers were invented, and that's why I buy books on TS> Amazon instead of going down to the book store. TS> So, whether or not I end up a flash partisan after Royale comes TS> out...I feel the negatives and positives of any technology that TS> affects out industry should be argued about ad nauseum by us. TS> If we don't do it, no one else will, because no one else understands TS> the technology.

I agree that the exchange is a terrible use. Each time I look at a download and go back I have to repeat my search. Sometimes it finds nothing and I have to close the browser and go back then it finds the same 30 it found before.... Very badly executed in that particular case Friday, June 20, 2003, 1:32:25 PM, you wrote: TS> example:  i work for a large company, car rides home are free after a certain hour since public transp is deemed unsafe...previously the dispatcher was doing this all by paper, i wrote a flash TS> app on a PocketPC for him, now he scans id cards and a barcode on the car into a flash form, gets about a hundred of these.  submits them all, gets stored locally(no internet connection), synches TS> it up at night...done with sharedObjects in Flash and remoting.  we looked at other ways to do this, and flash was the easiest and quickest way to get this going for him. Look at the developer exchange. It takes me longer than it used to to find what I want to in order to download it than it did before, even on Allaire's old overloaded servers. It wont even work at all for people who don't have permission to install plugins on their work computers. TS> so you can say flash doesn't make things more efficient...but you'd be wrong per example above, I can say it makes things (another relative term) less efficient...and be right as well. I happen to think MM.com's use of MX is pretty much state of the art as well, and it's not working more efficiently (from my pov) than it did before all the time and money were invested in it. It follows that the majority of other implementations will have similar problems. TS> -----Original Message----- TS TS> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:26 PM TS> To: CF-Talk TS> Subject: Re: Is Flash really THAT good? TS> I disagree, I think it's our duty to fight off trends in technology TS> that are focused more on marketing than on getting stuff done more TS> efficiently (I don't think Flash necessarily fits in this category). TS> That's why computers were invented, and that's why I buy books on TS> Amazon instead of going down to the book store. TS> So, whether or not I end up a flash partisan after Royale comes TS> out...I feel the negatives and positives of any technology that TS> affects out industry should be argued about ad nauseum by us. TS> If we don't do it, no one else will, because no one else understands TS> the technology.

www.miniusa.com-buildyourown-minicooper Well, these days I don't know if even that is true. There are a lot of good sites being done by good developers that are really slick in how they handle, where things like tab stops are the least of what they handle for. The problem, IMHO, is that not enough people 'see' RIAs. They are not ubiquitous, there are no big RIA sites the general public visits (MM  is not a site for the general public), and there are many, many brocureware-style projects out there for each application oriented project. The perception of Flash these days is still that of about two or three years ago. I would love it if a big auto company, a major online retailer, or someone that the general public sees would switch to an RIA. M

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- <CF_UsabilitySoapBox> Well, this is quibbling over minor differences and word definitions.  And I know I'm blowing against the wind here, but the simple fact is that users know what to do with blue, underlined text and HTML buttons.  Why deviate from something that users know?  It only makes it harder for them and increases the likelihood that they won't use your site--unless they have no place else to go.  Here is the key phrase in your post: > effective because users are familiar That is the heart of the matter. > Every site, whether flash or html, navigate completely different. This is pretty much true and it's a negative, not a positive.  On the web, different != good usability.  All of those sites with different/unique navigation are harder to use than "standard" blue underlines and HTML widgets because users have to figure them out--and they HATE that.  Even if you think, what's the big deal, it only takes a few minutes?  They HATE to be forced to learn something new when all they want to do is...whatever...anything but be forced by some web site to endure their "different" navigation. Look at Yahoo, eBay, Amazon and Google.  I'd guess they are among the most heavily used sites and they rely on "standard" light/white background, dark/black text, blue underlined links and (for the most part) standard form elements.   Minor differences, but they don't stray far from the basics.  They know what works.  And we can leverage the usability of those sites by mimicking their navigation and design elements.  Most users will know how to navigate a site that looks like them.  I know this is anathema to all of the web artistes out there, but it's the truth: the big sites really define usability for the rest of us.  We ignore it at our peril. There is room for individuality, but most of the Flash example that were suggested on the list are shooting themselves in the foot, IMHO.  If we, as developers, care whether or not our site is usable by the most people (which means more opportunities for sales/readers/customers/etc) then we must bow to the simple needs of users and not force our techie-oriented "user experiences" on them.  And using Flash like most sites do goes against good usability. </CF_UsabilitySoapBox> Man, I need a weekend off!  :) Chris

<CF_UsabilitySoapBox> ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Ahh...the beautiful blue link... If that's in your project requirements...Flash is definitely not holding you back... Quick example...with and without CSS style rollover... http://www.riseinteractive.com/cftalk/ chris

I want to clarify somethig. What I, personally am talking about, are Flash Applications, not web sites. I consider what I am doing is creating Flash/CFMX based applications, not a 'typical' website. I agree, for a content based site, i.e. amazon, ebay, google, flash is not right for those sites. But, for an application, ie a helpdesk, phone book, Flash is great as the UI. Yes, there are somethings that are missing, mousewheel support is a big one, but for now I think we can get by without it. I am not saying this just to say it. I am saying this off of the response from my customers that used a convential HTML phone book, and then used the Flash based one, and they love the Flash one and hate the HTML one. Its all in how you build it and what you build. My 2cents... Clint ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I know I'm blowing against the wind here, but the simple fact is that users know what to do with blue, underlined text and HTML buttons.  Why deviate from something that users know?  It only makes it harder for them and increases the likelihood that they won't use your site--unless they have no place else to go.  Here is the key phrase in your post: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- different != good usability.  All of those sites with different/unique navigation are harder to use than "standard" blue underlines and HTML widgets because users have to figure them out--and they HATE that.  Even if you think, what's the big deal, it only takes a few minutes?  They HATE to be forced to learn something new when all they want to do is...whatever...anything but be forced by some web site to endure their "different" navigation. > > Look at Yahoo, eBay, Amazon and Google.  I'd guess they are among the most heavily used sites and they rely on "standard" light/white background, dark/black text, blue underlined links and (for the most part) standard form elements.   Minor differences, but they don't stray far from the basics. They know what works.  And we can leverage the usability of those sites by mimicking their navigation and design elements.  Most users will know how to navigate a site that looks like them.  I know this is anathema to all of the web artistes out there, but it's the truth: the big sites really define usability for the rest of us.  We ignore it at our peril. > > There is room for individuality, but most of the Flash example that were suggested on the list are shooting themselves in the foot, IMHO.  If we, as developers, care whether or not our site is usable by the most people (which means more opportunities for sales/readers/customers/etc) then we must bow to the simple needs of users and not force our techie-oriented "user experiences" on them.  And using Flash like most sites do goes against good usability. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

it's unfortunate that we have to fight off a trends because bad design becomes standard. the user experience can become enriched whatever medium it is delivered in. I think what sets us back in when people compare "cf" to "flash" or "dhtml" to "flash" All these tools can play friendly together. I would be upset if everyone just "settled" on 1 particular navigation. I guess I am just surprised with the either or methodology here. Lofback, Chris wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Yeah I definitely agree with everything you are saying. Well... mostly. I'm just saying that traditional navigation schemes transcend the media. Just because it's done in flash doesn't mean you can't have blue underline links. Everything can be implemented identically in one or the other. But as far a blue links go (or any long standing tradition), just because it's been this way in the past, doesn't mean we should keep doing it into the future. Using established proven methodologies for navigation yes, I think coloring and underlining menu object is just aesthetic at this point. I agree it may well have been true 3 years ago, but now users expect visually pleasing sites and applications. (Look at OSX and WinXP) Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- <CF_UsabilitySoapBox> Well, this is quibbling over minor differences and word definitions. And I know I'm blowing against the wind here, but the simple fact is that users know what to do with blue, underlined text and HTML buttons. Why deviate from something that users know?  It only makes it harder for them and increases the likelihood that they won't use your site--unless they have no place else to go.  Here is the key phrase in your post: > effective because users are familiar That is the heart of the matter. > Every site, whether flash or html, navigate completely different. This is pretty much true and it's a negative, not a positive.  On the web, different != good usability.  All of those sites with different/unique navigation are harder to use than "standard" blue underlines and HTML widgets because users have to figure them out--and they HATE that.  Even if you think, what's the big deal, it only takes a few minutes?  They HATE to be forced to learn something new when all they want to do is...whatever...anything but be forced by some web site to endure their "different" navigation. Look at Yahoo, eBay, Amazon and Google.  I'd guess they are among the most heavily used sites and they rely on "standard" light/white background, dark/black text, blue underlined links and (for the most part) standard form elements.   Minor differences, but they don't stray far from the basics.  They know what works.  And we can leverage the usability of those sites by mimicking their navigation and design elements.  Most users will know how to navigate a site that looks like them.  I know this is anathema to all of the web artistes out there, but it's the truth: the big sites really define usability for the rest of us.  We ignore it at our peril. There is room for individuality, but most of the Flash example that were suggested on the list are shooting themselves in the foot, IMHO.  If we, as developers, care whether or not our site is usable by the most people (which means more opportunities for sales/readers/customers/etc) then we must bow to the simple needs of users and not force our techie-oriented "user experiences" on them.  And using Flash like most sites do goes against good usability. </CF_UsabilitySoapBox> Man, I need a weekend off!  :) Chris

Just jumping in here... It sure would be a dull world if nothing evolved.  If that were true, we would not have nice cars (they would all be horseless carriages) and houses would be caves. We use new things because the technology becomes available.  Some uses are good, some are bad.  There are plenty of bad sites written in HTML, so should we not use HTML?  Nope, the answer is to intelligently design our web sites.  The fact is, RIA is going to become the norm within ten years because it will make the user experience easier, more aesthetically pleasing, and more functional with fewer client errors on the server end. Sure, blue links are standard, but people like flash. (no pun intended) Matthew Small IT Director Showstopper American Dance Championships matt@showstopperonline.com 843-357-1847 Yeah I definitely agree with everything you are saying. Well... mostly. I'm just saying that traditional navigation schemes transcend the media. Just because it's done in flash doesn't mean you can't have blue underline links. Everything can be implemented identically in one or the other. But as far a blue links go (or any long standing tradition), just because it's been this way in the past, doesn't mean we should keep doing it into the future. Using established proven methodologies for navigation yes, I think coloring and underlining menu object is just aesthetic at this point. I agree it may well have been true 3 years ago, but now users expect visually pleasing sites and applications. (Look at OSX and WinXP) Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- <CF_UsabilitySoapBox> Well, this is quibbling over minor differences and word definitions. And I know I'm blowing against the wind here, but the simple fact is that users know what to do with blue, underlined text and HTML buttons. Why deviate from something that users know?  It only makes it harder for them and increases the likelihood that they won't use your site--unless they have no place else to go.  Here is the key phrase in your post: > effective because users are familiar That is the heart of the matter. > Every site, whether flash or html, navigate completely different. This is pretty much true and it's a negative, not a positive.  On the web, different != good usability.  All of those sites with different/unique navigation are harder to use than "standard" blue underlines and HTML widgets because users have to figure them out--and they HATE that.  Even if you think, what's the big deal, it only takes a few minutes?  They HATE to be forced to learn something new when all they want to do is...whatever...anything but be forced by some web site to endure their "different" navigation. Look at Yahoo, eBay, Amazon and Google.  I'd guess they are among the most heavily used sites and they rely on "standard" light/white background, dark/black text, blue underlined links and (for the most part) standard form elements.   Minor differences, but they don't stray far from the basics.  They know what works.  And we can leverage the usability of those sites by mimicking their navigation and design elements.  Most users will know how to navigate a site that looks like them.  I know this is anathema to all of the web artistes out there, but it's the truth: the big sites really define usability for the rest of us.  We ignore it at our peril. There is room for individuality, but most of the Flash example that were suggested on the list are shooting themselves in the foot, IMHO.  If we, as developers, care whether or not our site is usable by the most people (which means more opportunities for sales/readers/customers/etc) then we must bow to the simple needs of users and not force our techie-oriented "user experiences" on them.  And using Flash like most sites do goes against good usability. </CF_UsabilitySoapBox> Man, I need a weekend off!  :) Chris

I just want to make sure that everyone understands: You can have blue links in Flash. mike chambers mesh@macromedia.com ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

FMX also supports a limited amount HTML text in the movies. E I just want to make sure that everyone understands: You can have blue links in Flash. mike chambers

I demand proof! -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net Friday, June 20, 2003, 3:33:24 PM, you wrote: MC> I just want to make sure that everyone understands: MC> You can have blue links in Flash. MC> mike chambers MC> mesh@macromedia.com MC> ----- Original Message ----- MC> From: "Matthew Small" <matt@showstopperonline.com> MC> To: "CF-Talk" <cf-talk@houseoffusion.com> MC> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 3:32 PM MC> Subject: RE: Is Flash really THAT good? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Guess you missed it... http://www.riseinteractive.com/cftalk/ chris ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

example by Chris Kief: http://www.riseinteractive.com/cftalk/ ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- we ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

But not for long; Every time I underline blue text in Flash MX, it throws an alert saying "Blue underline text is deprecated." When I run the movie its even worse "Blue underline text detected. This RIA will self destruct in 5,4..." :) Is it 5 o'clock yet? Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division I demand proof! -- jon mailto:jonhall@ozline.net Friday, June 20, 2003, 3:33:24 PM, you wrote: MC> I just want to make sure that everyone understands: MC> You can have blue links in Flash. MC> mike chambers MC> mesh@macromedia.com MC> ----- Original Message ----- MC> From: "Matthew Small" <matt@showstopperonline.com> MC> To: "CF-Talk" <cf-talk@houseoffusion.com> MC> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 3:32 PM MC> Subject: RE: Is Flash really THAT good? >> Just jumping in here... >> >> It sure would be a dull world if nothing evolved.  If that were true, we ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- uses >> are good, some are bad.  There are plenty of bad sites written in HTML, >> so should we not use HTML?  Nope, the answer is to intelligently design >> our web sites.  The fact is, RIA is going to become the norm within ten >> years because it will make the user experience easier, more >> aesthetically pleasing, and more functional with fewer client errors on >> the server end. >> >> Sure, blue links are standard, but people like flash. (no pun intended) >>

At 01:35 PM 6/20/03 -0400, Lofback, Chris wrote: >I don't agree.  Blue, underlined text is nearly universally understood as >a clickable link, and the vast majority of users recognize a standard HTML >button widget.  These are instantly recognizable and usable.  I'd argue >that for all practical purposes this is as close to a standard as you can get. That's a very good point.  I've recently been changing the blue underlined text and the buttons in one app because they are ugly.  But I'm thinking that might be a mistake.  For a specialized app, it might not be an issue, but for something where you want every one to be able to use it instantly, sticking with the basics is probably the way to go. T Tired of your bookmarks/favourites being limited to one computer?  Move them to the Net! www.stuffbythane.com/webfavourites makes it easy to keep all your favourites in one place and access them from any computer that's attached to the Internet.

I think you can safely change the links color and not loose any users. It's very minor, and it's the only way we can 'train' our users. Slowly. Sides, a lot of sites do not color their link blue and underline them, and they get along just fine. Remember that blue on white is second easiest to read than black on white. Just because the link is blue on a lot sites, doesn't necessarily mean it's done for standardization. Mostly its done because green and red don't read well. Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division At 01:35 PM 6/20/03 -0400, Lofback, Chris wrote: >I don't agree.  Blue, underlined text is nearly universally understood as >a clickable link, and the vast majority of users recognize a standard HTML >button widget.  These are instantly recognizable and usable.  I'd argue >that for all practical purposes this is as close to a standard as you can get. That's a very good point.  I've recently been changing the blue underlined text and the buttons in one app because they are ugly.  But I'm thinking that might be a mistake.  For a specialized app, it might not be an issue, but for something where you want every one to be able to use it instantly, sticking with the basics is probably the way to go. T Tired of your bookmarks/favourites being limited to one computer?  Move them to the Net! www.stuffbythane.com/webfavourites makes it easy to keep all your favourites in one place and access them from any computer that's attached to the Internet.

on a similar note...i've seen photo galleries in flash where each image greys out after you click on them, so you don't keep looking at the same one with a little code you can do pretty much anything you would like. I just want to make sure that everyone understands: You can have blue links in Flash. mike chambers mesh@macromedia.com ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

That is fine and all, but what I really miss in flash is the ability to right click -- > open in new window... ~~ Stephenie Hamilton Macromedia Certified ColdFusion Professional CFXHosting Guess you missed it... http://www.riseinteractive.com/cftalk/ chris --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003

How do you miss a feature that was never there? I agree though.  I wish you could have custom context menus as well. E That is fine and all, but what I really miss in flash is the ability to right click -- > open in new window...

Well, you can do shift / ctrl clicks: http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/002390.cfm mike chambers mesh@macromedia.com ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Mike Chambers wrote: > Well, you can do shift / ctrl clicks: > > http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/002390.cfm That puts the developer of the Flash application in control, not me. And in my browser I can shift-click to open in a new window and control-click to open in a new tab. Jochem

i don't think i was listening to much to this branch of the thread :) i thought someone was talking about visited links and whatnot on a similar note...i've seen photo galleries in flash where each image greys out after you click on them, so you don't keep looking at the same one with a little code you can do pretty much anything you would like. I just want to make sure that everyone understands: You can have blue links in Flash. mike chambers mesh@macromedia.com ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Mesh - People are really, really confused about what Flash can do if you have to say this. You need to straighten them out. M I just want to make sure that everyone understands: You can have blue links in Flash. mike chambers mesh@macromedia.com

>People are really, really confused about what Flash can do if you have to say this. You are correct.  However, this is a CF forum, and not a flash forum. E FLASH RULES!!!!!!!!

You know what I meant. :Þ ~~ Stephenie Hamilton Macromedia Certified ColdFusion Professional CFXHosting How do you miss a feature that was never there? I agree though.  I wish you could have custom context menus as well. E --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003

is it cause dinowitz is at that conference that he didn't tell us to take this to cf-community :) >People are really, really confused about what Flash can do if you have to say this. You are correct.  However, this is a CF forum, and not a flash forum. E FLASH RULES!!!!!!!!

Mike, I've been trying to figure out how to do that... can you send me the snippet of code :) I can't believe this debate is still going on. Sounds to me like those opposed of Flash, are scared shitless of the development interface (as I was 2 years ago mind you.) and what you don't know or fear you often dislike or discredit. It would be a great thing for those people if Flash were to die, because that is just one less technology they have to learn, or worse yet, play catch-up on... Just as it would be great for JSP developers everywhere if ColdFusion did not compile to Java Byte Code... because now WE ARE ALL LETHAL JAVA DEVELOPERS!!! -Igor I just want to make sure that everyone understands: You can have blue links in Flash. mike chambers mesh@macromedia.com ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Yeah, but so much of what Flash can do is tied into CF it is appropriate to comment on it here. M >People are really, really confused about what Flash can do if you have >to say this. You are correct.  However, this is a CF forum, and not a flash forum. E FLASH RULES!!!!!!!!

>Yeah, but so much of what Flash can do is tied into CF it is appropriate to comment on it here. Well, maybe Flash Remoting / FMX and CFMX. I would disagree that what Flash can do and CF can do are tied together.  Just differing technologies. I think most people are used to seeing flash cartoons, and not flash apps.  RIAs are so new that most people don't recognize them when they see them. E

It just occurred to me what DHTML has over Flash: You can control your right click behavior in DHTML, you are forced to see those menus in Flash. M > Really? Name just one UI component/paradigm that is possible > in Flash that isn't possible in DHTML. How about an org chart? http://www.figleaf.com/development/flash4/orgchart/orgchart.cfm (Actually, you could do this in DHTML, but it wouldn't be cross-browser, and it wouldn't work very well, and it would be expensive to support, and you'd lose all your hair.) How about a whiteboard? http://products.figleaf.com/ Good luck with that DHTML. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444

>You can control your right click behavior in DHTML, you are forced to see those menus in Flash. Custom Context Menu ----------------------------- DHTML - 1 FLASH - 0

Mike Chambers wrote: >Well, you can do shift / ctrl clicks: Doesn't work in the MM Dev Exchg.  Bummer :( Any chance of that happening?  You would be back on the Christmas card list of soooo many developers :D ------------------------------------------- Matt Robertson,     matt@mysecretbase.com MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com ------------------------------------------- Reply-To: cf-talk@houseoffusion.com Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:46:38 -0400 ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> That puts the developer of the Flash application in > control, not me. > > And in my browser I can shift-click to open in a new > window and control-click to open in a new tab. I don't think that's really a fair comparison. In an application interface, the application developer should be in control. The developer should be able to guide and constrain the user of the application. We take this for granted with non-HTML applications. Why should we expect web applications to behave like documents? Why should we limit web applications to what documents can present? Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Extremely good point Dave. This certainly makes the case for why Flash should support customization of the right-click menu. chris

Dave Watts wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- To a certain extend. But in a traditional application interface, lets say an intranet application, the application developer knows much more about the visitor. He knows the visitor is on the intranet with 0.4 ms latency, using a computer with a 14+ inch screen, a mouse and a keyboard so he can design an interface for exactly that situation. But does that really work when you are delivering an application over the internet to the other side of the world and you don't know if the guy on the other end is using a PDA or a workstation with a 22 inch screen? And even then, the problem is not just control, it is also predictability. I know how my browser respnds to certain commands, but every Flash application can respond differently. I mean, after Mike's code example I went to the DevEx to try the Shift-click and Control-click expecting them to work because the code looks trivial. But it didn't work, and there is no way to see that from the outside. > The developer should be able > to guide and constrain the user of the application. We take this for granted > with non-HTML applications. We don't really take it for granted. If we don't like the buttons of the mediaplayer, we skin it. If we think these insanely big buttons of the browser take up to much room on our PDA screens, we use a minimalistic theme. On our desktop, we all arrange the shortcuts in a different way, we use different color scheme's etc. > Why should we expect web applications to behave > like documents? Why should we limit web applications to what documents can > present? I don't expect applications to behave like documents. But I expect them to copy the best behaviour from documents and combine that with the best behaviour of traditional applications. And in some areas I feel it is actually the web applications that are quite limited. I hope you can prove me wrong, but I haven't seen any web application that recognizes that I have a laptop that I have customised to some high contrast colors because the screen is so lousy. But both traditional applications that use the OS color scheme and web documents that use my browser colors can easily provide a legible interface. (That laptop died, but you get the point.) I think Flash has reached the point where it can compete with many full blown intranet applications (intranet = controlled environment). I think Flash can deliver powerfull widgets over the internet (and people will often not even notice it is Flash). I am not so sure if Flash is the answer to deliver full blown applications over the internet. I think it is better as the applet/activeX options, but it still lacks some of the features of HTML. (HTML on the other hand lacks persistence, has implementation issues and isn't really interactive.) Jochem

On Friday, Jun 20, 2003, at 19:00 US/Pacific, Dave Watts wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- But that's the browser developer being in control - the behavior you describe is specific to the browser you use. In my browser:   apple-click - open in new tab behind current tab   shift-apple-click - open in new tab (in front)   alt-apple-click - open in new window behind current window   shift-alt-apple-click - open in new window (in front) > I don't think that's really a fair comparison. In an application > interface, > the application developer should be in control. Yes - which is why each browser behaves differently. Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood

Sean A Corfield wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Specific to the way I tell my browser to behave. Jochem

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Or, perhaps more realisitically, specific to amount of control that the browser developer has offered you. There's really no reason that well-constructed Flash application can't offer similar control within itself.  There's definitely an issue of time (would you do this for a small, one-time applet?) and consistency (will every developer offer a different set of options/styles?) but there's nothing in Flash preventing it. The level of control given to the end user is developer controlled. Different applications offer different levels.  A productivity app in which a user spends a lot of time (a word processor, PIM, or a browser) may be heavily configurable while even a complex game may limit the control offered to preserve the emotional context of the game. That being said there is a pretty solid correlation to the amount of time spent in an application (as a user-base) and the amount of customization that application provides.  Flash applications generally offer little customization as much time isn't spent with them.  The Flash developer's interface on the other hand - LOTS of customization.  ;^) Jim Davis

On Saturday, Jun 21, 2003, at 11:23 US/Pacific, Jochem van Dieten wrote: >> But that's the browser developer being in control - the behavior you >> describe is specific to the browser you use. > Specific to the way I tell my browser to behave. If you're lucky enough to have a browser that lets you decide what combination of shift-option-alt-ctrl-apple-whatever keys to use to get which effect. Again, it just reinforces the point that your choices are determined by the browser developer - some (many) browsers do not let you change that behavior (heck, some browsers don't even provide tabbed browsing). Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Well, we originally implemented this using DHTML, and it wasn't quite a "piece of cake". It wasn't nearly as responsive or reliable, either. This, on the other hand, was created in Flash 4 (!), and we could (and did) deploy it on NS 4, and it'll run today on my Pocket PC, among other places. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I think you're making my point for me. HTML interfaces alone aren't really suited for this kind of app. Exactly. Should we bind our applications to only what HTML can do? I think the distinction that you're making between "UI" and this is pretty specious - it's a widget that you can put on your page, and you can interact with it. If that's not UI, I don't know what is. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444

> Well, this is quibbling over minor differences and word > definitions. And I know I'm blowing against the wind here, > but the simple fact is that users know what to do with > blue, underlined text and HTML buttons. Why deviate from > something that users know? It only makes it harder for > them and increases the likelihood that they won't use > your site--unless they have no place else to go. While I agree that a familiar interface will be, all other things being equal, easier to navigate than an unfamiliar interface, that doesn't mean that the familiar interface is better. There's no reason that a Flash interface can't be useful, or intuitive, or better than the standard HTML interface. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I agree that site navigation shouldn't be different for the sake of being different. On the other hand, why should the navigation functionality be limited to what HTML is capable of doing? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- The "big sites", as you call them, fall within a pretty limited subset of what web applications can do. They're all designed for very broad use, by lots of people using all sorts of browsers, in an environment where there are lots of alternatives if you don't like their sites. It's a mistake to follow their examples too closely, to the point where you're limiting your application inappropriately. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I agree that there are lots of examples of poor uses of Flash. But then again there are lots of examples of poor uses of HTML, too. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444

> There have been numerous scientific studies and papers > on web site navigation and user experience, which suggest > the user does expect a certain standard navigation. > Vertical-Left, and Horizontal-Upper-Right are where most > users expect the nav to be. I can't recall a "look" study > offhand but it probably exists out there. I would agree that there's a common expectation for web site navigation. However, I wouldn't read all that much into this expectation. Users are people too, and they're generally smart enough to figure out how things work if it's worth their while. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444

> I happen to think MM.com's use of MX is pretty much state > of the art as well, and it's not working more efficiently > (from my pov) than it did before all the time and money > were invested in it. It follows that the majority of other > implementations will have similar problems. I disagree that the Macromedia site is a "state of the art" use of Flash. I think that most of the things on the MM site fall more within the realm of content than of applications, and thus aren't especially suited to Flash. Following that, I would also disagree that most other Flash implementations will have similar problems. Where Flash is better suited, you'll have fewer problems. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- And my answer would be ... yes. If you open a browser, and enter a URL, then it's a web site or web application. But I don't think you have to worry about the web becoming Flash-only. Flash is great for web applications, but HTML is better for text content. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Well, I think it's only a mistake if you do NOT want "very broad use, by lots of people using all sorts of browsers, in an environment where there are lots of alternatives".  IMHO, that describes the entire web.  Even if there are no alternatives to a given site (that seems unlikely in this day and age--maybe 5 years ago but not so much now), who would NOT want their site usable by the most people?  Are you willing to lose 10% or 5% or even 1% of potential users/customers just to use a "cool" new widget?  Ask a client what percentage of potential customers they are comfortable excluding from the web site you're building for them because you want to use design elements that some users will not understand and who will bail at the first opportunity.  It's cold, but it true: users are impatient and demanding. As for me, I want as many people as possible to be able to use my site.  I want to make it drop-dead simple for them to view my info or make a purchase.  I will do just about ANYTHING to make that happen, including using "standard" web page widgets and links that they will all recognize and know how to use.  I will use nonstandard widgets only where absolutely necessary.   Anybody here remember boo.com and their grand assumptions that people will flock to a new design paradigm?  FLOP!  We must be careful when dealing with the giant pool of johndoe@aol.com's who make up our pool of potential users/customers. Chris