Home of the ColdFusion Community
|
Mailing Lists
|
Home /
Groups /
ColdFusion Talk (CF-Talk)
Is Flash really THAT good?
Author: Lofback, Chris
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125808
----- 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
Author: Sean A Corfield
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125729
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
Author: Jim Davis
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125728
----- 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
Author: Jochem van Dieten
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125727
Sean A Corfield wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Specific to the way I tell my browser to behave.
Jochem
Author: Sean A Corfield
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125725
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
Author: Jochem van Dieten
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125716
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
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125712
----- 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
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125710
> 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
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125709
> 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
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125708
> 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
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125706
----- 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
Author: Chris Kief
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125705
----- 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
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125703
> 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
Author: CF Dude
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125701
>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
Author: CF Dude
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125700
>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
Author: Matt Robertson
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125687
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 -----
Author: Haggerty, Mike
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125686
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
Author: Jochem van Dieten
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125685
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
Author: Haggerty, Mike
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125684
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!!!!!!!!
Author: Mike Chambers
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125683
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 -----
Author: Igor Ilyinsky
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125682
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 -----
Author: Turetsky, Seth
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125680
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!!!!!!!!
Author: Stephenie Hamilton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125678
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
Author: CF Dude
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125677
>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!!!!!!!!
Author: CF Dude
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125676
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...
Author: Haggerty, Mike
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125675
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
Author: Turetsky, Seth
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125673
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 -----
Author: Stephenie Hamilton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125672
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
Author: Adam Wayne Lehman
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125668
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)
>>
Author: Clint
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125667
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 -----
Author: Chris Kief
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125666
Guess you missed it...
http://www.riseinteractive.com/cftalk/
chris
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Turetsky, Seth
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125664
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 -----
Author: jon hall
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125663
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 -----
Author: CF Dude
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125661
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
Author: Mike Chambers
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125660
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 -----
Author: Adam Wayne Lehman
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125659
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.
Author: Matthew Small
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125658
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
Author: Adam Wayne Lehman
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125657
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
Author: Thane Sherrington
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125656
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.
Author: Jason Miller
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125655
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 -----
Author: Clint
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125654
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 -----
Author: Chris Kief
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125653
<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
Author: Mike Chambers
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125651
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
Author: Mike Chambers
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125650
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 -----
Author: Mike Chambers
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125649
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 -----
Author: Lofback, Chris
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125646
----- 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
Author: Debbie Dickerson
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125645
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
Author: John Wilker
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125644
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.
Author: Mark Leder
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125642
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>
Author: Adam Wayne Lehman
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125641
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>
Author: Turetsky, Seth
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125638
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.
Author: Jon Block
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125637
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
Author: jon hall
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125636
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>
Author: Clint
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125635
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
Author: Adam Wayne Lehman
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125634
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
Author: Jason Miller
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125633
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 -----
Author: jon hall
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125632
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.
Author: Lofback, Chris
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125631
> 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
Author: Turetsky, Seth
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125630
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.
Author: Haggerty, Mike
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125629
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.
Author: jon hall
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125627
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.
Author: ksuh
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125626
So is this: http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail57.html
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: John Wilker
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125625
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 -----
Author: Adam Wayne Lehman
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125624
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 -----
Author: Haggerty, Mike
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125623
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 -----
Author: John Wilker
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125622
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 -----
Author: Greg Luce
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125621
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 -----
Author: Greg Luce
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125620
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 -----
Author: Turetsky, Seth
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125619
<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.
Author: Clint
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125613
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 -----
Author: Doug White
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125609
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
|
Author: Adam Wayne Lehman
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125607
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
Author: Adam Wayne Lehman
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125606
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
Author: Adam Wayne Lehman
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125605
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 -----
Author: jon hall
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125603
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.
Author: Ryan Emerle
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125601
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
Author: Turetsky, Seth
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125600
"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
Author: CF Dude
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125599
>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.
Author: jon hall
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125597
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
Author: CF Dude
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125596
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.
Author: Jon Block
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125594
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
Author: Jochem van Dieten
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125593
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
Author: Jochem van Dieten
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125592
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
Author: jon hall
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125591
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 -----
Author: Lofback, Chris
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125590
> 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
Author: CF Dude
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125589
>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
Author: jon hall
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125588
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
Author: CF Dude
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125586
>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
Author: Jason Miller
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125585
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 -----
Author: CF Dude
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125584
>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
Author: Jochem van Dieten
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125583
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
Author: Clint
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125581
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 -----
Author: Jason Miller
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125580
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 -----
Author: jon hall
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125578
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>
Author: CF Dude
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125577
>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.
Author: CF Dude
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125576
> 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
Author: jon hall
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125575
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.
Author: Clint
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125574
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 -----
Author: CF Dude
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125573
>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
Author: Adam Wayne Lehman
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125572
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
Author: Dave Watts
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125571
> 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
Author: jon hall
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125568
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.
Author: Igor Ilyinsky
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125567
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
Author: jon hall
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125566
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.
Author: Lofback, Chris
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125562
----- 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
Author: Haggerty, Mike
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125554
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
Author: Adam Wayne Lehman
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125550
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
Author: Thane Sherrington
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125551
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.
Author: Turetsky, Seth
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125549
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
Author: Adam Wayne Lehman
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125547
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
Author: CF Dude
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125543
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
Author: Jon Block
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125542
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
Author: Stephenie Hamilton
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125538
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
Author: Turetsky, Seth
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125537
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
Author: jon hall
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125530
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
Author: Haggerty, Mike
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125527
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
Author: Jon Block
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:24963#125525
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
|
May 24, 2012
|
Latest Fusion Authority Articles
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
