I was just having a discussion at work the other day about the pros and cons of advanced web design... great to look at! Hey, I love it, but I have DSL and a relatively new computer... but still, shouldn't we keep in mind the vast majority of people out there who still have dial-up and/or old/cheap comps (they're making them so cheap nowadays, which is great, but there's serious skimping on resources... at least in my experience)?

Reply

I think its definately best to have an option for both, therefore having the best looking page you can for those who want to view it and still not excluding those with slower connections/comps from viewing a more content specific version. If you only have one of them then you are most likely to be blocking potential viewers/customers depending on what your site is about.

Reply

In a previous post I stated that Flash sites, althought plesant to look at, were not as search engine friendly as static pages. This to me is flash's biggest problem. It is a catch 22 however, the people want both flash, and sound.

I have gone to mixing it up using small pieces of flash embedded on static pages. What I have started to do is to support the flash sections with text hidden throughout the page, usually at the bottom of the page, that is colored the same as the background. While invisible to the viewer, the spiders are able to pick it up and index the page accordingly.

This seems to work well, the customer is happy because they have some flash, I am happy because the page ranks in the engines, and for those on dail-up and with slow computers are still able to see the majority of the page while the falsh loads.

Reply

If you really want the best experience for your website's visitors regardless of their surfing speeds, you may want to consider setting up Flash and non-Flash versions for your visitors.

Reply

I pefer allowing the user to choose between flash and html. it is also a good idea to use stylesheets and avoid tables where logically possible to make for easy access across a wide variety of media, especially now that PDA's and other small "computers" are accessing the net regularly.

Reply

For my own sites I never do flash. I tend to keep changing content all the time and with flash this'd be a bit more difficult in it self plus I'd have to do changes to two places.

I am not a huge fan of flash sites. If well done and in right kind of sites it's okay and I often opt to view the flash version of a site if asked, but many times the flash stuff is nothing amazing and thus kind of pointless.

Flash is nice for sites like official band websites. People often go these sites to get to know the music and the musicians better and usually are not in hurry. Instead of speed a more pleasant viewing experience is more important. Also band websites (with flash) are usually done by professionals which usually means good quality.

But still, a flashless or a "lo-fi" version of a site should always be available. Sometimes people want just check some facts and don't need that 2 minutes loading flash menu. Sometimes people a) don't bother to B) don't know how or c) are not allowed to install flash plugin. And, like earlier mentioned, we shouldn't forget people using handheld devices.

 

 

 

Reply

That's a good point. I have to visit a lot of different business' websites at work, and it's amazing how many of them have these snazzy flash intros... some are obviously not tech-savvy because they look horrible simply because the connection is too slow or something. It's like, everyone wants to have the best-looking stuff so they automatically think it's the newest invention or the thing with most bells and whistles. Some of the sites that've stuck out in my mind are simple and most importantly, EASILY NAVIGATED. I hate having to wander around looking for something so simple as a FAQ!!

And even when I'm at home, looking at music or movie websites, I find myself skipping the flash intros just because I'm so impatient nowadays. Ironic that technology makes us so impatient that we can't even enjoy the fruits of technology's labor. P

Reply

This is my opinion.

If you compare web-sites to books, most books are simple with a lot of information. Then on the other side of the spectrum you have "Kid’s books" and "Magazines" with little or no information but a lot of ‘flash’ (pun intended).

So the golden middle way should be the rule, a little flash and lot of well organized content. If the site are not missing the alternate text for all the scripts and flashes that are there then that is an added bonus.

There are a few web-sites I go to once and never again because I have no way of maneuvering around in the site. I click buttons on links and nothing happens, it may be because I’m not allowing scripts  in some of my browsers

Nils

Reply

simple but complex

i like to design in this way, which lead to fruastration and stress. a simple design when novices visit a page. but for real designer it is complex as hell.

Reply

That's an oxymoron if I have ever heard one...

I'm starting to hate pages with continously runing scrips. One iteration is OK but when the whole page and your menubars are jiggeling the whole time you visit a site it something wrong.

I load minimum of plugins on my work computers browser. I had to install java because our website uses it and I have the 'plug finder' option turned off.

Nils

Reply