The website is completely written (or displayed) in Flash. When is this NOT a good idea?

Question

From this tweet: http://twitter.com/azaaza/status/6508524118 I am reaching a website that is fully implemented in Flash (at least on the front panel).

alt text http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/3116/screenshotvz.png

It looks fantastic, and it could be written using HTML + Ajax, but I think (because I don’t know how much I flare myself up) the site owners felt more comfortable with Flash and thought it would be easier (again, I I think this happens when you have thousands of flying hours with a flash)

Judging by the status bar, it seems that most of the images and text load dynamically (otherwise the flash file would be too heavy)

Question (s):

What type of webapps should all flash interfaces consider?

Would it be easier? Yes / No, only if you suck HTML + Ajax, but you beat Flash?

Is this for everyone?

When should it not be used?

I assume the added benefit is that you have no compatibility issues with IE + FF + Opera + Chrome + Safari.

Will this be the next programming model for the webapps interface?

Answer 1

Most of the answers here seem like people claiming to “hate” 100% Flash sites (not only dislike or recommend, just HATE, like “omg flash sux lolz”), and then provide a list of some really weak (and sometimes and just wrong ) argument. Although I turned to some of them in the comments, let me write here a summary of what seems to be the biggest argument against full Flash sites, and why I don't agree with them:

- SEO and deep link / bookmark problem

SWFAddress . 'Enough. This has been happening for many years, but people still believe that it is impossible to cancel or add flash content, obviously because they NEVER bothered to check it or developed a Flash site and did not encounter a problem (which was solved for many years, for example, I said). I find it funny that most people seem to recommend / prefer Ajax / javascript + XHTML for creating dynamic websites ... But Ajax content ALSO can't be deeply anchored or bookmarked or indexed by Google unless you use a workaround ... which also works for Flash content!

Then why aren't many full-featured flash sites there? I don’t know, maybe not necessarily (for example, for a gaming site, a site for advertising ... most FWA sites ). may just be a lazy developer (see below).

- Availability:

First of all, Flash is very user-friendly with disabilities. You can check the adobe Flash adobe page , but I will explain: Flash is highlighted in both visual and audio content. It is very easy to create controls that change the font size, page contrast, etc. For users who need it. I won’t go so far as to say that it’s easy to implement, like applying custom style sheets, but it’s really not a burden / hassle ... if you need your site, you can insert your mind into it and implement everything correctly (which is true for all technologies).

In addition, disability means not only myopia or blindness of color, for example, in my work we provide video on the Internet in sign language with synchronous text (not subtitles, full wall-text) for deaf people, and I really do not think that it would be easier to implement using any other technology (and remember, I'm not saying that this would be impossible).

- Mobile / Iphone:

To make everything clear, it’s simply not true that Flash content does not run on mobile devices (what does flashlite mean, right?). However, it is true that today many systems (including iphone) do not support Flash. Is that such a big problem? I don’t think so, and please allow me to clarify. If I create an awesome XHTML site optimized for 1024x720 with great javascript effects and beautiful pictures, I assure you that it will seem terrible on a mobile device (if at all possible). I attended a mobile web conference at which it was said that the website size for mobile phones should never exceed 20 KB ... so good luck with that.

The most important websites implement a special site only for mobile devices, obviously in plain HTML ... which is exactly the same as for a full Flash site. As for Flash on iphone, when Flash CS5 comes out and flash movies can suddenly be compiled into iphone applications, I really don't see the reasons why the apple will hold the iphone flash player. Although, as I said, this really doesn’t bother me, because I believe that the way is the mobile version of the Internet (or even specific to the iphone).

To summarize : I find that most of the arguments of an aganist Flash are just grievances that people spend in a Flash aganist that are based on myths that have been around for many years. Many of the arguments apply in the same way to bad XHTML / Ajax sites, therefore, in most cases, critics refer only to complaints of aganists about poorly created Flash sites, therefore the guilty developers of Flash applications are the fault, not the technology (and the fact that there are many Flash developers who come from design and / or do not have programming background, don't help at all scream).

Now I will answer the proposed questions from my point of view (Flash developer):

• What type of webapps should all flash interfaces consider?

From the head:

• Sites to showcase or advertise an impressive product, such as a car, clothing, etc. When you want to impact your user with amazing views and interactivity, Flash is definitely the best.

• Portfolio artists: web pages for photographers, musicians, etc., where the artist’s work should be integrated into the site.

• If you are a Flash developer / work for a company developing a Flash, creating a full site for the Flash portfolio makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?;)

• In general, on any site that is more associated with the user interface than with data. Please refer to the Keith Peters wizard from bit101: Flash, why is this useful?

• Would it be easier? Yes / No, only if you suck in HTML + Ajax, but are you excellent at Flash?

Flash may very well be the only tool, depending on your needs. Some of the things that aren't hard to build in Flash would be a nightmare for developing in XHTML. Anyway, if you suck HTML + Ajax, you should not develop web applications if you?

• Is this for everyone?

Hell. Even I agree that a website consisting of only full Flash sites will be a horror for everyone (except adobe, I think).

• When should you not use it?

I would say that when the site you are building has nothing in common: P Absolutely not when the text (information) is the most important part of the site.

• I believe the added benefit is that you don't have IE + FF + Opera + Chrome + Safari compatibility issues

Yes, in fact, this is not only an “extra" benefit, but also really huge.

• Will this be the next programming model for the webapps interface?

It's a difficult question. I really can't see that this is a war between 100% Flash / Flex and 100% XHTML + Ajax sites. Flash / Flex does not exist to replace HTML, but it is a great addition to it. Always use the right tool for the job and use whatever technology (or mix) you need while you use it wisely. I think it would be foolish to implement Wikipedia or your personal blog in Flash to create some really spectacular FWA-style site using XHTML + Ajax.

Sorry for the huge text and thanks for reading! Waiting for comments from hate;)

Answer 2

Short answer: do not create 100% flash sites. There are many compatibility issues and user issues.

Figure it out ....

What type of webapps should all flash interfaces consider?

• Portfolio, temporary websites related to the event ... In my opinion, it is normal to create a “full flash website” if the website’s goal is not to provide any information, but to impress the user more.

Would it be easier? Yes / No, only if you suck HTML + Ajax, but you beat Flash?

• Well, if you do well with the flash, it would be easier to design

Is this for everyone?

• Not. As a web developer, I can make flash, but I don't like flash.

When should it not be used?

• IMHO, never. It always bothers me when I get to the Flash website, as it is annoying to find anything. It is also not available at all from devices such as the iPhone.

I assume the added benefit is that you have no compatibility issues with IE + FF + Opera + Chrome + Safari.

• Instead, you have cross platform compatibility. In addition, non-flash users cannot access your website.

Will this be the next programming model for the webapps interface?

• I highly doubt it. New html + javascript features allow you to create a dynamic website without using flash.

Answer 3

Reasons to hate clean Flash sites:

• Does not work with mobile / cell phones.
• In most Flash sites, it is not possible to bookmark a page or share a link to a page on a site.
• Keyboard shortcuts almost never work as expected.
• Weird scrollbars and other smart interface elements.
• Bad for SEO. I think Google has just begun indexing Flash content.
• Any visitor with a disability will have a hard time using a clean Flash site.

This is for the moment.

Answer 4

Personally, I hate websites that are nothing more than a flash movie page. They degrade TERRIBLY for things like mobile browsers, not to mention the fact that they either a) use Flash for no good reason, just pointless visual effects, or b) violate user interface standards by implementing user interface widgets that don't yourself as you would expect, etc.

Answer 5

I would say that this will never be a good idea. 100% of flash sites worsen usability (without resizing text without a browser, they cannot use tools that automatically read text), and you need additional work to make your site well located in search engines (altough Google did some work to solve this problem ).

Answer 6

The main problem with flash sites is that people without an installed flash cannot use your site! This instantly manages almost all mobile users (although perhaps you should have a different website design for mobile users).

It depends (to a certain extent) on your audience, however, if you want to reach a wide audience, then you should provide an alternative html-based site for those people who do not use flash. My opinion is that if you are still going to create an html version, why do the same thing twice?

Answer 7

With a huge number of users accessing the Internet through a 4 square inch mobile phone screen or 20 square inch netbook, assuming your user is sitting in front of a large screen with a powerful GPU installed, it’s just silly. (I know that you can configure flash for small screens, but in practice this rarely happens or works as expected!).

Not to mention any visually impaired clients you may have tried to reach!

Stick to standard html and css and let the browser handle any unexpected presentation problems.

Answer 8

Everyone seems to agree that Flash is the worst thing you can do when it comes to developing something for the web. I have to disagree a little.

Of course, Flash is almost always the wrong choice when it comes to standard websites, which is pretty easy to do with standard HTML and CSS. But when it comes to the fact that applications are only available over the Internet, this is quite a bit different.

So, my recommendation would be that if you intend to develop an application accessible only over the Internet, Flash is probably the best way to do this (and Silverlight or JavaFX will also be available if they were available in most browsers). Of course, most of what you can do with Flash can also be done with HTML / CSS / JS, but they just aren't made for this purpose.

Answer 9

Flash is a kind of disruption to the website. People use it for several reasons:

• They do something that would be impossible or prohibitively expensive without Flash (for example, 3D or some games, videos).
• They do not know how to do this with Ajax / JS, or they do not know how to do it.
• The client says that this must be done in Flash.

You see many cases where Flash does not add anything to the site’s user experience, but some sites really do something inventive with it.

You need to make extra efforts when you use Flash to provide access to people with disabilities / site problems and for search engines (but this can also be a problem for ajax sites), as well as to enable the back button and allows bookmarks. Most sites that use Flash frivolously usually do not.

If you determine the area of ​​your site where you decide that Flash provides the best solution, use it, but just be aware of all the shortcomings.

Answer 10

For me, this is less relevant to a particular technology and moreover, how much would you like to be. I created a site about 5 years ago, which worked only with the latest version of IE, required JavaScript, and worked only with certain resolutions and window sizes. Although it looked weird on my desktop, it fell on his face in a potential interview where I wanted to demonstrate my work because the interviewer was running it on a laptop.

The study I learned from this experience was that if you want to build something that could work outside a very well-adapted environment (these are all web applications and companies / personal portfolios), you need the lowest common denominator.

When discussing the Flash vs. HTML route, ask yourself what benefits you might derive from switching to the Flash method and whether those benefits should be lost to potential customers when they are unable to view your content. In some cases, it may be worth what comes to mind. But most of the time you will find that HTML is right for you.

Answer 11

All Flash files are bad because of:

• Difficulties Using Mobile Devices
• Difficulties for visually impaired users (text or screen resizing readers)
• Difficulty finding indexing engine

Answer 12

In my eyes, the number one reason is not to create only Flash sites:

You are about to reproduce the many features that the browser already offers (and standard OS user interface elements), and you never do it correctly:

• text selection will not work.
• therefore copying and pasting will not work.
• text search will not work.
• page up / page down / mouse wheel / click in scrollbars will not work
• browser history will not work.
• users will not be able to create deep links.

These problems, described above, affect every user of your site, even if they do not have malicious violations, do not use the iPhone and install Flash.

Use Flash for individual elements on a website that cannot be done in any other way.