Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Posted 13 August 2003 - 10:34 AM
I purposely have NOT upgraded to Flash 6, call it an aversion to technology or condescension of an abused technology – But I am amazed at the amount of websites that that prompt me to download Flash 6.
When I use IE6, it came bundled with Flash 5. Any other browser without Flash installed simply doesn’t work.
Not only do you get the pop-up prompt to install Flash 6, but the prompt appears on every page that has a Flash graphic.
Are these people aware that not everyone wants to install Flash on their computers?
Do they even realize that they should develop HTML content for non-Flash viewers?
Even for those with an earlier version of Flash, a Flash 6 file can be configured to show in a Flash 4 or 5 viewers, eliminating the pop-up.
If you are going to take the time to learn Flash – take the time to research a flash detection script and be nice to your visitors – don’t make them wade through pop-ups to see the content on your site, or (worse yet) have no content for people who don’t want to install Flash – there is more than you think!
I will admit that Flash has it's merits and can be used for some incredible applications, but please, for the love of God! Take the time to do it right!
Posted 13 August 2003 - 11:23 AM
If you've made a choice to use Flash on your site, you've already decided to alienate a certain percentage of your visitors and possibily annoy SE spiders.
You're using a forward-type of technology. Use the latest and greatest. Flash 6 viewer is free, the only effort the user has to make is to say "yes" to an upgrade pop-up.
If your user is afraid of downloads, they aren't going to like your Flash site anyway.
To your point that it could be easily made backwards-compatible while coding, Matt, I don't know. I haven't messed with Flash in a while. If it is really as easy as checking a box, then developers should do it. If it requires any type of compromise, I wouldn't bother.
Posted 13 August 2003 - 11:41 AM
Flash 6 does have some nice advantages, specifically in active database applications, but in order to make full use, the user would have to use the upgraded Flash 6 viewer. That I may be willing to concede (somewhat).
There are some sites where I visited with Flash 5 installed, but since i opted out of the upgrade pop-up to Flash 6, I was unable to see much content at all. I understand that Flash is a bleeding edge technology, but how hard is it to even consider one version previous in the development?
Posted 13 August 2003 - 08:23 PM
On a related soapbox (sorry Matt, I can't see a soapbox without stepping on it - maybe because I'm short )
There is the opposite problem, which is people who actually expect that you spend time and energy supporting their version of Netscape 1.2 because they consider it to be the epitome of browsers, or are too lazy/wierd/clueless to switch.
That's like complaining about modern TV shows that don't use ultra heavy contrasted makeup and sets so that it's easy for people with black and white TV's to watch. At a certain point it's unreasonable to expect people to continue living in a cave just because you do.
Having said that, it *would* be annoying if all the cable channels suddenly only supported HDTV sets. There should be a degree of backwards compatibility, and the harder/more expensive it is to upgrade, the more you should support it.
Which isn't very true for Flash 5v6, I admit
Posted 13 August 2003 - 10:40 PM
When I told them that the spiders couldn't see their flash to index it I was first greeted with stunned silence and then with a barrage of questions. Truly amazing that some of the media giants did not realize the SE implications.
Posted 14 August 2003 - 08:55 AM
I'm not amazed anymore - frankly, I'm more surprised if they know anything about the limitations of Flash. I've said this before, but the reason Ad Agencies and large media Corps love Flash is that a designer has total control over everything - they don't have to pay a programmer to "mess it up."
Truly amazing that some of the media giants did not realize the SE implications.
Posted 28 August 2003 - 09:05 AM
Just my .02˘
Posted 28 August 2003 - 04:18 PM
I love using Flash, but for guys like you ( and those pesty SE's, of course) I always make sure I have a <noscripts> tag and a nice HTML menu system. You would't believe the looks on some designers faces when I show them their site in Lynx and tell them that's what they look like to a search engine However, I use Flash for interactive nav bars and tutorials, not splash screens.
<Rant> What possible reason is there for a Flash splash screen? When I go to a website the first thing I do is look to see if the site is likely to contain the content I need. At this point I am not looking to be "entertained". Why delay my getting into your website by 30 seconds to 2 minutes by looking at a presentation about how great your site is. Let me in and I'll decide for myself, thank you!
And THEN, just because virtual onanism isn't enough for them, the worst offenders don't even put a "skip intro" option. When I see that, I usually use my "skip website" option and go look elsewhere.
To pour salt on the wound, the presentation then always proceeds very slowly, so people who read and think slowly can keep up - including, no doubt, the idiot manager who thought the intro was a good idea in the first place. ARRGH! </rant>
In my humble opinion, the maximum length of a Flash intro (if it's used, and you shouldn't) should be no longer than the maximum length of time it should take to load a page. I consider looking at a flash intro to be little different from waiting for the first page to load, if a little prettier. So that means 7 seconds or less for a "content" site and 15 seconds or less for an "entertainment" site.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users