Flash Sucks, Its Official, 80% hate a flash intro Options

[OldWelshGuy]

A recent study has confirmed what we all know, that surfers hate flash.

quote from article:-

"If I'm going to a Web site, I want information. I want
information quickly. It could be written in 10 point pica
for all I care. I'm already interested in what might be
there, why turn me off?"

the whole article is here:-
http://www.marketingsherpa.com/sample.cfm?...?contentID=2524

It just goes to show what we have always known, that visitor content is SEO content.

So what about flash elements to brighten up a website then? IMO flash elements can be good, provided they are there for a specific reason and enhance the experience, and can not be obtained in any other way.

I used one to show how my paper scribbles can be turned into a website for the customer, many people have commented they liked this simple visual explanation, although it is still on the web it is long since out of date.

http://inwales.org/flash/

So what do we all think of flash or flash elements if they have a positive effect on your business conversion rate?

[bwelford]

Subtle use is fine. But make very sure they don't get in the way of search engine visibility. Don't forget that whatever is in the flash element is worth zero to the search engine.

[deborah2002]

<if they have a positive effect

Well, if it's good, then fine. I personally hate flash. I search until I find the "skip intro" button.

When I find a site I think is worth investigating only to find flash, I leave immediately. I just don't have the patience.

Like my grandmother used to say "if it don't look good, don't stick it out on the front porch."

I am of the mind that there are 2 types of people who ADORE flash :
web designers and web site owners (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/lol.gif)


deb

[SearchRank]

I hate Flash intros as well! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/puke.gif)

I do like Flash that is used throughout site like in header animations or animated graphics with site. As long as the site contains plenty of html content, is easy to navigate and provides a good overall user experience, Flash can be incorporated to enhance the web site. Flash used in this way is good because Flash files are alot smaller than traditional gifs, jpegs or animated gifs.

But to have a all Flash intro page - (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/yuk.gif) !

[jbelle]

I've found that it's more often the company or person commissioning the web site that requests the flash intro than an over-eager web designer (making it all the more difficult to avoid creating since they're footing the bill). I think users who spend little time broadly surfing (i.e. users who have 5-10 specific sites they visit regularly) don't get inundated with splash pages and the like and feel their flash intro is both a whiz-bang add on and not at all an inconvienence, because, after all, their site is incredibly important, so it's no one will mind watching it over and over again at each visit.

It can be very difficult to talk this particular beast out of flash intros & splash pages, even with statistics like the former. We always insist on a skip intro button, and it is always in HTML outside the flash movie. If your skip intro button is part of the movie, those without flash are stuck!

I prefer flash in very small doses; the best use is to illustrate concepts or items that require animation for full comprehension (but you should still have a textual description). As for purely decorative flash, I can see some uses, but it should be in a minor role on the page (an animated header, for instance).

[SearchRank]

What is really bad is when the complete web site is in Flash. People do this because they can put their web site in one Flash movie. It is a relatively small file size so it will load quickly and adds alot of cool bells and whistles. But as far as SEO goes, its out the window.

Therefore one has to offer both a all Flash site and a html version not only for the search engine's sakes but also for the end user who doesn't have a Flash plug-in or is on a dial up.

IMO, if a site is to be contained in a Flash movie, the only types of sites that should do this are those that are already well know suchs as musical groups (U2, Mariah Carey, Three Doors Down, etc.), movie sites (because they are short term in most cases anyway) and maybe product web sites that are very familiar (Mountain Dew, M&Ms, etc.). Otherwise, I think it is a bad marketing decision to do an all Flash site.

[acowl]

For the few thousand visitors I have on my site a month, the flash map page is the second most popular 'first click'. People like the interactive element.

I am a java programmer. It was painful for a guy like me to force feed myself flash know how so I could include what flash I have on my site now. (VERY LITTLE!)

No one likes to be force fed a intro page.

The random and disjoined remarks listed here have no real relevance. I guess my point is Flash has its place in the web world, but should never be a full website solution.

[mcanerin]

Basically, if you are doing something that requires you to put a <skip this> button on it, you should probably rethink what you are doing, whether it's flash, unrequested streaming audio, etc.

If it's integrated in such a way that it's either unobtrusive or user initiated, great. But designing a system that you *know* is going to annoy enough people that you need to put on an off button just doesn't make sense.

When I use flash (and I admit I love it, lots of fun) it's either in a box on the page, navigation structure (with secondary text), or a user initiated pop-up or link.

In short, it's opt-in, not opt-out (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Ian

[SearchRank]

Too bad there is not a "Skip Commercial" button on our remotes for television! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/lol.gif)

Of course some commercials are better than the shows that they pay for.

I have seen this in some occasions on the Internet where the Flash intro was better than the web site behind it.

[jbelle]

Too bad there is not a "Skip Commercial" button on our remotes for television! (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Something better. (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[greggb]

Hey Guys. My opinion is that flash sucks, and here's the reason why. Aside from the fact that it makes you have to wait to find what you came to a website for (which really sucks), it's just not that cool. I mean we're used to million dollar special effects in movies, and Playstation and X-Box, so watching a word grow in size and move around the screen just doesn't make most people say "Oooh!". Flash is really just a 1940s slide-show (with a few special effects) in an age where computer generated graphics are difficult to discern from reality. Flash has no shock effect. It might have 20 years ago, but not now.

Gregg

[anews]

Just couldn't resist to add my 2 cents... I have just learnt Flash ActionScript 14 days ago and I must say it is awful. I'm coming from the world of Pascal, assembler, C, C++, Java, PHP and some other programming languages that were developed by programmers and not designers, and must say that ActionScript is one of the worst languages I have ever seen. So why did I learn to use it?

Because it has future. Most of the people have the plugin (as opposed to Java - "why is the applet not working? I have JDK 1.2, is it too old?"). A lot of people know how to create movies in it. The specification is freely available (you can use Ming library if you don't want to use Flash). And it is powerful. Even though it is not as programmer-friendly as Java, it is widely accepted and could easily drive Java out of business. Everything that can be done in Java can also be done in Flash.

But, you have to know when to and when not to use the Flash. You can use it for applications, small non-essential movies, but never for content - HTML is standard that does that and is good at its job (designers eat your hearts out). The G is said to have some limited capabilities in reading content from Flash movies, but so what - Flash movies do not have the URL that would sent the visitor to the place where the content is. The only thing the SE can do is put the user at the page where the Flash movie is and let the user wander through the animation to find the page it is looking for. Pretty useless if you ask me.

Anyway, nothing wrong with Flash intros if they are not intrusive - but nothing good about them either. Waste of time and money (for majority of the projects) if you ask me. But Flash sites? I just hope that they will go away to that place where the frames are (or at least should be - in every project I get I have to spend time telling clients why they shouldn't use frames - go figure (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/ranting.gif) ).

Enjoy!

Anze

P.S.: As for Java - I am only talking about Java & Flash on the Web, not elsewhere.

This post has been edited by anews: Nov 18 2003, 06:09 PM

[meta]

A home page is like the entrance to a store, an office building, or any other workplace. What do we want first? And indication of what things can be found there, and how to reach the things of interest to the visitor. Flash introductions don't usually help with that, so they can frustrate the visitor. There may be ways that they could be very interesting or helpful somewhere in the site, but the user should first have a chance to get oriented and select the desired content.

[meta]

A good book on shopping behavior in the 3-D world is Why We Buy: The Science Of Shopping by Paco Underhill. It's worth reading this and giving thought to how the same issues translate to the online world.

[MG315]

flash is great when it is used right. the problem comes when one tries to define "right". i agree with the statement above that flash is best used on entertainment sites (musicians, movies...) and company site's where they are selling an image rather than a product. HOWEVER, almost all the complaints people have with flash are not the program but the designer. all these are easily controllable or fixable:
• load time
• "flashy" effects
• text (copy, paste, increase size...)
• search engine placement (not done in flash, but by providing a static alternative)
i believe the second one is the most recognized as the problem with flash sites. but arent there bad html sites? just because someone creates an annoying, impossible to navigate site using a certain program doesnt mean the program itself is bad. that's like saying you hate cd's because you bought a few that weren't any good. its not the medium, but the designer.


my only complaint with flash is the search engine problem. but that can easily be fixed by providing an html alternative. and as mentioned above, most companies with flash sites requested them rather than were influenced by an overenthusiastic flash designer. I have a client right now who wanted only flash, and although i told him it will never be good with search engines, he didnt care. and in the end, it's the client who makes the decisions, not me. as long as he pays me well i'll make him the most trendwhore site with all the annoying eye candy ...just not put it in my portfolio.

This post has been edited by MG315: Nov 19 2003, 10:16 PM