| This 69 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 69 ( 1 2  ) || |
|"Successful" Flash sites|
Know of any?
| 5:56 am on Feb 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
There tend to be some rather heated debates around here WRT the merits of Flash, should it be used, how should the engines deal with it, etc...
We know that clients want or demand it sometimes and for some sites it can be almost a necessity, game/gambling sites, site selling Flash design services, movie trailers, and sometimes as an accent or special feature like a desgn your own home, car, outfit, etc....
With the exception of the types of sites mentioned above, does anybody know of a "successful" site designed completely or primarily with Flash. By successful, I mean one that generates a positive ROI, has better than average (say 1.5%) conversion rates and/or accomplishes other real business objectives as opposed to just stroking the ego of the site owner? A site that really works when it comes to the bottom line.
| 5:52 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|A file format who's veiwability (sic) approaches 98% of all web users. |
That 98% represents the percentage of browsers that have Flash installed. The percentage of web users who have high-speed connections and don't need to wait 15 seconds to two minutes for a .swf to download -- making flash practically unviewable -- is certainly far less than 98%.
Personally, I feel that a wait of more than two seconds is annoying; even on a T1 a lot of Flash candy ain't worth it to me.
| 6:29 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
alas nonprof_webguy, another implementation issue, not a technological one. Hey if I put 400k+ pictures on my html website, is that a technology issue, or an issue of my inefficient use of the tools afforded me?
| 6:36 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just for the record you can have 2k and 3k flash movies. They can pack quite a punch in the place of a gif or jpeg. File size is not a flash issue, but a web design issue.
| 2:54 am on Mar 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
[quote]That 98% represents the percentage of browsers that have Flash installed. The percentage of web users who have high-speed connections and don't need to wait 15 seconds to two minutes for a .swf to download -- making flash practically unviewable -- is certainly far less than 98%.
Personally, I feel that a wait of more than two seconds is annoying; even on a T1 a lot of Flash candy ain't worth it to me. [quote]
Have to agree with mat_bastian & korkus2000 here.
you can do 50 x more byte per byte with flash & shockwave than graphics, images, and text.
I have developed some 2.5 megabyte stuff as well - but users get fair warning on download time.
| 7:25 am on Mar 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
[edited by: korkus2000 at 12:40 pm (utc) on Mar. 5, 2003]
[edit reason] delinked urls [/edit]
|Made In Sheffield|
| 4:34 pm on Mar 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've not got time to read the thread but these are a few sites pointed out to me by the Accessibility Product Manager at Macromedia.
Also I'll be interviewing him soon regarding Accessibility of Macromedia products and their output so if any of you have any questions you want putting forward then sticky me please.
(Interview to appear on SitePoint.com)
| 6:59 pm on Mar 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Cool - I've not read the whole sting of this myself, but I've been working with flash since v3 came out, and I'd say it was this work with flash that has got me into quite a cool job as senior designer - most of the work done has been in flash-
Checking out feedback from both clients and their customers, flash continues to go down well- they seem to like the originality when presented with it.
they are but to name a few - I have recently created a CD presentation for an Auditing Software company in the US - they love the thing - I did program demonstrations using all separate components (mouse cursor, butn hovers, etc..) and yeah, 95% of the times we've presented our work to the client, they've absolutely loved it.
I must agree though that accessibility is that little bit patchier than with html- the thing I dislike most is that flash disregards the IE status bar, so if the internet is performing badly and the 'loadmovie' function takes a while to actually execute and present the next movie/section, the viewer has no clue what's happening- results such as 3 of the same form submissions can occur from this (user submits info again whilst awaiting confirmation)
re: animgirl's earlier post- 2advanced is a quality web site! Yugop.com is full of tricks, and rayoflight.net when I last saw it (some years ago) was a very natural and appealing web presence.
Cheers- I'm actually researching right now as to how I can create a link in flash that gets a URL specified in an external text file - so as to allow client to configure the target url of the link thermselves with no hassles - taking longer than I'd like....hit me with the graphics, but when it comes to scripting im crap! Any suggestions would be most welcome- later..
[edited by: korkus2000 at 1:34 pm (utc) on Mar. 7, 2003]
[edit reason] Removed personal urls [/edit]
| 3:51 am on Mar 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Do a search on "faucet" the top site is done in Flash. Loading the meta tags with keywords was the secret to getting the top listing. I thought Google mostly ignored meta tags. Or could there be a bit of palm greasing going on?
| 9:16 am on Mar 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Loading the meta tags with keywords was the secret to getting the top listing. |
Their meta tags have nothing at all to do with their top listing.
They've got over a thousand PR4+ inbound links, most of which have the keyword "faucet" in their anchor text.
A google search for allinanchor:faucet will tell the real story.
| This 69 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 69 ( 1 2  ) |