jarboy [webmasterworld.com] wrote at 07:01 AM on Feb. 16, 2003 in message #3 [webmasterworld.com]
So you could just do it in html and it would be the same?
Well, obviously it wouldn´t be the same. One is HTML while the other is Flash. Both formats can be produced using software by Macromedia. Both formats can be produced using software by other vendors as well.
The main disadvantage of using Flash would be that it is a proprietary format while HTML is an open standard, the source code is human readable, does not depend on some browser plugin, etc.
Are we really talking about Flash when we say Macromedia CDRoms? I would expect Director. Director is Macromedia's CDRom creation application. Director would be much more suited for this application and becomes and executable without the need for a plugin or any other software, like a browser. If you don't know Director I suggest HTML. Director is not easy and is quite expensive.
You could embed some Flash if you need multimedia in the HTML. I think I would look at the requirements and judge what can be done with what solution. If you need graphic heavy app like CDRom then you are going to probably need director and not HTML.
Personally I think that it all depends. If you need total multimedia then Flash / Shockwave might be the lick. However, if you're just disseminating text and static graphical information with no need to have stuff move around and play music, HTML may be better. It will certainly be cheaper, especially if the information is likely to be copied and pasted by the person viewing the CD ROM. Also remember that for text heavy applications, HTML is much more flexible in that the person viewing it can change font sizes, types, and colors to whatever is readable to them using a familiar agent (the web browser).
Just make sure that the people doing it are competent designers. Bad design methodology can't be overcome by ANY medium.
Thanks for you excellent replies guys - I now know much more than I did.
Yes Korkus I think you are right - when I say "Macromedia" I think I'm talking Director here.
I don't have a huge (if any) requirement for moving images. There are plenty of static images but I guess html will be ok for that.
I need tight integration with a web site and again html would be good for that.
But for me the choice is a jumping for a CD that is done in a medium I know little about at (what I consider) a hellish high capital cost or in a medium that I know very well (html/php/MySQL) and at a cost that I can monitor and control (and also will be substantially less)
But if I go for the first option I know the CD will be produced on time and it will be work 1st time ( the company involved have done it before).
Well I suppose it would be no fun if it was too easy!
It depends on the requirements really. If they are not looking for a high-end GUI application design then I would definitely do HTML. You can throw in Flash if you need to up the eye candy factor. Do you expect a lot of digital video and interaction with the DV? Are you looking at keyboard operations like "hot keys" for operation? Director goes far beyond what HTML can do. Director does is a compiled application and doesn't depend on browser versions or compatability issues.