homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.225.24.227
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / Site Graphics and Multimedia Design
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Site Graphics and Multimedia Design Forum

    
Macromedia vs. HTML
what's the advantage of using Macromedia Director?
jarboy




msg:859684
 6:40 pm on Feb 16, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi,

I'm currently looking at putting together a CD with pages of information (text and graphics), plus some data from tables.

I've been quoted for doing this in Macromedia.

What's the feasability of doing such a project in html rather than macromedia? Or do you know where I might look to find out more about this?

I'm not really very knowledgeable about macromedia :(

Thank, Tony

(I just posted this in html foruim - but I think it's better suited to this one - hope that's ok)

 

piskie




msg:859685
 6:48 pm on Feb 16, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think someone has missed out a/some word from their quote.
Macromedia is a software supplier like Adobe or Microsoft.

For instance you could use a Macromedia program to produce HTML or another Macromedia program to produce Flash.

You need to get clarification as to what they are producing.

From your description, it sounds simmilar to a data/information CD that I produced using Macromedia Dreamweaver to produce HTML containing text and graphics.

I hope this is useful in finding your way round a world full of terms that you may find confusing.

jarboy




msg:859686
 7:01 pm on Feb 16, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi piskie,

thanks for your reply.

So you could just do it in html and it would be the same? (there's no requirement for flash)

Thanks, Tony

andreasfriedrich




msg:859687
 7:48 pm on Feb 16, 2003 (gmt 0)

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.

This thread might interest you: Putting a new dynamic PHP/MySQL site on a cd-rom - Any technology available to make dynamic access possible? [webmasterworld.com]

Andreas

korkus2000




msg:859688
 1:33 pm on Feb 17, 2003 (gmt 0)

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.

RZaakir




msg:859689
 1:24 am on Feb 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

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.

jarboy




msg:859690
 6:02 am on Feb 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi Everyone,

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!

Thanks again, Tony

korkus2000




msg:859691
 12:38 pm on Feb 18, 2003 (gmt 0)

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.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / Site Graphics and Multimedia Design
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved