Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: open
[edited by: WebGuerrilla at 2:04 am (utc) on Nov. 26, 2003]
joined:Apr 13, 2002
A great many flash sites out there, many that are relevant for a great many queries- seems like a waste to throw them out and not find them relevant for anything.
Even with the worst-designed HTML pages, at least I can View Source and look for clues as to the whereabouts of the information I need.
Usually at about 150k a peice
Even for 150k I need minimum 22 seconds to load - for what? Perhaps a single page of content only. I have to wait 22 seconds and still will have to navigate through somewhere. This is exactly why we use search engines (and not DMOZ for most of the time): To get the content we want suddenly w/o further navigation.
Same valid for large PDF thingys. Though PDF has its merits in vector graphics. (displaying the file size for pdf/doc would be very appreciated GoogleGuy :) )
One of the interesting factors was that 117 said they close down any site with flash, and move on - that is a massive percentage.
Form-loaded content, dynamic content, flash movies, and images cannot be used to target ads to your pages.
If your page requires a login, we won't be able to crawl it.
Quoted from Google adsense Technical Implementation Guidelines
I think it shed some light on Gbot troubles digesting flash
I get the best jobs about 3- 4 months after a beaut new flash site goes live..... when the reality aspects set in.
Nothing beats a corporate boardroom pitch on 'whats wrong with your website' than doing it with a nice clean version of a browser, without any plugins installed.... and trying to open their homepage.....
As far as Google is concerned I hope one day they find a way to properly index Flash content, and by properly I mean in a way that makes sense alongside HTML pages, so we see a degree of consistency.
1) A well-designed Flash site will look the same in every visitor's browser, regardless of their browser or monitor setting, or available fonts on the client machine.
2) Flash can incorporate properly optimized graphics, audio and movies with very low bandwidth overhead and without asking the browser to decode a myriad of file types.
3) All these much maligned graphics and animation can be used to convey information very efficiently, if used sensibly. I have heard a lot of talk about accessibility which makes it sound as if text is the only medium that can used to communicate with the handicapped, or less lingual, or whoever else we are all trying to make these pages accessible to. Has anyone considered that the most effective road signs make use of graphics, not words? That the internet was just a playground for hardcore geeks until the WWW began offering graphic content? Graphics are a GOOD thing.
4) Flash content can be easily repurposed into other deliverable formats, which is wonderful for clients and developers alike.
5) It is difficult to swipe or hot link into graphic or audio content embedded in Flash sites. (This may be desirable for some, undesirable for others)
When Flash is given a chance to take it's place in the webmaster's bag of tricks alongside less controversial technologies, I think we will see better Flash sites emerge. In fact, we may even quit worrying about how the sites were made and just enjoy them for what they should be...good websites. That's my dream, anyway.
I don't mean to turn the thread into a Flash versus HTML thing (they need eachother, after all)...just pointing out that Flash can be a useful vehicle for web content, and it seems to me that any decent search engine should index what it can of ALL content on the web. They index PDF's, for pity's sake, and I personally find those even more annoying than bad Flash sites.
Use HTML to design your site navigation. Use text and pictures in a standard format to get your basic information across. Use Flash for non-vital, additional information.
The vast majority of my browsers do not have flash installed, so if I end up on a site that requires flash, I just hit the back button.
And it is not just me that you are kicking off your site. My mom will not go to any site that will ask her to install any software over the web, because "I don't know what it is, and it might be a virus".
My girlfriend does training for librarians on running their public access computers. They do not have the time to keep their old computers updated with the latest plugin, and they certainly do not allow patrons to add them.
Sure flash has its place. I'll open up IE (which is the browser with flash installed) to check out a joecartoon that friends have sent. But I'm not going to bother if it's something that I came across in google when there are hundreds of other sites that don't ask me to install new software.
Most of the flash has images that appear if flash is not installed, with the option to install.
Good point on the virus thingo, my 65 year old dad is the same.
My CLIENT wanted some flash and got it. Navigation and content is all html. Flash is for effects in the header, and for a particular page. The flash adds to the site, helped me market it(people are impressed and will link to it) and does not prevent all and sudnry checking it out.
Site is no means perfect, and I am not a flash grandmaster, but overall the site works fine, is No.1. gets 10 times more visitors than the old html site I replaced.
Why? Well, have you ever seen a static tv ad? We have notions of motion embedded in our brain and movement is a natural part of the human psyche.
If you research regular web users about recall you'll find the sites at the top are flash. No one recalls a static site as a rule of thumb.
But if Flash designers didn't push the edges we'd still have 56k this time next year.
1) A well-designed Flash site will look the same in every visitor's browser
3 Graphics are a GOOD thing.
What we see here is a phenomene of connotation. Flash is modern, advanced, dynamic, progressive, avantgarde. Whereas HTML is old, static, not attractive. If you don't have vectorbased animation, then it is only a discussion based on this connotation, because everything you can do in Flash you can then do in HTML too if you are compentent enough. So you use flash to be modern, dynamic, progressive etc. You can do this if you have restricted user groups like gaming teenagers that in 98% of the case have their plugin installed and are on a DSL line. You cannot do it if you have a broad base of users that are in most cases (related to your topic) no computer freaks. It is irrelevant for them if you have good-looking, perhaps moving, fading, blinking graphic thingys if they do not find what they want. They even can find things in PDFs with the "display as html" option. But what should Google do with indexed flash files? Offer an option "display as html", with discarding all navigation in what is displayed as html then? Unlike any PDF/DOC, this flash file does not have a consistent, say "plot" through the whole file, it is a melting pot of whatever texts that only make sense with their proper navigation. And that is why Google does not index flash, and hopefully never will (you hear me GoogleGuy ;) )
no native speaker and early in the morning, please forgive me