Forum Moderators: open
I understand that a lot of flash sites are annoying. I can compare this to late 1970's television when Video and video graphic encrusting technology came along: lots of cheezy 'special effects' that had nothing to do with content. Yes, flash has been abused a lot in that way but they'll begin to use it correctly once they begin to 'get used' to it and see its real communication possibilities. But still, that's no excuse to bash the technology itself.
That doesn't change that, although Flash is still a 'new' tool, it is a tool that if well used can at the same time entertaining and efficient. I saw the possibilities of flash even before I began to build my site, but cut it down to make up for some of its weaknesses (aka bandwidth) by deciding on an HTML/'flash window' style, and started putting my site together. I tested the results with many friends (and enemies for criticism : ) and I got better response than I had expected as there are not many sites out there like mine.
Anyhoo, I decided to take a risk with publishing my 'maverick' design as is, but found that my problems lay elsewhere. I discovered that, not only are search engines incapable of detecting anything on my pages, but all the advice I could find advised against using flash-like content, and even glorified text-based pages without. I'm sorry, but I see no glory in making a circa-1994-style page of just images and text. In addition to giving products and information to any visitor, I want there to entertain and amuse them as well.
I would really like to hear why so many show so much animosity (and google itself it seems) towards flash, and I would like to know what I can do to get around my... Google invisibility. I have already opted for the <noembed> option to give an honest-to-god content-rich text replacement, for those without Flash or in need of 'accessibility', to my movie, but Google still hasn't answered my mail asking if their spiders/bots consider that as 'cheating'. Also, have I missed any alternative?
I did my damnedest to make it short, but : )
Take care,
Josefu
There a numerous threads about this topic, e.g. Google and Flash files [webmasterworld.com].
Jordan
...that's another fact, I don't want to make a 'paralell' page of text because anyone coming from Google will be directed there and not to my main content. That's not a solution, that's a compromise.
I asked a few questions up there, and the thread you mention didn't answer them. I know what flash can do as well as its shortcomings, I don't want to argue about whether flash is 'useful, good, or bad'. What I want to do is provide an alternative to flash in the same page as flash for those who don't have or can't see flash. In that way I can please the spiders and bring searchers directly to the right page.
1) [webmasterworld.com...]
"Any statistics about Flash installations?"
2) [webmasterworld.com...]
"Splash page for choosing language and fast load, still bad?"
There's also this very interesting thread with one significant find that have still not been reproduced or confirmed, AFAIK:
3) [webmasterworld.com...]
"Google showing flash results!"
And there's a good discussion spin-off from a PDF-discussion / Jakob Nielsen bashing here:
4) [webmasterworld.com...]
"Jakob Says PDFs Unfit for Human Consumption" (Falsh being brought in from page 3 onwards)
/claus
>> provide an alternative (..) for those who don't have or can't see flash
Well, i'm the ultimate flash sceptic, i suppose. I find flash pretty offensive that is. Nevertheless, i'd like to help or offer a way out so that we can both benefit. It does involve making oldschool HTML though, as an alternative.
For search engines to index your content you will have to provide text anyway, so why not make this text available for people as well - (it's in the download anyway and) you can even appply styles and format it as a black screen with a machine font and no images if it's really that oldschool to you ;)
I don't want to make a 'paralell' page of text because anyone coming from Google will be directed there and not to my main content.
Yes, but you can offer an emphasized link to your main (flash) content. Of course, not the perfect solution but maybe the best.
In that way I can please the spiders and bring searchers directly to the right page.
I think building text pages is the best way. However, you can also:
- mix normal HTML content with flash
- use frames and add a noframes tag with content
- add a noscript tag on the flash page which include normal HTML content (assuming that most of the people who enabled Flash also enabled JS)
- cloak (I wouldn't do that)
...but I still want to keep it all in the same page and I still want to know whether Google reads the inside of the <noembed> tag and whether they penalize this in any way.
- is there a specific reason for this? I'm just thinking of the small download weight of a text page (with a built in detector-script) compared to the larger download of a flash-page. Google only downloads 100K for instance, and i cut off before that if i can.
Two pages might be better, as you'll serve flash content to flash-enabled browsers immediately anyway, and you'll annoy types like me as little as possible ;)
I assume that the detector script makes an automatic redirect if Flash is found, of course.
/claus
Yes, keep it all in the same page, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to. There's the <noframes> tag for browsers who can't deal with frames, there's the <noscript> tag for browsers (or people) who don't deal with Javascript, there was the <noembed> tag for browsers that can't deal with plugins, it's outmoded and there's nothing to replace it. There's no excuse for this, I must be missing something.
Many web users have been conditioned that usually a flash website is more about looking kewl than serving up the info they came looking for.
I do not want to watch a 3-D ball rolling around and get hit with some sudden loud thumping music when all I came for was to find out how to contact some company -- Sorry, NEXT! as I click elsewhere.
Flash? Something already does it much better. Its called....Television.
I thought I saw something about being able to detect the characteristics of a browser (plugs, etc) through the .htaccess file. Was I dreaming? I can't find it again - it would be nice if there was a smoother way to redirect than that javascript load/detect/redirect/reload scheme...
I'll mull it over for tonight - Thanks for the input, and thanks in advance for any more : )
[dack.com...]
Your welcome :-)
[edited by: TheWebographer at 8:42 pm (utc) on Aug. 13, 2003]
However, at the moment, I feel the only real option in using flash is to limit it to elements within the page. To create complete websites in flash is not using the web medium correctly imo. It is akin to making your whole page a JPG and loading that up for all to see.
The best use of Flash in my opinion are:
- elements within a page (ie.. animated logo perhaps or animated promo on front - see overture's use). This means all your text can still be picked up no problems.
- specific pages that are linked to as flash (ie. a flash game, a flash cartoon, a tutorial or something similar). Because people are warned they are much more open to this.
- cd-rom for fully flash based work.
By sticking to those uses you don't ignore the search engines and respect your users at the same time.
Okay, I only scanned your post (feeling lazy tonight)... and I can tell you that I have personally designed nearly 500 sites, including many Fortune 500 company sites... as well as hardcore flash and heavy focus on SEO...
First, FULL FLASH sites are, in my opinion, lousy... they have a certain appeal, and that can be for movie trailers, site demos, etc.... but conducting your entire site in full flash is annoying for just about 95% of all your site visitors... liekly because it's so non-standard... even I, who likes Flash A LOT, do NOT like navigating full flash websites.
Flash tastefully and strategically integrated in a site is another story, especially when done interactively and tied in with a database which we've done... that can be VERY, VERY nice, helpful and poignant... also, I can say that as long as a site is not 100% Flash, I can get it top SEO just as well as a site that has no flash... so having flash in a page WILL NOT ruin your SEO chances if you know what you are doing (I ought to know, 50%+ of our sites inclue Flash and they ALL are tops in the Serps and averaging 500 - 4,000 unique users a day).
You WILL NOT be able to compete with me (if we went head-to-head and you did a full Flash site and I didn't)... but more to the point, the reason people don't like full, 100% flash sites is less about modern vs. circa 1994 and much more about, say, watching a movie at a great movie theater and watching that same movie projected over the ceiling of that massive tunnel in Las Vegas... sure, the massive tunnel is neat and cool, but it's NOT A STANDARD people are familiar with, used to, and enjoy doing without thinking.
AGain, I LIKE FLASH... but I cannot 'mindlessly' browse a 100% full flash website as I an a regular HTML page... I have to think and find buttons and learn new methods of nagvigating, and wait, and allow screen redraws and loading pages where I'm not used to, and so, it becomes to foreign to me...
As such, stick to an overall web page layout the traditional way with flsh embedded in it in places... that will let you rule with SEO...
But let's face it... think of the top 1,000 most highly visited and popular web pages.. .there's a reason... I'm sure a detractor could argue for all the reasons they don't use flash... but the reality is they don't use flash because people don't want to browse flash when it takes over their browser...
See ya.
Flash tastefully and strategically integrated in a site is another story, especially when done interactively
Yes! I had thought about an 'optimal' site design from a user point of view before even getting into learning how to make a site. My site contains everything: Layers, Javascript window control, CSS positioning as well as hard links from page to page - whatever does the job best. I am certainly not one to dig for ooohs and aaaahs. Anyhow 'Flashy' effects become tiresome for the user who visits often, a fact that may even end up being counterproductive to the site. My site's weakness is that it's text is in the Flash image. T'aint a movie, it's a room. Wish you could see, there's not many sites out there like mine. I'm a photographer and graphic artist, and don't do things 'web-style' just because it's the web. (Grin)
Now back to what I had mulled over last night - still mulling - making text pages as a replacement for flash content - wouldn't that be considered as making doorway pages, aka cheating? I am a little paranoid about that. I still want to keep it all in the same page if I can, and without cheating.
My site contains everything: Layers, Javascript window control, CSS positioning as well as hard links from page to page - whatever does the job best.
So which bits are in Flash and why do they need to be? I had the impression from the first post that the whole thing was created in Flash.
You asked why there is animosity towards Flash in your original post. The animosity comes largely from the lack of respect that many (note: not all) flash designers have for their visitors. For the same reason that it is unconsidered to make your site 'minimum 1024x768 - IE only' for example. By not considering that there are many users who don't use Flash or don't have cable, they build sites that will only work on their browser on their system.
The best solution is to create something that is accessible to everyone at least at some level. By doing that you not only keep your visitors happy, but also the search-engines. Nothing wrong with some Flash content imo, just not for the important stuff. That is, unless you are a Flash games site or something.
can you pls post an url?
Welcome to Webmasterworld, w31rdo! :-)
Such URLs aren't allowed to be posted on these forums. See the
TOS [webmasterworld.com] (rules 13,21).
I reckon I had an unusually attractive Flash front page, but I still managed to convert it into a great HTML layout. Although still a Flash fan I've tempered that with the knowledge that virtually every flash-page around requires the user to learn a separate navigation system and endure a load time which simply isn't worth it for the content you get in return. I've also discovered that imaginative HTML and Javascript design can achieve an incredible amount, much more than most people would imagine.
If you simply must go Flash, you can also consider hybrid pages which use Flash and HTML combined. As a basic example you could have your main Flash movie with text underneath, including a good CSS-controlled <h1> and <h2> tags, to make it readable by humans and machines. I've found that sometimes pages with minimal text and high keyword density can do very well, especially if they use good HTML or are even completely CSS controlled with no tables.
If you want to see my old flash index and new HTML one, sticky me for the URLs. I'm sure there will be a solution.
Best,
Jeremy
Oh, and when I say it's 'different' I don't mean 'Great' - rather - I'd just like to say that I'm quite aware (perhaps because of my profession) that doing anything new is... sometimes risky. If you want to criticize, fire away, you'll only be helping. I'll let you (rather than myself) pat me on the back if you like it or not : )
