Forum Moderators: open
I personally love a clean html-only site, so fit perfectly in Google's mould.. however I often create sites for clients who want something 'flashier'.. it takes a lot of convincing to talk them around to pulling it back to basic and maybe using only a few flash elements rather than the whole navigation system. I have seen some absolutely fantastic flash websites out there (using simple interfaces), which I seriously regret not seeing in Google results.. in fact, when I show people such sites they are surprised that it was even possible on the internet!
Another area is framesets: this surely is a tool for webmasters to cut down on bandwidth, loading times and increase speed and usability for the end user.. and yet it is futile creating something with framesets if no-one can find it on the internet!
I do see that Google is in front of many other SEs in pioneering new technologies (dynamic urls etc..), but I sometimes feel sad for those people who are trying to create more beautiful, userfriendly internet and just aren't being recognized in the search results.
Interested to see what people think..
why build a complexed site that se's cant index. As their tech expands I think we will see the new technologies start to realy improve. I dont think se's deliberatly hold anything back. I think they are just limited in their ability. Once the search engines get to grips with now to index new medias then the time will be right to use them extensivly.
I don't hate flash, I just hate what a lot of sites do with it.
As to framesets, google seems to handle those fine right now. If they didn't, I would have a lot fewer backlinks.
I have seen some absolutely fantastic flash websites out there (using simple interfaces), which I seriously regret not seeing in Google results.
Give em' both. Most of the nicer Flashy sites offer an html alternative. Great for returning visitors and those on a 56k.
I think when all Flash sites do not offer an html alternative, they may lose a small percentage of their audience.
Javascripter
Here's my question, open for discussion: Is Google's (and other SEs) inability to spider frames, flash and other 'modern' web technologies properly stopping developers from progressing the internet?
I don't think so. If there's enough demand for a search engine that spiders Flash and other multimedia content, someone will come up with one, and word of mouth will take care of the rest. (I'm serious--the generation that goes in for multimedia is also the generation that uses instant messaging, and word of cool new sites gets around very fast.)
As far as Flash is concerned, and Java as well, both have their place as niche technologies but that's all. I will never browse a site that isn't based on plain HTML unless I absolutely must. Anyone is free to build a Flash search engine, but I doubt a conventional indexing approach would be fruitful or that the world would beat a path to their door if they did.
In my opinion the web is not developing in the direction of multimedia (that word itself is sooo '96 ;)), video or even 3D (VRML died for good reasons), but towards XML, web services, seperation of style and content, compatibility with all kinds of devices and more interactivity.
XHTML2 will solve the non-indexable frames problem with XFrames, CSS2 has position:fixed as a visually (but not functionally) equivalent and usable replacement.. and with Nielsen working for Macromedia, I expect some usability enhancements there, which may also include SE more friendliness.
Heck even Google uses a frame or two in their labs and language translation pages, etc. Frames are a controlable and mature technology (that Nielsen article was from 1997?) They can serve to reduce bandwidth nicely for modem users.
Flash however cannot be filtered or controled by the user and while entertaining for awhile, wait until the novices realize their ad filters will not work when they are in a 100% flash site with agressive ads.
"It's not like TV. Really, it's not. Stop it."
(Or something similar, I don't have it in front of me.)
Flash is not well suited for content. Really it's not. If you want a TV commercial, then make one. You get all that comes with (or doesn't) with the medium.
It's bad enough for users, much less crawlers.
There are indeed good uses of it, like product customizers (like car sites) and such. In my mind, most good uses of flash should not contain content that is worth indexing.
-Pete
frames ... and other 'modern' web technologies
Hardly modern. To me a frames site looks distinctly clunky and old-fashioned. There are other ways to save on bandwith, php for example.
I like to know where I'm going and be able to check the page I am on but usage of frames&javascript stop me from checking things like actual PR of the page. I also noticed that the PR fluctuates a lot from frameset to actual frame.
Frames are annoying.
Flash to me is the way of the future however. I believe that SEs hold it back a little, by not making it more easier to find flash based sites. While you say that there are many ugly flash sites out there, there are equally (or more) ugly html sites out there.. html sites trying to include fonts on their pages that won't work on other people's computers for example.. something that Flash copes with easily by embedding fonts. HTML sites that simply sprawl all their text out over the whole page, without caring about formatting or layout. For a designer, Flash is a godsend.. it makes layout (yes, even simple layouts) much more attractive and provides a far better visual communication tool. And like it or not.. computer screens are visual communications tools!
I am not trying to make a case for one technology or the other here though, merely suggesting that people trying to maximise technologies have a hard time.
I am not trying to suggest that webmasters have no ways of combatting this either.. what you say about html alternatives, etc.. is true.. but when you think about it.. isn't it a real drag to have to make two copies of the same site? Surely that will drive webmasters to just create the html version and not bother with the flash one (true for me).
I personally am scared and precautious of trying any new web technology that comes along.. I stay clear of javascript as much as possible, don't use flash on my site and use CSS with great caution.. the danger of isolating viewers by making my site impossible to find are too great!
Thanks for your continuing debate on this matter.. I like to hear what others think about such things!
EVOLVE!
Google has decided to "work" for the web community that is looking for information. The fact that Google sees (either intentionally or unintensionally) Flash websites as generally being information poor, is IMHO no bad thing. I don't want to surf adverts.
Having said that, if I do move into product searching mode, then sometimes it would be nice to be able to find some good Flash sites. Fortunately that only accounts for a minimal amount of my searching.
Most people don't care for flashier stuff other than as entertainment.
For pure actual use in buying, research. We need usability a lot more than a long loading, weird user interface.
Screw this rich multimedia crap. It's only going to self-destruct or be used only for art or entertainment, no ecommerce site would dare stick to it.
They are using common sense, and sticking to the core standards. It's their business and right to make their own mind up...
I like flash for fun or entertainment.
And I hate that my favorite company, Allaire sold out to crapola macromedia. But ce la vie.
I keep waiting for macromedia to fold, so allaire can become independent again, and get back to reality.
But i wonder WHY clients are asking for "flash sites". Have they really worked out the ROI, and cost benefit of having a website, apart from wnting to "outflash" competitors. Do you REALLY need animation to sell on the web? My feeling is no, and those people who see a web site as primarly a promotion vehicle may be disappointed in future.
As for Google slowing down development, thats quite clearly ridiculous. Google is popular because it quickly sends people to the information they are looking for WITHOUT having to wait through a maze od advertising and spin to find it through endless reciprocal links and flashing ads.
Google is an information engine. Its service is to pinpoint answers to people's questions. From facts and opinions to where to buy this or that. That is what many people want obviously from user statistics I am seeing.
Now the advertising industry and makers of high tech software, computers and the like would LOVE you to think otherwise. But I dont see search engines out there that people use everyday to find the best aminated creations out there, do you? Once surfers vote by their feet that looking at animation is what they want to do on the web, there will be search engines to do it for them. (and I think there are, but they are specialist, not mainstream type)
The Web is not a TV, or a video game. There is not endless bandwidth as there are TV signals, and there are around 5 BILLION channels on the Web compared to around 3 to 50 channels on tv available for one person at the same time. People can turn off in an instant to something else.
It is a medium expressly designed for sharing and making information available whether it be commercial or not. I love innovation when i see it in smart database applications, searching applications and websites that get to know you and deliver what they think you would like to buy or see. That is the sort of innovation native to the web. Some Flash applications ive seen are great at providing highly useful guides or demos to those who want them and need them.
But Google IMHO, is doing a sterling job at delivering people as fast and as accurately as possible to the answers the are looking for. And other less known search engines are now making massive strides as well. The idea that the Web was ever going to be a multi-media extravaganza was at best a pipe dream of seriously deluded and non-net savvy entrepreneurs. Give me the facts straight away.. spare me the spin and animated fluff.
Flash to me is the way of the future however.
Gee, I seem to recall MSN using Flash (and losing millions of dollars in the process) during its ill-fated experiment with TV-style entertainment back in 1996 or 1997.
To be sure, Flash is appropriate for some things (just as PDF files and streaming video are good for some things), but communicating text and still photos isn't one of them.
More to the point, it's hard to see how Google can be expected to index Flash content in a meaningful way. Maybe someone can determine how to identify what's in Flash animations for indexing purposes, but until somebody does, why bother to index such files?
Anybody know if it's out of the realm of possibility for MM to do that?
Thanks for the wake up call!
I'll just crawl in a hole and hide my face in shame for allowing my mind to be so one tracked. :(
For ADVERTISING, maybe.
For INFORMATION, absolutely not.
Google's emphasis on non-proprietary, INFORMATION-based technology will benefit its users, and will penalize short-sighted, web-Luddite marketroids who still think of the web as just another venue for TV advertising cartoons.
It's easy to explain why marketroids are demanding Flash: it looks like a cool advertisement. They don't realize that people are not surfing the net looking for marketing brochures, animated or not. They don't see all the real users backing out of the site, or cursing them and all their relatives because they disabled the "back" button. They can't see the sales lost because people came into the site with a particular product in mind, and left because of the three-minute wait to download the stupid cartoon -- people who were already sold on the product!
From the viewpoint of the user, Google is right, standards are good, quick-loading pages are required, and twirling/fading/sliding/shrinking logos are just STUPID.
