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
(aside) Oh, for the site you have to click on the Eiffel tower to come in. Sorry that it's in Japanese.
I've also heard about a CSS techinique of replacing text by an image, and the image would not appear for those not using CSS-compliant browsers, meaning Lynx and such.
I would also love an answer about the 'Google readability' and 'Google naughtiness level' of using <noembed> tags, but no answer from them since a month now (since the first mail). I do not want to whine to GoogleGuy.
suggestion: disable the right click menu :)
Aaaaar, those dang PC users : ) You mean against 'image theft'? Thanks for mentioning that... I have windows XP installed on my mac but I still have the same mouse... wait... duh. Good point.
Thanks for the Compliment : ) I'm still in a world of doubt though...
Apart from the scrolling text it's all very doable in HTML, and you can do the scrolling text in Javascript as well if you really want to. Also the full screen display isn't my preference, you need exceptional content and design to warrant taking away all the user's screen space, including the ability to navigate. I'd definitely change to HTML/Javascript, but it's personal preference.
Best,
Jeremy
[edited by: jeremymgp at 7:37 am (utc) on Aug. 14, 2003]
If you'd travel a little further into the site you'd see that it's not only scrolling text, it's flash's ability to store a large amount of items 'offscreen' - without using frames - and I get an added maneuverability in the bargain. There is only one 'new' technique for a visitor to 'learn', that is the 'border' scroll and it's used everywhere in the site so once learned... I know some flash sites are confusing, I've visited many.
You see, I chose flash because it is useful, not because it is "Flash-y" I don't think I should be punished for that.
It is just me or do you have some cats doing the naughty right below the text? LOL! ;D
Seriously, it looks very slick. I like it! L'image de la tour, en particulier, est très magnifique! :)
Jordan
Now, (LOL) where do I put my text?
Well i just did, only so i could tell you what meets my eye :)
First, before the page even displays, i get the security warning "do you want to run activeX?" - of course i click no (some firms even disallow activeX as it's only relevant for gaming). Then the page displays. Well, it's a patterned page, sort of like a wallpaper, with something that looks like an empty picture frame in the middle.
Nothing more. Nothing more at all that is. Oh, of course there is the page title, but that is just the domain. I don't have a clue whatsoever about what this page is about. It's exactly like entering a page with a background image and nothing - nothing - else.
After continous clicking i find that there is an empty div below the "picture frame" and an empty div in the middle as well. Still nothing more. Had i not known something else from this thread alone, i'd have concluded that the page was broken or not made (like "this domain owned by").
Hope this might give you a clue - i get absolutely no indication that you have put the slightest bit of effort into that page outside of creating a background image. The page is simply not doing you any good - i can't even imagine from it, that you are a photographer.
/claus
Well, you could provide a link to open the window with in case it doesn't open by itself. I don't get notices everytime a popup is blocked, see. My counter just increments to another four-digit number. And i wouldn't know how to open it myself if i didn't even know that it existed.
Really, i think you should provide some means for more secured browsing environments to view your work, that's my main point.
i get absolutely no indication that you have put the slightest bit of effort into that page outside of creating a background image. The page is simply not doing you any good - i can't even imagine from it, that you are a photographer.
...of course you can't appreciate my work as a photographer if you can't see any image in the frame, thilly : )
...but you've just confirmed for me that the <noembed> tag is useless - there's text there, trust me. I guess many modern browsers no longer read whatever's between those tags. (what are you using? ) Alright, I have no other solution but to make paralell text pages. That is simply not fair - there are 'in-page' alternatives to all plugs but flash. Bummer. I could use a stronger word.
You could document.write() all the content currently in your noembed tag when there is no plugin detected, and then also use noscript tags as well just as you are currently using the noembed tags. I think that would work.
Jordan
...the document.write() method would be fine I guess if there were no flash plugin - to write to the td in that blank frame claus saw where the text is s~u~p~p~o~s~e~d to appear because of the noembed function. As for the noembed - yes, why not. Cover all the bases, and only that text will be visible to spiders anyway. But loading the same text twice makes for a HTML page twice as heavy as it should be.
This is getting a bit rediculous, I might as well opt for the paralell page option and be done with it until I find another solution.
PS: there are no div's in the first screen! Odd.
Thanks for your help : )
Take care, thanks again
Josefu.
- oh, i'm not sure it was a <div>, it's perhaps the <td> you mentioned with the <noembed> in it. It was something that got selected as a blank space when double-clicking on the page.
Maybe youu could position the text in a div that goes behind the flash if the plugin is found? Flash does have some weird z-index property that allows it to be in front of most anything else afaik - even iframes i think.
btw: i was using the very latest build of IE downloaded yesterday.
/claus
Okay, I'm going to throw in another Two cents... but be warned, you may not like what I have to say!
Two of my clients were (at the time, one has fallen) the number one and number two radio and media broadcasting conglomerates in the world. As such -- since we did all the damn work (!) -- we were able track things over a much broader audience than you would tradidionally find in little sites... so for instance, we could look at, say, the South Florida market, it's nine stations, the 1,000,000 visitors a month they received, and tailor our efforts accordingly. In addition, we were able to learn A LOT about usability, etc. -- and to this day, PERHAPS equal to or short of SEO, usability and browsing experience is hands down the most impotant factor in a website... we were able to further test theories, strategies, etc. with companies like Viacom, Toyota, Isuzu, etc.
Well, guess what one HUGE glaring thing pointed out at us? Even with, say, a 'hot', young, cutting-edge station (ranked fourth in the country).... FLASH (to the degree you've used it... which is, essentially, in lieu of anything else) absolutely, 100% annialiated virtually every aspect of the browsing experience, audience size, audience participation, etc.
You see, while we were doing these things they brought in a flash expert who extolled the virtues of the medium... I, too, like Flash, but strongly warned against FULL FLASH... well, lo and behold, some months later, after a palbale and significant drop in EVERYTHING, they went back to what we had been doing so well and dropped all the flash... Flash is still IN THERE, but rather as a means to augment the content, as opposed to created some 'immersive landscape' for the viewer.
All I can tell you is that -- and you can always look to CreativeGood -- good stuff -- 8 seconds is the max you have... you blow that, and you're f@#$@#d!... Well, I can say that when going to your site (which did work fine for me, no right click issues, active x, etc.)... you would have LOST me immediately because all I see is a big photograph and text scrolling up... and I (in representing your average web viewer) do not have the time or patience to appreciate those creative efforts... I want the MEAT AND POTATOES that originally attracted me to your site...
So, if you're just looking for a little brochure-ware that is rathre fancy, you can always keep what you're doing... if, however, you are utilizing this site as part of a business model which requires that you optimally target each and every aspect of "web design" -- then I strongly suggest you make some changes.
Incidentally, in the past when we've run into a client who simply HAD TO HAVE HIS FULL FLASH and KNEW IT ALL... we (99% of the time at least) could arrive at a happy medium, which was providing an immersive flash presentation that is immediatley available from the home page... as such, they click it, it loads, and they watch and enjoy -- BUT ONLY IF THEY WANT TO!
It's like sound on a page... some people think it's neat... but short of Flash, it will do more for you to drive people AWAY than just about anything else... if it's not the simple and easy-to-use standard that people have grown accustomed to, then don't force it on them.
See ya!
p.s. sorry for all the spelling mistakes...
I saw the problems with full flash before I even decided to use it: not only will a user be confused by 'unorthodox' navigation techniques, he will also feel agressed because he is being forced into learning something new. My trade taught me that 95% of people don't want to and even refuse to if they're not in the right mindset. Flash doesn't come with doobies, sure : )
Oh, and the Business CEO who knows all - most of them today just want to 'wow' clients into buying their product instead of providing real information about it. There is a paralell with web world there, it's called 'short-term customers'.
...that's why my site is not 100% flash and the flash that is there is so basic. I used what did the job best. What I've really discovered is that Flash is a pain in the $&%^&$ to implement and I think it's t~h~a~t more than anything that is either chasing people away or turning them against it. Not to mention that most flash content today is a lot of useless special effects with no meat, a hamburger bun the size of a Volvo around a patty the size of my fist. Notice, for that reason, that I use flash only as a portal between different parts of my site. One can navigate from the bottom toolbar as well. I suppose I shouldn't worry; once I expand things out a bit, as all the end pages have text, google will find me fine. My Flash hub has only a few arms today but hey, it's gonna grow up to be Vishnu.
The leading flash page... well, the index was a 'splash page' until two days ago : ) There is already a redirect for those who don't have flash... but for the rest I mull, I mull.
Cheers, thanks for the input,
Josefu.
Maybe youu could position the text in a div that goes behind the flash if the plugin is found? Flash does have some weird z-index property that allows it to be in front of most anything else afaik - even iframes i think.
(Slapping forehead) Duh! I remember I once tried a 'loading screen' which would hide all those ugly little 'loading image' squares which appear when the page is loading: that went fine, but the flash movie just floated over it no matter what I did. Thanks for the reminder : )
