Want to know how those bad Flash sites we all see came about? It's simple, really, there are two key reasons:
1. Clients/management/designers regularly make poor, uninformed technology choices based on whatever's currently cool or glitzy ("Wow, have you seen what those guys are doing, we have to have a 3D cube on our site, and why are we using this HTML crap?")
2. All responsibility for the structure, navigation and content of a site is often given to a visual designer ("Hey our designers can use Flash, no need for those techy guys to poke their noses in finding problems and making it look ugly")

Posted by: Matt Round on June 14, 2002 04:24 AM

 

1. Yes. However in other professions, they dissuade you from bad decisions and toward the ones they are reasonably sure you'll be happy with long term. I think there must be some kind of name for this, like "knowledge work" or sumthin' -- I dunno.

2. You can thread a needle with a hammer. However, do to the design assumptions built into the structure of hammers, the vast majority of users will feel an irresistable urge to smash the needle instead. There is an entire field of study which argues how things are built influences how they are used, actually a couple of them. The name Flash did not just get tacked onto the product because that's what they pulled out of a hat. Although this phenomenon of seeing existence as a series of uncaused events is fascinating. ...Do go on with it.

Posted by: (the other)JS on June 14, 2002 06:54 AM

 

(the other)JS,

I have the "other field of study" on the tip of my tongue. Could you please remind me so that I don't go insane?

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on June 14, 2002 07:11 AM

 

1. "However in other professions, they dissuade you from bad decisions"
Really? People seem to encounter ill-informed decision-making and vulnerability to 'glitz' in all professions.

2. "You can thread a needle with a hammer. However, do to the design assumptions built into the structure of hammers, the vast majority of users will feel an irresistable urge to smash the needle instead."
Er I suppose those kinds of analogy can be made, do go on with them, but I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. Are you saying you feel all use of Flash is inherently bad?

Flash can be used effectively. It's the best format around for online animation and simple games, and occasionally the best choice for interfaces and applications. If you know what you're doing you can integrate it into mainstream sites seamlessly by
a. using good JavaScript Flash detection
b. avoiding making the plugin auto-install
c. where possible ensuring users without the plugin don't realise they're missing anything (e.g. give a static image instead of a non-essential animation)
d. avoiding using Flash for navigation
e. using the appropriate version (v3 for simple animation, v5 for better sound & scripting, v6 for video and other new features)

I've worked on a wide variety of mainstream commercial sites and seen many good and bad uses of Flash. The two points I mentioned are where I felt the bad projects started heading irrevocably in the wrong direction.

Posted by: Matt Round on June 14, 2002 08:16 AM

 

John S. Rhodes,

Don't go insane, the field(s) are: Captology (micro, you know B.J. Fogg) and System Dynamics (macro, Peter Senge, Meadows etc). Essentially, you get behavior you design for -- excuses included at no extra charge.

Trivia time. What experiment in captology (although not known as such at the time) just celebrated a 30 year anniversary? No cheating.

Posted by: (the other) on June 14, 2002 09:01 AM

 

Matt,

Thanks for the insightful comments about Flash. I particularly enjoyed your tips. If designers took your advice, the usability on many Flash sites would be greatly improved. If you have other related tips, fire away.

Actually, I think it would make sense to write a quick little article based on your tips. What do you think? What do other folks think? I'd be happy to throw it on WebWord for the exposure. You could be a guest author.

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on June 14, 2002 09:35 AM

 

Matt,

I think that (the other)JS was trying to make a very simple point. Flash as a tool is fine but it is very easy, perhaps too easy, to create web sites that have poor usability.

Here is an anology that might be more appropriate. Give people the BLINK tag and, well, they will use it. It was nearly impossible to use the BLINK tag without creating crap. In some ways, Flash is the same. Give people the ability to easily make flaming logos and pump techno music in the background and, by gosh, they will do it. Many developers simply can't help but abuse these things; it is like crack to them.

Flash isn't abusive. Some developers abuse Flash. End of story.

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on June 14, 2002 09:46 AM

 

Hi, I'd urge caution on JavaScript detection tests... besides having to test on multiple browsers (including a VBScript test for IE/Win, etc), these just tell you whether a Macromedia Flash Player is present. Very few consumers don't have one. It's more likely that you'd do version-detection, if anything.

I've seen a lot of trouble caused making detection routines, and then fixing broken detection routines. I think it's easier to just show the content, with a link to either installation or a lower-grade text representation. That's me, though, your mileage may vary.

(Auto-installation of extensions depends on the browser... IE/Win does that, others don't.)

I'd also _recommend_ SWF for many navigation tasks. It excels at letting people drill down deeply without confusion. Take a look at the General Motors website for an example... hmm, this site is also a good example of the dangers of detection routines, because it gives my Mozilla browser the non-Flash version. You wouldn't want the *only* navigation path to be through SWF, but it beats HTML or DHTML for many sites. (FoxSports is another example of deep exposure of only relevant navigational choices.)

Regards,
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support

Posted by: John Dowdell on June 14, 2002 12:10 PM

 

Following some links over at John Dowdell's site, I found these two links on the CHI-WEB site:

The Flash turn-around (Don Norman)

RE: The Flash turn-around (Chris MacGregor)

Fun, fun, fun!

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on June 14, 2002 12:34 PM

 

Flashback to Tog on the 'evils' of non standard Hypercard controls. Circa 80s. I guess retro really is the new cutting edge. This was fun -- let's do it again in ten years' time.

Posted by: (the other)JS on June 14, 2002 02:27 PM

 

"these just tell you whether a Macromedia Flash Player is present...It's more likely that you'd do version-detection, if anything."
Well yes, you use a proper Flash detection script that returns the version number, one that works in all major browsers. Obviously any poorly written/implemented script will cause problems for users (and there have been a lot of bad scripts around), but so do sites that force users to make choices or install plugins.

For me, GM is a good example of bad Flash. It uses poor detection (redirects to multiple versions; doesn't work in all major browser; users with JS disabled get a blank page), is search engine unfriendly (even if all engines start indexing links in Flash files, they can't even get past the detection's JS redirect, so the site can only get indexed via inbound 'deep' links), doesn't allow experienced users to do things like right-clicking on links, and just doesn't do anything that justifies use of a plugin (DHTML is fine for simple expanding menus).
Foxsports is at least trying something more ambitious, but has some of the same problems (and forces users to download the plugin).

(I was going to stop rambling on about this, but seeing someone from Macromedia give, in my view as a developer who's used Flash in many sites, bad/misleading advice got me all opinionated again!)

Posted by: Matt Round on June 14, 2002 03:16 PM

 

Yeah, you tell 'em, Matt. Didn't John post a link about the Flash on the GM site?

[searches for link]

[Round1: The Webword search engine doesn't find squat]

[Round2] Uses the handy GoogleBar's "Search site" feature to find "GM Flash"

Ah... here it is:
What value does Flash add to the GM home page?. Several useful comments there from Webword readers, including our own Matt Round.

You might want to check out the comments on that page, John. :P

Posted by: MadMan on June 14, 2002 06:04 PM

 

"...seeing someone from Macromedia give... bad/misleading advice...."

Me? Bad? Sheesh, there goes my self-esteem for the weekend.... ;-)

Seriously, browsers won't uniformly tell you what they can do, particularly if you want to go beyond plugin-detection to version-discrimination. Macromedia offers the Flash Deployment Kit for download, which handles cases for various browsers, but it's a big thing to add in. I've been working plugin detection since Netscape 2.0, but these days I really believe it may be more trouble than it's worth, at least with something as widespread as Flash.

I agree with you that I like to see the address when hovering over a link... some browsers will let plugins talk to the Status Bar, but a tooltip or similar feedback may be more practical. If you'll check filesizes, you'll see that a drill-down navigation is far more svelte and speedy in SWF than in DHTML.

(I don't know whether GM's site has added eyecandy recently (its JavaScript detection doesn't seem to recognize Mozilla), but its menuing system shows a few choices at first, and many choices on demand, all without a page refresh.)

jd/mm

Posted by: John Dowdell on June 15, 2002 11:48 AM

 

I use a fairly short (30-odd lines) JavaScript function that gives the Flash version no. in IE5+ Win/Mac, NS4, NS6 and Opera 5+. That's easily good enough to automatically handle non-essential Flash content, and allows the majority of users straight into Flash-dependent sites without them having to manually confirm they've got Flash or worry about what a plugin is. If John gives the go-ahead for an article I'll possibly include it.

Macromedia might want developers to assume everyone's got Flash (or should have it), but trying to make detection sound dodgy doesn't do it any favours, it makes using Flash seem like an all-or-nothing choice. In reality you can integrate Flash content effectively into many sites without impairing usability by forcing users to make technical decisions or install software.

Posted by: Matt Round on June 15, 2002 01:58 PM