It doesn't help that the preloader's badly coded, dashing to 80%, taking its time to then jump to 100%, then carrying on loading at 100% for a while.

Once you can see something it's clear its use of Flash is totally unnecessary and counter-productive. It's not making any good use of Flash's features - it doesn't resize, it intentionally avoids text anti-aliasing (otherwise the tiny text would seem blurry), and those rollover effects are easy to do with HTML/CSS/JavaScript.
It then seems particularly silly when you click through to an article and it switches to (poorly coded) HTML that looks pretty much the same.

Oh and, thanks to the redirect page, search engines will see the home page as having the title "checking for flash" and no content. That's never good.

It's true that the vast majority of users don't know or care about technical specifics, but details (even ones as small as not putting height and width on images, so the page gets rearranged as it loads) affect the impression a site makes. This site will give a negative impression to many users before they've even seen the home page.

Posted by: Matt Round on September 21, 2002 01:59 PM

 

Yup, their Flash Wizzer should read a CSS book if he wants every clickable item to change color.

Strangely enough, the link with the largest click zone on the page (the camper photo) does not have a hover. So I first missed their "lead feature" because they broke away from their silly hover convention. I assumed the photo was just for show.

Oh, ok, the photo does have a hover, but only on the title at the top. If I've scrolled down, I don't see the hover. Geez, the web would be a freaky place if every link had a hover.

Posted by: Jack on September 21, 2002 02:04 PM

 

I bailed on it because of the font sizes - too hard to read without somehow being able to get closer to my computer. Figure I'll get the jist of it through other sources.

Posted by: Mike on September 21, 2002 02:39 PM

 

I think Flash has some real possibilities if applied in a way that supports the target users of that product. There are some *interesting* effects being used here, but perhaps not in a way that supports the user? Usability Test.

Standards will help Flash. Reminds me of when people were using character based systems and then GUIs were introduced. Some folks automatically assumed that a good looking GUI meant 'easy to use' Test with users :)

Posted by: daniel szuc on September 21, 2002 11:18 PM

 

I agree - on that site Flash is bad.
The articles are ok-ish though.

Posted by: PeterV on September 22, 2002 04:38 AM

 

Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate

Either only have 4 interviews on the home page, or have a proper scrolling page. That 'more' option is designed to enrage, bemuse and annoy. You fiddle with it just to get one more interview. I am being kind when I use the word 'design'!

Posted by: Mac on September 22, 2002 10:17 AM

 

There is nothing here that couldn't be done with some fairly basic javascript. And you'd end up with an easily maintainable, completely accessible, HTML/CSS site.

We've finally got to the point where the DOM is a useful tool. Let's use it!

Posted by: Che Tamahori on September 22, 2002 09:13 PM

 

First off, I don't like that I am not given a choice on whether I can read a Flash site or a text version. Next, I am irritated that it takes a while to load, even on a DSL connection. What would it be like on my dial up? Horrors. Then, I am irritated when I see that there doesn't seem to be any reason (other than asthetic) to make this a completely flash site. After that, I tsk at the ridiculous window-blind (unrolling) sidebar of GAIN information.

This is all before I have even looked at the article information, much less clicked into one. I just don't think a super-slick design is worth that kind of irritation to the reader. And I like Flash (not from a usability standpoint, but as a way to take things up a notch on a design site).

Posted by: Lydia on September 23, 2002 06:32 PM