There is no such thing as Flash usability. When you feel compelled to use the word Flash, you concede it needs a special category, and lose the argument "Flashers" are trying to make.

Strip out the word Flash, and compare sites. All sites. Compare on visitor to customer conversion, or anything which puts Flash on a footing to compete. Flash needs to stop walling itself off and start developing its own strengths against some drawbacks, much as any tool does. If you are forced to mention Flash, you automatically undermine any argument which may follow.

Posted by: on April 13, 2003 09:38 AM

---

 

Oh good grief, that made almost no sense. We call it Flash Usability because it's simply more specific. Stop trying to make a political statement out of it.

Posted by: on April 13, 2003 11:25 AM

---

 

Flash can be usable. An all-HTML site isn't automatically more usable.

An example: Imagine a travel site that gives you guides to cities in Europe. Using Flash, you could select the country you wanted, and then it could automatically zoom in on that country and show you cities. Once you select a city, it could show you different options, all without another trip to the server.

(Could you folks please leave your names too.)

Posted by: MadMan on April 13, 2003 12:11 PM

---

 

"We call it Flash Usability because it's simply more specific."

I am willing to accept this -- When Flash Sites Are Compared To HTML Sites. It's not more specific, it is a separate category in which Flash is compared to Flash. It isn't even much about usability, where you can often see "look at this cool Flash site," postings. The usage often suggests nothing about the site, or subject matter.

"Flash can be usable. An all-HTML site isn't automatically more usable."

Fine. Compare HTML against Flash then. I will even accept the hypothetical example you suggest. Put the Flash site up. Put the HTML site up. Test Them Against Each Other.

...then I dunno ....put it up on the Macromedia Usability Topic Centre because, hey, Flash Usability is just more specific.

Posted by: on April 13, 2003 12:36 PM

---