building a web site with html

S

SpaceGirl

The said:
Every time I see a Flash website with tiny, unreadable text, I know that
there is a designer relying on this to be true.

Bad deisgn will still be bad design regardless of the format used,
that's a given.
It's even worse when I visit a site and have to scroll all over the place
to enjoy the content - again, mainly due to Flash.

Uh-huh. Agreed.
Plus, Flash is a common but proprietary format. It's up to version 6(?)

Version 7 (MX 2004).
now. Do you want to use a format that may need reauthoring in a
commercial package? In plain words, you could be forced to buy the latest
version of the Flash software at some point to re-engineer your content.

Only if badly designed. It's just a front end for your data (which
should be driving your site). Flash MX and MX 2004 are both excellant
XML parsers, with the 2004 version supporting xpath and XSLT style
transformations... basically you can have your movie entirely driven by
the data it sits on top of. Change the data, and your movie changes too...
Will Flash index properly on a search engine? Maybe. Newer search engines
will index your site. Eventually. I think.

Google does, which is all that matters really.
Flash can "bulk up" a website without returning much for the investment.
The same can be said of any graphic format, really, but 100k+ Flash sites
are ubiquitous.

But Flash also streams... a well designed Flash site could be working
after just loading a few Kb. It might take more to get the fancy stuff
down, but Flash can be structured quite easily for fast downloads. The
is a HUGE advantage over HTML, as in Flash you have complete control
over what loads when and what feedback is given while it is loading. Try
loading a large lump of tabulated data in HTML and it can take a long
time before the user sees feedback in some browsers. In Flash it could
be inline, or give you a progress bar.... etc etc...

Flash has some big design overheads, has a few accessibility holes, and
is quite hard to work with (and expensive, given you have to buy
Macromedia Flash) but in a fairly strict design environment and given a
tight brief to work to, it can easily be a far better solution than HTML.
:)

It's not all sunshine.

That's for sure. I *hate* programming in Flash... but then, I hate
programming, period :)
The Doormouse

x The Miranda :p

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
 
T

The Doormouse

Without graphics, an HTML page in its entirety is just a few Kb. Also, you
can control what loads when to some extent with HTML.

I am not convinced about a large Flash table being faster than the
equivalent table in HTML. A table large enough to give Flash an advantage
due to streaming would also be too large for practical use on a web page.

IMO.

The Doormouse
 
R

Richard

Richard said:
Hi,

I want to build a web site containing pictures, Flash animations,
Flash games and later on a little store. Can I do all that with html and
Flash or do I need some commercial software such as Dreamweaver?

Thanks,

Richard

Hi,

Thank you so much for the very useful answers. I did ask the same
question twice at the dreamweaver newsgroup and I got not a single answer.
I am very impressed by the friendly advices you gave me.

Richard
 
R

Roy Schestowitz

Luigi said:
I share your opinion.

Hi Richard,

I have used Word for Web page authoring as a child. I used Frontpage in my
late teens. For the past 2 years I have written everything in raw HTML and
I have no regrets! Make sure you get a good editor and a good method for
obtaining a preview (e.g. automatic browser refresh).

http://www.schestowitz.com/UseNet/2004/Suse3/msg00029.html

Also, try to edit all files at the server's end because it will save you
time.
 
T

Toby Inkster

SpaceGirl said:
Google does, which is all that matters really.

Google can index Flash, yes. But what Doormouse asked was if it could
index it *properly*. I've seen no indication that Google can, say, follow
links in a Flash file. Also, AFAIK Flash doesn't allow any substitute text
for graphical elements of a Flash movie (or if it does, it's not commonly
used and certainly wouldn't be supported by Google's rather naïve Flash
parser), so graphical elements of a Flash movie cannot be indexed like alt
text can. Also Google is unable to do its clever highlighting feature on a
Flash file.
 
W

WebcastMaker

How practical is it to build a Flash-heavy site, and give my users
easy control of font sizes, such as I get very easily with HTML, CSS
and using em sizing. This isn't happening. Is that because it can;t
be done, or because it isn't being done, but should be ?

Your probably no going to like the real answer, but here it is. It isn't
happening because there is not a call for it. If there was a call for
it, developers would do it.
 
W

WebcastMaker

Kindly point to a specific site that will show me I'm wrong about Flash.

I find if funny. All the time you hear, "don't do what you want, do what
your users want. Unless the user wants flash, then don't do that
either... That's what you have to learn about flash. Sometimes users
want it. When that happens, it throws the rest of the arguments out the
window. Is your list of issues solvable in Flash, sure is, Is it
practical to solve them in flash, nope. But the key is does anyone
care? Nope.

So google the group to re-read all the arguments.
 
T

The Doormouse

Richard said:
What would be a good editor?

Well, there are several and it varies by personal preference:

Dreamweaver (I don't use it)
Notepad (Free, effective and simple - but no features)
GoLive (ignore most of its "features")
MS Visual Studio (a group of related programs, which includes an editor)
Frontpage (with caution)
PageMill (no longer sold)

If I had to pick one for a beginner, go with Notepad and then FrontPage
later. Be very careful using FrontPage - MS likes to add "features" and
"extensions" that have no place in the real world. Once you understand
the basics, Frontpage becomes less dangerous.

The Doormouse
 
R

Richard

The Doormouse said:
Well, there are several and it varies by personal preference:

Dreamweaver (I don't use it)
Notepad (Free, effective and simple - but no features)
GoLive (ignore most of its "features")
MS Visual Studio (a group of related programs, which includes an editor)
Frontpage (with caution)
PageMill (no longer sold)

If I had to pick one for a beginner, go with Notepad and then FrontPage
later. Be very careful using FrontPage - MS likes to add "features" and
"extensions" that have no place in the real world. Once you understand
the basics, Frontpage becomes less dangerous.

The Doormouse

Thanks for the info.

Richard
 
K

kchayka

WebcastMaker said:
I find if funny. All the time you hear, "don't do what you want, do what
your users want. Unless the user wants flash, then don't do that
either... That's what you have to learn about flash. Sometimes users
want it. When that happens, it throws the rest of the arguments out the
window.

hahahahahahah! Now that's funny! By your reasoning, authors actually ask
users what they want, and act accordingly. I won't argue that there are
legitimate uses for Flash, but Flash abuse is just too bloody widespread
to discount it as irrelevant. The misuse far outweighs legitimate use.
Even you have to admit this is true.
Is your list of issues solvable in Flash, sure is,

Saying it doesn't make it so, and I see no evidence that supports your
claim, whereas there is plenty of evidence that says you're quite
mistaken. So where is your proof?
Is it
practical to solve them in flash, nope. But the key is does anyone
care? Nope.

This is indeed key. Flash authors generally are more interested in their
kewl dee-zyn, and/or some aspect that makes site development easier on
them. The user isn't really much of a consideration, they are just
expected to find it kewl, too. Yeah, right.
So google the group to re-read all the arguments.

You have no arguments, except to say that a Flash site automatically
caters to those who have (and don't have trouble using) Flash. So
anybody that has an "off" browsing environment is automatically not in
the target audience, and it was a conscious decision to exclude them.

In practice, this is the rare exception, not the rule (besides, it's
stoopid). The huge majority of Flash sites are built with no regard as
to whether that is The Right Thing to do for that site, and there is no
thought given to usability in "off" browsing environments at all. It's
like SpaceGirl said - the goal is to have it be identical everywhere.
The user be damned.

BTW, I fail to see what is so different between this mentality and one
that caters only to browser-x and an 800x600 screen resolution on a
17-inch monitor, even though those are completely arbitrary and
unnecessary restrictions for the particular content. Or do you say that
is OK, too?
 
K

kchayka

The said:
Well, there are several and it varies by personal preference:

Except for Notepad, you only listed things that have so-called WYSIWYG
capabilities, which are way the wrong choices for someone just learning
HTML. Those tools should only be used after the author has enough skill
to fix the coding errors those editors make. Besides, all your
suggestions are somewhat pricey, methinks.

Better suggestions are plain text editors. Notepad is usable, but there
are much better editors out there than have features like syntax
highlighting, macros support, extended search and more. Many are free.

My personal preference is Crimson Editor <http://crimsoneditor.com/>.
It's a great multi-purpose editor with a lot of nice features. And free.

HTML-kit, while more specific to web authoring, has also been
recommneded by a number of people, but I've never used it, myself. It is
also free.

My own second choice is Homesite. It has some publishing features that
general purpose editors lack, a nice help system, a "validation"
feature, extended replace, etc. Macromedia still sells it as a
stand-alone product, for a lot cheaper than those other systems you listed.
If I had to pick one for a beginner, go with Notepad and then FrontPage
later.

I'm not sure this is very good advice.
 
N

Neal

Your probably no going to like the real answer, but here it is. It isn't
happening because there is not a call for it. If there was a call for
it, developers would do it.

.... and lose many potential customers as a result. 50% of the users are on
a slow dialup connection or a congested cable. Why wait for a heavy Flash
when another site can offer the same product without waiting so long?

I think there's no call for it because most authors realize wasting the
user's time isn't worth it.
 
A

Andy Dingley

Your probably no going to like the real answer, but here it is. It isn't
happening because there is not a call for it.

Hmmm. I'd always thought you were clueless - thanks for confirming
it.

Are you not answering because it's not possible (and your first claim
was bogus) or because you just don't know ? I know I don't know - I
was hoping some Flash "expert" might be able to clarify it.
 
W

WebcastMaker

Hmmm. I'd always thought you were clueless - thanks for confirming
it.
Are you not answering because it's not possible (and your first claim
was bogus) or because you just don't know ? I know I don't know - I
was hoping some Flash "expert" might be able to clarify it.

So, please answer this. Why is it wrong to cater to a group of people
that want to see flash?
 
T

The Doormouse

kchayka said:
I'm not sure this is very good advice.

*shrug*

Once the very basics are mastered in Notepad, they'll want a wysiwyg tool.
Plus, they will have the skill to decrapify it.

The Doormouse
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top