Just a little anecdotal evidence

[Travis Newbury]

Not to start another war, but....

My son has a small video production company in Atlanta that create
music videos, training videos and (to pay the bills) wedding videos.
His website was just like everyone else's. HTML, CSS, and a little
flash for the video portion. Accessible to most vidsitors.

I told him, let change the website to an all Flash website that
tightly integrates the site with the video. His customers loved it
(especially the wedding customers for some reason). The traffic
almost tripled in the course of a 2 months. His clients, who had
video hosted his site (mostly wedding videos) were all excited about
the new look and functionality of the site, they shared our link with
their friends who in turn also loved the look and feel of the site,
and many became new customers. Requests came in for both new video
work (mostly wedding and training), as well as requests for custom
Flash video players for their websites and myspace accounts (mostly
for wedding and music video clients).

Moral of the story? Changing to a full Flash based site with heavy
animation and video proved to be the ticket for getting new clients.
Why? Because that is what the customers wanted. In a site that
promotes video and more particularly Flash video on the web, the
people that wanted that stuff integrated tightly with their websites
wanted to see that functionality on his.

Now to even top this, I did the entire site in CS3 so a good portion
of the visitors to the site probably got the "you need to upgrade"
page when they arrived. There is no NON-Flash alternative. If you
don't have the newest Flash player the site is useless to you, and you
will probably take your business else ware.

I know this is anecdotal evidence, and could all be bullshit any way,
believe what you want, but there is a place on the web for all this
fancy crap. That is what some people are looking for and my son's
website seems to demonstrate that.

Your mileage may vary

 

[Harlan Messinger]

Not to start another war, but....

My son has a small video production company in Atlanta that create
music videos, training videos and (to pay the bills) wedding videos.
His website was just like everyone else's. HTML, CSS, and a little
flash for the video portion. Accessible to most vidsitors.

I told him, let change the website to an all Flash website that
tightly integrates the site with the video. His customers loved it
(especially the wedding customers for some reason). The traffic
almost tripled in the course of a 2 months. His clients, who had
video hosted his site (mostly wedding videos) were all excited about
the new look and functionality of the site, they shared our link with
their friends who in turn also loved the look and feel of the site,
and many became new customers. Requests came in for both new video
work (mostly wedding and training), as well as requests for custom
Flash video players for their websites and myspace accounts (mostly
for wedding and music video clients).

Moral of the story? Changing to a full Flash based site with heavy
animation and video proved to be the ticket for getting new clients.
Why? Because that is what the customers wanted. In a site that
promotes video and more particularly Flash video on the web, the
people that wanted that stuff integrated tightly with their websites
wanted to see that functionality on his.

Makes perfectly good sense. It also doesn't tell us what would have
happened if your son's business instead was selling shirts.

Now to even top this, I did the entire site in CS3 so a good portion
of the visitors to the site probably got the "you need to upgrade"
page when they arrived. There is no NON-Flash alternative. If you
don't have the newest Flash player the site is useless to you, and you
will probably take your business else ware.

You say that like it's a good thing. Why would you not want to go the
extra step?

 

[Travis Newbury]

Makes perfectly good sense. It also doesn't tell us what would have
happened if your son's business instead was selling shirts.

Well actually I created an interactive T-shirt design application in
Flash for a t-shirt company that increased their online sales too
because it allowed their customers to visually design their shirts on
line and order them. Youth sports teams and (interestingly enough)
families ordering "reunion" t-shirts were the biggest increase seen.

But your point is completely valid. It worked for my son's site
because of what he was selling and the fact that his typical customer
was visually motivated. Doing the same thing for other sites may or
may not have the same results. MOST sites would probably have
negative results if they did the same thing. That's why we treat each
site as unique.

<mantra>
Know your client, and know their customers.

You say that like it's a good thing. Why would you not want to go the
extra step?

It was useless extra work for an all Flash site. Everyone that uses
Flash is eventually going to have to upgrade (that is even stated on
his upgrade page). And generally people that enjoy Flash do not have
a problem upgrading to the new version. The clients he was aiming for
are the people that enjoy Flash. The cost/benefit was deemed to low
to create a non flash alternative (plus I had other things to do and
his site was a free-bee)

 

[Andy Dingley]

Not to start another war, but....

Yet again, you re-cycle the old fallacy that a website can't be
exciting _without_ Flash.

Maybe it can be with Flash, but that doesn't rule out making it
interesting by HTML & CSS means too.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Yet again, you re-cycle the old fallacy that a website can't be
exciting _without_ Flash.

Damn, I missed where I said that...

Maybe it can be with Flash, but that doesn't rule out making it
interesting by HTML & CSS means too.

Nope it doesn't. And his old HTML/CSS/Flash site looked good, was
functional, and fun. But his new site is obviously more appealing to
his customers than the old one was... Go figure...

 

[mrcakey]

George W Bush wrote in message

Not to start another war, but....

;-)

.......

I think we all might be wasting a lot of keypresses and bandwidth on this
issue. Perhaps people have different agenda and we should just agree to
disagree.

My own two cents:

Letting the user's browser control so much of the layout is a nice goal -
user's font, user's screen size, maximum accessibility etc., but while it's
appropriate for some sites, people get paid an absolute fortune to work on
the aesthetics of a company's branding (aesthetics being distinct from
design). These people know what they're doing - there are combinations of
white space and visual elements that work and combinations that don't. It's
wrong to castigate these people for wanting a site laid out the way they
specify. The only way to ensure this is to use a rigid layout. If I have a
three column layout with divs floated left and right and the content in the
middle is relatively sparse, it's going to look absolutely abysmal in a
browser stretched out to 1400px plus isn't it?

+mrcakey

 

[Harlan Messinger]

I think we all might be wasting a lot of keypresses and bandwidth on this
issue. Perhaps people have different agenda and we should just agree to
disagree.

My own two cents:

Letting the user's browser control so much of the layout is a nice goal -
user's font, user's screen size, maximum accessibility etc., but while it's
appropriate for some sites, people get paid an absolute fortune to work on
the aesthetics of a company's branding (aesthetics being distinct from
design). These people know what they're doing - there are combinations of
white space and visual elements that work and combinations that don't. It's
wrong to castigate these people for wanting a site laid out the way they
specify.

People get paid an absolute fortune to work on the aesthetics of a
company's headquarters. These people know what they're doing - there are
combinations of texture and form that work and combinations that don't.
It's wrong to castigate these people for wanting a building to look the
way they specify--even if it can't be physically achieved using
real-world building materials, and even if it would result in a
structure that would be unsafe or unpleasant to occupy or inadequate for
the purpose for which it's intended or likely to deterioriate in a very
short period of time.

 

[mrcakey]

People get paid an absolute fortune to work on the aesthetics of a
company's headquarters. These people know what they're doing - there are
combinations of texture and form that work and combinations that don't.
It's wrong to castigate these people for wanting a building to look the
way they specify--even if it can't be physically achieved using real-world
building materials, and even if it would result in a structure that would
be unsafe or unpleasant to occupy or inadequate for the purpose for which
it's intended or likely to deterioriate in a very short period of time.

Really not the same thing is it?

+mrcakey

 

[Harlan Messinger]

Really not the same thing is it?

Why do people respond to analogies this way? Is the point of an analogy
beyond them? Or are they under the impression that an analogy isn't
really an analogy unless it's a useless one of the form "A is to B as A
is to B", as evidenced by their picking apart any difference they can
find between the items being compared, regardless of relevance to the
comparison? Yes, I understand that they aren't *exactly* the same, but
in ways *significant to the analogy*, they are the same: The designer is
NOT the all-consuming expert and authority, and in fact may be entirely
ignorant of extremely important considerations.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Why do people respond to analogies this way? Is the point of an analogy
beyond them?

Well the analogy has to be relevant. I don't think it was really.

You were saying that people building buildings can't always follow the
design they want because of catastrophic issues that may result by
pushing the limits of the current technology. You were comparing that
to a fixed width site that may not work exaclty the same on a pda or
cell phone as it does in a browser on a computer. I do not believe
the two are comparable.

A fixed width site will work on everyone's system, including
cellphones and pdas, but it might not be as convenient. For example I
check my gmail or Fox News, or weather.com on my cell phone browser.
It is a ROYAL pain in the ass. But I can do it. If I have a computer
and my cell phone, then the computer wins every time.

Why do you think a website has to be equally functional on a cell
phone as on a computer browser to be successful. This has not been
proven true in real world usage.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Well the analogy has to be relevant. I don't think it was really.

Harlan makes a very good point. It seems today, especially in web design,
but to an extent in other areas of endevour, people believe "design" to be
an entirely an artistic and aesthetic matter. However, the aesthetics of a
product have traditionally only made up a small part of the design process.

Consider a mug. The handle juts out and gives the whole thing an
unsymmetrical appearance. From a purely aesthetic point of view, it may be
best to do away with the handle, for perfect rotational symmetry.
Beautiful. But if it burns you when you pick it up because your hand is
too near the boiling hot liquid contents, then the mug is badly designed.
It is not fit for purpose.

Apple are a good example of a company that seem to get design right,
pretty much all of the time. They rightly receive plaudits for the
aesthetics of their devices (although that is mostly characterised by
minimalism, a look that is not too difficult to achieve), but it's the
other part of design where they really shine.

Back to websites: you might have pages and pages of beautifully drafted
prose, but if nobody can understand how to use your "unique and innovative
navigation scheme", then nobody's going to be able to admire them.

Aesthetics may be important, but usability and fitness for purpose are
*fundamental* to good design.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 24 days, 7:24.]

CSS to HTML Compiler
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/01/22/css-compile/

 

[Travis Newbury]

Aesthetics may be important, but usability and fitness for purpose are
*fundamental* to good design.

You have to have 2 things:

1. Content that the visitor wants
2. A presentation of that content in a manner pleasing to the visitor.

If you achieve this for the majority of the people visiting your site
(notice I said MAJORITY not ALL) you win. It makes no difference if
the site is fixed width, felxible, Flash or anything else.

If you meet those two criteria for the majority of your visitors then
you win every time.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

Well the analogy has to be relevant. I don't think it was really.

You were saying that people building buildings can't always follow the
design they want because of catastrophic issues that may result by
pushing the limits of the current technology. You were comparing that
to a fixed width site that may not work exaclty the same on a pda or
cell phone as it does in a browser on a computer. I do not believe
the two are comparable.

The crux of the analogy is that THE PRETTY PICTURES ARE NOT THE ONLY
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION. There is THAT clear enough? Good friggin' grief.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

Harlan makes a very good point. It seems today, especially in web design,
but to an extent in other areas of endevour, people believe "design" to be
an entirely an artistic and aesthetic matter. However, the aesthetics of a
product have traditionally only made up a small part of the design process.

Consider a mug. The handle juts out and gives the whole thing an
unsymmetrical appearance. From a purely aesthetic point of view, it may be
best to do away with the handle, for perfect rotational symmetry.
Beautiful. But if it burns you when you pick it up because your hand is
too near the boiling hot liquid contents, then the mug is badly designed.
It is not fit for purpose.

Thank you. Then there was the sleek can opener I bought, only to have it
pinch the flesh between two of my fingers the first time I used it,
after which it went into the trash can. And then there are the chairs
exemplifying the height of 20th century design at the Museum of Modern
Art in New York--the ones that nobody would ever want to sit on because
they wouldn't be the remotest bit comfortable.

If some of the others weren't so desperate to pretend my analogy was
inapplicable, they would have noticed that I didn't only mention
catastrophes. I mentioned factors that would make the building unusable.
These could include defects like an inability to keep the building
within tolerable temperatures during the height of the winter or summer
months; ceilings too short to allow the taller employees to stand up
straight; lack of a loading dock; lack off access for employees in
wheelchairs; and acoustics like those in a restaurant where people have
to shout over the din to be heard by the person facing them.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Why do people respond to analogies this way? Is the point of an analogy
beyond them? Or are they under the impression that an analogy isn't really
an analogy unless it's a useless one of the form "A is to B as A is to B",
as evidenced by their picking apart any difference they can find between
the items being compared, regardless of relevance to the comparison? Yes,

I don't have a dog in this fight -- but with me, anyway, that usually
means that my analogy has busted their ass wide open and it's the best
they can come up with.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

You have to have 2 things:

1. Content that the visitor wants
2. A presentation of that content in a manner pleasing to the visitor.

3. Functional framework that is both intuitive and accessible.

Nobody likes a door that is gorgeous to look, that is the entry to the
most desirable room, but one that no one can figure out how to open!

If you achieve this for the majority of the people visiting your site
(notice I said MAJORITY not ALL) you win. It makes no difference if
the site is fixed width, felxible, Flash or anything else.

If you meet those two criteria for the majority of your visitors then
you win every time.

So I look for the trinity...

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:43:11
GMT Harlan Messinger scribed:

Why do people respond to analogies this way?

They haven't taken enough analgesic beforehand.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:31:04
GMT Toby A Inkster scribed:

Back to websites: you might have pages and pages of beautifully
drafted prose, but if nobody can understand how to use your "unique
and innovative navigation scheme", then nobody's going to be able to
admire them.

Aesthetics may be important, but usability and fitness for purpose are
*fundamental* to good design.

You seem to be equating design with engineering. It can be argued that
the 2 are separate disciplines and design is primarily a province of
aesthetics.

 

[Travis Newbury]

3. Functional framework that is both intuitive and accessible.

I believe #3 is part of #2. To be pleasing it must be accessible and
intuitive.

Man we are on an agreement roller coaster...

 

[dorayme]

Really not the same thing is it?

Why do people respond to analogies this way? [/QUOTE]

Because they are don't understand them, they don't understand
their scope. (I thought your analogy quite good btw)