There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by -, Aug 16, 2007.

  1. -

    - Guest

    I wondering if there are any serious data showing compatibilty in % of
    flash web sites.

    Help!

    TIA
     
    -, Aug 16, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. -

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <46c3bdb7$0$22583$>,
    - <"bgyuobhjo[i"@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > I wondering if there are any serious data showing compatibilty in % of
    > flash web sites.
    >
    > Help!



    Yes there are some extremely serious, nay, _grave_ stats. 99.999%
    of the members of alt.html have bad things to say about 100% of
    flash sites. 0.001% have good things to say in vague terms and
    then only on condition that all the others are stridently
    critical. The mirror is true of this last: 0.001% have bad things
    to say in vague terms and then only on condition that all the
    others are stridently effusive. If you need more detailed stats,
    don't hesitate to ask.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Aug 16, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. -

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Aug 15, 10:01 pm, - <"bgyuobhjo[i"@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > I wondering if there are any serious data showing compatibilty in % of
    > flash web sites.


    I looked at http://www.w3schools.com and found the below statement in
    their section on flash.

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Who can View Flash?

    In September 2000, NPD Research, the parent company of MediaMetrix,
    conducted a study to determine what percentage of Web browsers have
    Flash preinstalled. The results show that 96.4% of Web users can
    experience Macromedia Flash content without having to download and
    install a player.

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________

    A very high percentage of computer users have used computers with
    flash installed for a long time. Some of the lesser used OSs will
    allow installing of special programs to view flash when an official
    version is not made for their OS. However these versions are often one
    or two upgrades behind the most recent official flash versions for the
    more popular browsers. If you are interested in the small number of
    little used OSs, it pays to write your flash in perhaps versions 7 or
    8 rather than the current 9 version. I often write in 7 or 8, but the
    flash player I have installed is a 9. So far as I have seen, the
    latest player usually plays flash movies written in an earlier
    version, but the reverse sometimes is not the case if you used
    something that is new in the latest version. If you do not use flash
    much, there are programs more limited that the official ones that cost
    much less and meet the needs of many.

    Like all compressed media formats, flash has advantages and
    disadvantages depending on what you want to do. It can make videos of
    fair quality for slow connections unlike some of the other video file
    types. But using the newer FLV/SWF format and high bit rates, it also
    can make very high quality videos suitable only for broadband viewing.
    There is no video format best for everything, especially if it needs
    great compression - different video formats respond to great
    compression in different ways. There is now a great glut of video
    formats and many are used for special purposes such as for viewing on
    various mobile devices etc. There always will be a few to many users
    who can not view any video format. Thus, if you are selling things,
    you need to provide something else other than just video to not lose
    potential customers. Many things have been used such as a link to a
    still picture, a text description, etc. Although I have no statistics
    to quote, I doubt if many people will bother to download a player for
    any video format even if your page tries to direct them to a download
    site, if the video format you use is not supported on the computer.

    The reasons for the bad reputation of flash in many quarters are the
    excesses often used by high pressure ad execs. Many are annoyed by
    flash displays that auto start, especially if they can not be turned
    off. I am most annoyed by flash displays that rapidly flash images or
    text at you at a rapid rate and displays that expand greatly and
    obscure text when you just pass the cursor over them, perhaps on your
    way to click some link not related to the flash.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Aug 16, 2007
    #3
  4. On Aug 15, 11:01 pm, - <"bgyuobhjo[i"@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > I wondering if there are any serious data showing compatibilty in % of
    > flash web sites.


    What do you mean "compatibility"? Do you mean how many people have
    the potential of seeing Flash? Well that number is in the 90% range.

    But why does it matter? If using a blue background brings you more
    business than using a red background, then you would be dumb to not
    use the Blue background. If using Flash brings you more business than
    not using flash, then you would be dumb to not use Flash.

    Use the technology(s) that brings you the most business. It is a
    simple concept that seems to elude many people here.
     
    Travis Newbury, Aug 16, 2007
    #4
  5. -

    asdf Guest

    "Travis Newbury" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Aug 15, 11:01 pm, - <"bgyuobhjo[i"@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> I wondering if there are any serious data showing compatibilty in % of
    >> flash web sites.

    >
    > What do you mean "compatibility"? Do you mean how many people have
    > the potential of seeing Flash? Well that number is in the 90% range.
    >
    > But why does it matter? If using a blue background brings you more
    > business than using a red background, then you would be dumb to not
    > use the Blue background. If using Flash brings you more business than
    > not using flash, then you would be dumb to not use Flash.
    >
    > Use the technology(s) that brings you the most business. It is a
    > simple concept that seems to elude many people here.
    >
    >


    Hurrah, at last. Well said.
     
    asdf, Aug 17, 2007
    #5
  6. -

    El Kabong Guest

    "asdf" <> wrote in message
    news:46c4f7de$0$22581$...
    >
    >> Use the technology(s) that brings you the most business. It is a
    >> simple concept that seems to elude many people here.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Hurrah, at last. Well said.


    I agree wholeheartedly, even if the site is not about commerce. The
    designer's client is the Web site owner, which may very well be himself.
    Regardless, the site should please the owner. This is not to say that the
    designer doesn't have an obligation to offer solid, practical advice
    regarding design but, in the end, it's the owner who has to be happy.

    Could he be wrong and his decisions cause him to actually lose sales, (or
    visitors if the site is not about commerce?) Of course. The wonderful thing
    about free market democracy is we all have the right to fail miserably,
    utterly and totally... then get up and try again.

    So if Flash trips the owner's trigger, he should have it, and who knows,
    maybe he knows *his* clientele better than the designer knows them. It's
    win-win for the designer because, he might get more work getting rid of the
    Flash later on.

    El
     
    El Kabong, Aug 17, 2007
    #6
  7. -

    dorayme Guest

    In article <kz8xi.8718$%t4.3514@trnddc03>,
    "El Kabong" <> wrote:

    > It's
    > win-win for the designer because, he might get more work getting rid of the
    > Flash later on.


    Now you have your thinking cap on...

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Aug 17, 2007
    #7
  8. El Kabong wrote:
    >
    > So if Flash trips the owner's trigger, he should have it, and who knows,
    > maybe he knows *his* clientele better than the designer knows them.


    Or maybe he doesn't. Business people think *lots* of things about
    customers that aren't true. The weird thing is that business execs who
    wouldn't imagine they have the skills to design their own logos instead
    of getting a graphic designer's advice or to write their own advertising
    copy instead of getting an advertising firm to create their campaigns or
    to decorate their own office buildings instead of hiring an interior
    design consultant, will see things like Flash and go "ooh, pretty" and
    assume that they know better than their web consultant about how the
    advantages will trade off against the disadvantages.
     
    Harlan Messinger, Aug 17, 2007
    #8
  9. On Aug 17, 7:06 am, Harlan Messinger
    <> wrote:
    > > So if Flash trips the owner's trigger, he should have it, and who knows,
    > > maybe he knows *his* clientele better than the designer knows them.

    > Or maybe he doesn't. Business people think *lots* of things about
    > customers that aren't true....


    Lets use MTV.com as an example. MTV.com went from an HTML site to an
    all flash site because they knew their visitors liked the way MTV was
    presenting itself with Flash. Well the Business side said "Hey lets
    make the entire site Flash based because they like Flash so much!"

    And they did. But after watching the site for a while, they notices a
    decrease in visitors and revenue from the site. So they went back to
    a HTML site with some heavy usage of Flash where it was most
    appropriate.

    The moral is, keep an eye on your site. Tweak, change, try new
    things, and monitor the results. Even after you find the right
    combination that works for your site, you still have to continually
    monitor and maintain the site. A website should be fluid in the sense
    that you are continually tweaking to get the most out of it that you
    can. As your audience, product, service, technology, and a million
    other factors change, so should your site.
     
    Travis Newbury, Aug 17, 2007
    #9
  10. Harlan Messinger wrote:
    > El Kabong wrote:
    >>
    >> So if Flash trips the owner's trigger, he should have it, and who
    >> knows, maybe he knows *his* clientele better than the designer knows
    >> them.

    >
    > Or maybe he doesn't. Business people think *lots* of things about
    > customers that aren't true.


    which is very much true. It's all about out of the box thinking, and
    business people need an outsider to tell them how they are being
    perceived by their customers, they can't know it from themselves. If you
    just fulfill the wishes of your client, then you are not doing him a
    favour. If he wishes to see 'Flash' on his new website, then you have to
    step back, and argue about the pros and cons of such a technology.
    That's why he has hired a designer to do the job for him, so you as a
    designer knows it better...

    just my two cents
    bernhard

    --
    www.daszeichen.ch
    remove nixspam to reply
     
    Bernhard Sturm, Aug 17, 2007
    #10
  11. -

    Bergamot Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    >
    > MTV.com went from an HTML site to an all flash site
    > But after watching the site for a while, they notices a
    > decrease in visitors and revenue from the site. So they went back to
    > a HTML site with some heavy usage of Flash where it was most
    > appropriate.


    I would have expected a different outcome from a site in the
    entertainment industry. Very interesting.

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Aug 17, 2007
    #11
  12. On Aug 17, 10:15 am, Bergamot <> wrote:
    > > MTV.com went from an HTML site to an all flash site
    > > But after watching the site for a while, they notices a
    > > decrease in visitors and revenue from the site. So they went back to
    > > a HTML site with some heavy usage of Flash where it was most
    > > appropriate.

    > I would have expected a different outcome from a site in the
    > entertainment industry. Very interesting.


    I will try to find the URL to the announcement that their all flash
    site is going away. IT was an interesting read. they did what a
    company should do, that is, they listened to their visitors, and took
    actions to make the site better for the majority (not all)
     
    Travis Newbury, Aug 17, 2007
    #12
  13. Travis Newbury wrote:
    > On Aug 17, 7:06 am, Harlan Messinger
    > <> wrote:
    >>> So if Flash trips the owner's trigger, he should have it, and who knows,
    >>> maybe he knows *his* clientele better than the designer knows them.

    >> Or maybe he doesn't. Business people think *lots* of things about
    >> customers that aren't true....

    >
    > Lets use MTV.com as an example. MTV.com went from an HTML site to an
    > all flash site because they knew their visitors liked the way MTV was
    > presenting itself with Flash. Well the Business side said "Hey lets
    > make the entire site Flash based because they like Flash so much!"
    >
    > And they did. But after watching the site for a while, they notices a
    > decrease in visitors and revenue from the site. So they went back to
    > a HTML site with some heavy usage of Flash where it was most
    > appropriate.


    I didn't know that. Good story. It is true that websites for multimedia
    companies are themselves multimedia enterprises. People come to them for
    the entertainment. But on the other hand those who just want to catch up
    on story lines or see the schedule for the coming week shouldn't need
    Flash for that.

    Last night I clicked on an ad for the Heineken Draft Keg because I was
    interested in its features and the technology behind it--not because I
    wanted dancing and music and flashy graphics and difficult-to-use
    controls. (I happen to have been watching "So You Think You Can Dance"
    at the time, so I definitely did not go the Heineken URL for lack of
    entertainment.) It's a good thing I do have Flash because if I had been
    using my Treo at the time, Heineken would have displayed a message (I
    know, I turned off Javascript and refreshed the page to check) telling
    me to install Flash, and would not have taken the opportunity to give me
    the information I had gone there to find, something they could have had
    a copywriter write up in an extra thirty minutes.
     
    Harlan Messinger, Aug 17, 2007
    #13
  14. -

    rf Guest

    "-" <"bgyuobhjo[i"@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:46c3bdb7$0$22583$...
    >I wondering if there are any serious data showing compatibilty in % of
    >flash web sites.


    I address the word "popularity" in the subject rather than the word
    "compatibility" in the body:

    Consider http://www.perisherblue.com.au/winter/snowreport/index.php , where
    I live for parts of the winter. The, to me, totally intrusive flash of a
    bloody flying flag advertising a motorway, of all things, almost prevents me
    from reading the content of this page. It's the 'is that a tiger in the
    trees?' subconscious compulsion. If it moves it _must_ be looked at.

    Even worse is http://www.perisherblue.com.au/winter/snowreport/v_eight.php ,
    a picture I like to sort of use as wallpaper on a spare screen (the page
    refreshes every 30 minutes, I can see the conditions throughout the day).

    Well, I finally got cranky with it and started googling. Found flashblock:
    http://flashblock.mozdev.org/

    This replaces flash with a nice friendly button to allow one to download and
    start the flash _if required_. Since installing this gem I have found it far
    more "popular" to me than any amount of flash advertising on a page. If I
    really really need to look at the flash, and it is obviously "content", I
    still easily can.

    --
    Richard.
     
    rf, Aug 18, 2007
    #14
  15. -

    Neredbojias Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:00:06
    GMT rf scribed:

    > Consider http://www.perisherblue.com.au/winter/snowreport/index.php ,
    > where I live for parts of the winter. The, to me, totally intrusive
    > flash of a bloody flying flag advertising a motorway, of all things,
    > almost prevents me from reading the content of this page. It's the 'is
    > that a tiger in the trees?' subconscious compulsion. If it moves it
    > _must_ be looked at.
    >
    > Even worse is
    > http://www.perisherblue.com.au/winter/snowreport/v_eight.php , a
    > picture I like to sort of use as wallpaper on a spare screen (the page
    > refreshes every 30 minutes, I can see the conditions throughout the
    > day).
    >
    > Well, I finally got cranky with it and started googling. Found
    > flashblock: http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
    >
    > This replaces flash with a nice friendly button to allow one to
    > download and start the flash _if required_. Since installing this gem
    > I have found it far more "popular" to me than any amount of flash
    > advertising on a page. If I really really need to look at the flash,
    > and it is obviously "content", I still easily can.


    Sounds like a great plugin; I will have to look into that.

    The nucleus of your story is not only what's wrong with Flash, but several
    other things as well, including stuff like Active-X. It boils down to lack
    of user-control. I don't want anything on my computer that I can't control
    (-yes, one has to put up with some things), and the morons and a-holes who
    design these "flashy"-type sites and "hidden" systems seem totally
    incapable of grasping the concept that this is the prevailing attitude.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
     
    Neredbojias, Aug 18, 2007
    #15
  16. -

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <Xns998FC9D0665C2nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161>,
    Neredbojias <> wrote:

    > and the morons and a-holes who
    > design these "flashy"-type sites and "hidden" systems seem totally
    > incapable of grasping the concept that this is the prevailing attitude.


    Strong words, Boji. I thought you were almost going to say
    schmucks...

    Now what was that plugin that my browser (Safari) did not wait to
    tell me I had to get if I was not going to "miss out on some of
    the content" on your own website?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Aug 18, 2007
    #16
  17. "rf" <> writes:

    > Well, I finally got cranky with it and started googling. Found flashblock:
    > http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
    >
    > This replaces flash with a nice friendly button to allow one to download and
    > start the flash _if required_. Since installing this gem I have found it far
    > more "popular" to me than any amount of flash advertising on a page. If I
    > really really need to look at the flash, and it is obviously "content", I
    > still easily can.


    Very useful little extension - thanks for the tip!

    sherm--

    --
    Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Aug 18, 2007
    #17
  18. -

    Neredbojias Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 18 Aug 2007 03:30:51 GMT
    dorayme scribed:

    >> and the morons and a-holes who
    >> design these "flashy"-type sites and "hidden" systems seem totally
    >> incapable of grasping the concept that this is the prevailing attitude.

    >
    > Strong words, Boji. I thought you were almost going to say
    > schmucks...
    >
    > Now what was that plugin that my browser (Safari) did not wait to
    > tell me I had to get if I was not going to "miss out on some of
    > the content" on your own website?


    I don't really know if it applies to Safari, but there is an MS plugin for
    Firefox (-I think it also works for SeaMonkey and possibly Opera) that
    allows functioning of an embedded Windows Media Player. I got mine from
    Microsoft via the www.mozilla.com plugins page.

    This, however, on my page at least, probably wouldn't be worth it just to
    see a hi-speed-designed movie trailer if you don't have hi-speed.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
     
    Neredbojias, Aug 19, 2007
    #18
  19. On Aug 17, 10:50 pm, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    > The nucleus of your story is not only what's wrong with Flash, but several
    > other things as well, including stuff like Active-X. It boils down to lack
    > of user-control. I don't want anything on my computer that I can't control
    > (-yes, one has to put up with some things), and the morons and a-holes who
    > design these "flashy"-type sites and "hidden" systems seem totally
    > incapable of grasping the concept that this is the prevailing attitude.


    Or we grasp it, but we just don't care because we found that losing
    people with a thought process like yours (not saying it is wrong) have
    fewer consequences than losing the business of people they are
    designing the site for.

    Bottom line it is all a numbers game. What works best for one site,
    may not work at all for another.
     
    Travis Newbury, Aug 20, 2007
    #19
  20. -

    rf Guest

    "Travis Newbury" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Aug 17, 10:50 pm, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >> The nucleus of your story is not only what's wrong with Flash, but
    >> several
    >> other things as well, including stuff like Active-X. It boils down to
    >> lack
    >> of user-control. I don't want anything on my computer that I can't
    >> control
    >> (-yes, one has to put up with some things), and the morons and a-holes
    >> who
    >> design these "flashy"-type sites and "hidden" systems seem totally
    >> incapable of grasping the concept that this is the prevailing attitude.

    >
    > Or we grasp it, but we just don't care because we found that losing
    > people with a thought process like yours (not saying it is wrong) have
    > fewer consequences than losing the business of people they are
    > designing the site for.


    I am well aware that you are totally pro-flash and I agree to a certain
    extent, flash has its place. It's nice when well done. But not in a bloody
    advertisement for a motorway, on a ski site FFS :-(

    Did you look at the site I posted about? A really really non-event. Not even
    good flash. And repeating. Forever. Do you really think that you might
    _gain_ viewers if you put something like this on your page? Why do you think
    I found a hammer with which to squash it? Reminds me of that bloody monkey
    with the big hammer that was around a few years ago. Where is that thing
    now?

    > Bottom line it is all a numbers game. What works best for one site,
    > may not work at all for another.


    This aforementioned advertisement IMHO would not work for *any* site. I
    agree with Neredbojias (to a certain extent). I want control over my
    computer, in that I want to choose to not display such abhorrant
    advertisements. If the rest of the sometimes good flash goes with it then so
    be it.

    Meta tags used to be good for placement in the search engines. Abused.
    Ignored.

    Popups used to be good for the occasional help screen or whatever. Abused.
    Ignored.

    Is this to be the way for flash?

    --
    Richard.
     
    rf, Aug 20, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Hendrik van Rooyen
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    300
    Bjoern Schliessmann
    Mar 30, 2008
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    492
  3. Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,073
    Keith Thompson
    Apr 28, 2008
  4. Kenneth McDonald
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    79
    Michael Guterl
    Oct 22, 2008
  5. Dung Ping
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    149
    Jeremy
    Oct 13, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page