The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
These days, you go to a web design company website and 9 times out of 10 it will be done in Flash. “Why?” I ask myself. The whole skill of web designing is working with the restrictions of HTML and creating good-looking websites without “cheating” and using layers. All these Flash sites make me wonder if they are trying to cover something up.
Who knows, but it’s really peeing me off.
Who knows, but it’s really peeing me off.
Page:
One of the major advantages of Flash (apart from the obviously superior design capabilities) is the speed at information can be displayed.
Unlike HTML sites, where data is continually pulled from the server, once a Flash page is loaded, it's held in cache. No more data is needed until you move to a different page. Therefore whole sites can be held on one page of HTML. Brilliant eh?
Turbonutter obviously likes making things hard for himself if he wants to code everything in HTML. The limitations are too great for HTML-only sites these days. People want to be enterained while browsing.
ajg
Unlike HTML sites, where data is continually pulled from the server, once a Flash page is loaded, it's held in cache. No more data is needed until you move to a different page. Therefore whole sites can be held on one page of HTML. Brilliant eh?
Turbonutter obviously likes making things hard for himself if he wants to code everything in HTML. The limitations are too great for HTML-only sites these days. People want to be enterained while browsing.
ajg
ajg wrote:
> Unlike HTML sites, where data is continually pulled
> from the server,
So is flash. Where else do you pull it from?
> once a Flash page is loaded, it's held in cache.
Er, so is HTML.
> No
> more data is needed until you move to a different page. Therefore
> whole sites can be held on one page of HTML. Brilliant
> eh?
No, because the site has to constantly downloaded. You still have to wait.
A Flash site will always be bigger than a HTML site because elements within Flash pages aren't cached, just the whole movie. You can't bookmark a Flash site and you can't copy text. The purpose of the Internet is to display information quickly. If you go to a Flash Webdesign page, it makes yo wonder how good they are at HTML. Flash designing is very easy, but you have to be skilled at HTML to get it to work. A well designed HTML page will alway be better than Flash because of the nature of HTML. It's cached, you can copy text and images, and you can embed scripts into it. Flash is nice for elements but who sites are just pointless.
> Unlike HTML sites, where data is continually pulled
> from the server,
So is flash. Where else do you pull it from?
> once a Flash page is loaded, it's held in cache.
Er, so is HTML.
> No
> more data is needed until you move to a different page. Therefore
> whole sites can be held on one page of HTML. Brilliant
> eh?
No, because the site has to constantly downloaded. You still have to wait.
A Flash site will always be bigger than a HTML site because elements within Flash pages aren't cached, just the whole movie. You can't bookmark a Flash site and you can't copy text. The purpose of the Internet is to display information quickly. If you go to a Flash Webdesign page, it makes yo wonder how good they are at HTML. Flash designing is very easy, but you have to be skilled at HTML to get it to work. A well designed HTML page will alway be better than Flash because of the nature of HTML. It's cached, you can copy text and images, and you can embed scripts into it. Flash is nice for elements but who sites are just pointless.
Where you say Flash is relativly easy, you are right if you are making simple flash animations. But once you have gone into web pages in flash and complex ActionScripting it is no longer easy, its a skill rather like HTML. And for, people going away when its loading, flash can have progress bars and simular stuff to inform the person how much left is to download, The user is likely to stay then.
ajg wrote:
> One of the major advantages of Flash (apart from the obviously
> superior design capabilities) is the speed at information can be
> displayed.
Information is only displayed as fast as your PC can download it. Not everyone has a cable modem etc.
Unlike HTML sites, where data is continually pulled
> from the server, once a Flash page is loaded, it's held in cache.
Try looking at a full site and pass back and forwards between pages in flash it has to reload every time. Virgins site does this very annoying.Html on the other hand doesn't.
>No more data is needed until you move to a different page. Therefore
> whole sites can be held on one page of HTML. Brilliant
> eh?
Not really because the file size for a whole site is huge. Plus you contradicted yourself if a whole site is downloaded in one page of HTML why would you need more data to move to another page?
>Turbonutter obviously likes making things hard for himself if
> he wants to code everything in HTML. The limitations are too great
> for HTML-only sites these days. People want to be enterained while
> browsing.
Either that or they want to be bored stiff waiting for the all singing all dancing page to download. I don't have a problem with flah its just that having tried it out and using a standard dial up to load the finished article I found it was way to heavy.
Any way the way I see it is you should always give people the option of viewing what they want. And they don't all want to see a reenactment of War of the Worlds with surround sound and motion tweening.
Oh yeah this is only my opinion.
> One of the major advantages of Flash (apart from the obviously
> superior design capabilities) is the speed at information can be
> displayed.
Information is only displayed as fast as your PC can download it. Not everyone has a cable modem etc.
Unlike HTML sites, where data is continually pulled
> from the server, once a Flash page is loaded, it's held in cache.
Try looking at a full site and pass back and forwards between pages in flash it has to reload every time. Virgins site does this very annoying.Html on the other hand doesn't.
>No more data is needed until you move to a different page. Therefore
> whole sites can be held on one page of HTML. Brilliant
> eh?
Not really because the file size for a whole site is huge. Plus you contradicted yourself if a whole site is downloaded in one page of HTML why would you need more data to move to another page?
>Turbonutter obviously likes making things hard for himself if
> he wants to code everything in HTML. The limitations are too great
> for HTML-only sites these days. People want to be enterained while
> browsing.
Either that or they want to be bored stiff waiting for the all singing all dancing page to download. I don't have a problem with flah its just that having tried it out and using a standard dial up to load the finished article I found it was way to heavy.
Any way the way I see it is you should always give people the option of viewing what they want. And they don't all want to see a reenactment of War of the Worlds with surround sound and motion tweening.
Oh yeah this is only my opinion.
JEBUS wrote:
> Where you say Flash is relativly easy, you are right if you are
> making simple flash animations. But once you have gone into web
> pages in flash and complex ActionScripting it is no longer easy, its
> a skill rather like HTML. And for, people going away when its
> loading, flash can have progress bars and simular stuff to inform
> the person how much left is to download, The user is likely to stay
> then.
Trust me, I have done sites in Flash and they are easier than HTML.
Flash is also cheating. Part of the skill in web designing is achieving cross-compatability. Flash is widespread, but not 100% and also people's machine speeds vary.
Flash is OK for elements but just plain wrong for sites.
> Where you say Flash is relativly easy, you are right if you are
> making simple flash animations. But once you have gone into web
> pages in flash and complex ActionScripting it is no longer easy, its
> a skill rather like HTML. And for, people going away when its
> loading, flash can have progress bars and simular stuff to inform
> the person how much left is to download, The user is likely to stay
> then.
Trust me, I have done sites in Flash and they are easier than HTML.
Flash is also cheating. Part of the skill in web designing is achieving cross-compatability. Flash is widespread, but not 100% and also people's machine speeds vary.
Flash is OK for elements but just plain wrong for sites.
I agree totally, Flash takes way too long to load when it isn't neccesary to make a great site!
Look at SR, they don't use flash, yet it's a great site!
And BBC, the most popular site in the UK, no flash there either.
Flash is a waste of time.
Look at SR, they don't use flash, yet it's a great site!
And BBC, the most popular site in the UK, no flash there either.
Flash is a waste of time.
I agree that as a whole site, (unless it's games maed in Flash) that Flash isn't the best way to go, but in moderation, such as the Home Page, I think the WWF Do it best with these animations on there PPV Event Sites, they look good, but at the same time aren't everywhere, and have a link inder saying "Skip Intro", which is probably the best way to go about using Flash. Then again, just my view.
Though with HTML, there's not a lot of skill really, it can't do a while lot, apart from puting images in and text in, making a Form, links, etc... usful things yeah, but with Flash, JavaScript, etc.. things can be done better, not really as difficult as you make out.
Though with HTML, there's not a lot of skill really, it can't do a while lot, apart from puting images in and text in, making a Form, links, etc... usful things yeah, but with Flash, JavaScript, etc.. things can be done better, not really as difficult as you make out.
What takes up most space, a flash banner or gif banner?
Not to sure really, but generally on some sites I've been to, Flash Ad's take a little longer to load up, but look great, and caught my eye.
Well, this post could go one a bit, so I'm guessing we all really agree that Flash has it's good and bad points, but then again so do most things.
Well, this post could go one a bit, so I'm guessing we all really agree that Flash has it's good and bad points, but then again so do most things.
BORRIS wrote:
> What takes up most space, a flash banner or gif banner?
Flash always teakes up less space.
> What takes up most space, a flash banner or gif banner?
Flash always teakes up less space.
Page: