Quote:
Originally posted by MarkTiarra
Now see here ya go taking a soft statement of mine and turning it into some grand position point.
I did not say I was pro Flash or non Flash. I have simply stated where I think it helps with the evolutionary direction of the net and that we use it when it makes sense from a PROFIT standpoint. So that should answer your question...
If there comes a time when I need to develop media content THAT rich to turn profit for my clients, I will up the ante on the design and design tools used to meet the needs. So far we've found some Flash to help conversions pretty well. That's as far as it goes for now...
|
okay, then let me rephrase so as not to mistakenly twist anything you've said, but rather simply ask a question...
if Flash is good, and I agree than for certain elements it can be.... then wouldn't Shockwave logically be better? Isn't the point of using Flash to create a richer experience for the end user in order to boost sales by touching their senses a little deeper than standard graphics can do? And if that's the case, then why wouldn't Shockwave be an even BETTER tool for accomplishing even greater results?
You can't argue that Flash is superior for achieving a greater experience and then discount Shockwave as being TOO rich. Is there such a thing as being TOO rich in this ever evolving environment? Shockwave is not new. In fact it existed before Flash. Flash is the vastly trimmed down Outlook Express version of Shockwave.