Flash vs. HTML only stats
 

Hey guys... pursuant to that whole conversation we had about running flash and non=flash versions of http://www.lumyr.com - I promised I'd post the stats:

Out of 106 visits yesterday...
55 Flash version
32 HTML Only

No clue where the other 19 people went. =]

So it looks like HTML only is important on the webmaster side too. We got about 80% to the flash which is on the high end of the 65% - 85% Flash install estimates, but to be expected since it's webmasters.

FYI - for what it's worth. =]

I personally don't like flash on webmaster sites at all ... time is money and flash isn't fast ...

Seemed a high enough percentage of people opted for it but I can certainly see from the stats why it's good to have both.

when given a choice between Flash or html, I always choose the html version.... I fuckin' hate Flash sites.

I fuckin' love them ...

Of course a designer does. Because your job is to convince some dumbfucks to pay hundreds of dollars for an uncessary flash design.

I think the more integrated approach of flash "bricks" is the perfect answer...

Niki - flash is no slower or faster than html.. it's all in how it's made.

unnecessary? it's EVOLUTION ... you're acting like inquisitors ...

me 2

not neccessarily.. i don't always like a full flash site.. and depending on what it's selling i'll someones click on the html version because flash may be unwarranted..
I also usually counsel against flash intros.
but the integrated flash brick is definately a great idea, and in no way is uneccessary, unless you think anything to keep up with or stand out from your competitors is uneccessary.. flash first and foremost is small file size vector animation streaming media, so things like the flash ads you see at the top of this page, and the bricks you may see on affiliate's pages are really the best use of flash (even if for the designer they aren't the "fun stuff" of all out interactivity) even when they get a bit chunkier - i really dig the branding value of flash on sites like gammaxtreme.com it really gets the message across.

you forgot flash games ;)

The reason most people hate flash, is that its really hard to use good and design good websites with it, however when flash is used properly even in whole flash sites, they look amazing.

I hate them because most times they spend far too much time spinning shit around and waving lines and crap and rotating lettering and all that fucking bullshit in some lame fag attempt to impress me with their elite flashing skillz, when all I wanna do is get to the fucking content of the site... regardless of what type of site it is. If I wanted to watch fancy wondrous bullshit like that, I'll rent a fucking movie.

I whole-heartedly agree. On all the pay site designs that call for Flash we not only keep it to "bricks" but we just started to use the TD Background image feature to have a non-flash image right behind it.

What I don't understand is how many people get this vehement response against Flash or anything that is an advancement in the medium. Wake up guys... the Internet is not going to be static 2D text and images forever... the more common broadband becomes the more you will have to have live television-like presentations to compete and gain attention from customers. Right now it's an argument because plenty of people are on modems. What do you think happens when people almost all have a wide pipe and they compare your little 2D site with one Vivid makes that is basically interactive TV?

People learning Flash now is the first step in an evolutionary process for designers to get to where they think in action and time dimensions in their designs. It's either that or there will be alot of people out of business because they never stepped up to the point where they could compete with the types of people making TV presentations now.

I disagree Mark.... I don't see the Internet turning into a big ass television. It's more closer to an electronic magazine. And is viewed that way by nearly everyone except those few people designing Flash that are still infatuated with all the spinning crap it can produce. But when people search for something, or go to a site.... they're there primarily to get the information or see the images in the case of porn..... not to be fucking amused by stupid flash tricks.

not every little advancement in technology is a 'global revolution',.... lol

that stupid Segway scooter thing was pretty cool too, but the world isn't trading in their cars for them either....

fuck flash

i want to find out what u got to offer quickly and not sit through bullshit animations...

i give you about 5 secs for me to find the information i want otherwise i'll close the window

oh yeah while im having a rant... fuck any webmaster area that has porn images in the design... im there to check stats etc not look at nude shit

fuckin fuck...

(guess im in a pissy mood today)

That sounds like the same line of thinking that had my friends back in 95 and 96 saying how stupid the web was and how it would never go commercial because it was meant to be free all the way. There is still plenty of free stuff out there, but we're all here because adult sites do commerce. And, BTW - most of that commerce is NOT in pictures... people don't join paysites for the pics usually, it's the live shows and videos. There's plenty of pics for free...

So, while I agree that "stupid Flash tricks" are pretty much pointless... I disagree that the medium is not going to evolve. The lines between TV and the Internet will blur as people and companies find ways to better entertain people and get them to buy things by seeing positive results from new interactive models.

Let me give you a hypothetical for instance:

Imagine a day when you your TV is hooked up to a "super" broadband connection as well as your computer. You're a big fan of the show "Friends." You get home at 10pm on Thursday and you want to see the last episode... no prob - NBC is no longer a channel - it's a video on demand location. You pull up the show and watch. After the episode is over, it reminds you of an older one and you feel like seeing it. You go back to the NBC "site" and pay some micro fee or maybe no fee at all and watch that episode too....

During that episode they run a commercial for a cool new MP3 player for your car. You want more info - you head off to that sales "site" where you can speak to a live sales rep right over the TV. Get demos, etc... place your order...

Order done, you return to the show where you left off.

You wouldn't HAVE to do this or interact with anyone, you could choose to simply check it out in the ol paper, but if companies are seeing increased sales and positive reponse to that kind of interactivity, then it's going to happen whether everyone likes it or not...

Not everyone (as we can cleary see here) likes flash. Fact is 80% of the people given the choice at http://www.lumyr.com still chose it. The other 20% (thanks to you guys sharing opinions with me =]) get to use the HTML only site instead.

some nice articles to read, I think they'll make things clear :

ussability guru Jakob Nielsen : http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html
idea Generator vs Jakub Nielsen : http://www.flashthief.com/hotarticle...husability.htm

I forgot to mention: Nielsen's company works for Macromedia now :ak47:
http://www.ddj.com/news/fullstory.cgi?id=5957

and the worst are designer sites with a lot of "like to be cool" effects ;)

Techies always think the sky is falling. I remember back in 97 how people said you must learn xml right fucking now or be left behind.


I agree the future of the net is much more interactivity, but comparing that to a site with a bunch of uncessesary flash tricks is like comparing apples and oranges.

Technology takes pretty long to get mainstream. Look at hdtv, its still nowhere near mainstream.

Flash has great entertainment value... but if im browsing information i hate having swirling blinking shit around for the pure motive of distracting me, distracting me from what i need to read.

Flash is good if used in a non obnoxious manner

that's all great stuff.. and it'll probably become reality someday.... but that's still all convenience type interactivity stuff. Interactive can be as simple as a line of text with a hyperlink. Everything you mentioned can be done completely without Flash of any kind.... so, I fail to see how this is an argument FOR flash.... and comparing the value of flash to the value of the Internet as a technology is a pretty big leap Mark.... lol

i like to use flash on my site in the form of a minimal intro.
but i never put it on a page by itself, it is set up on a page with all the links to the material in my site (http://www.brutalporn.com). the surfer can either stick around and see the intro, or just more on to the parts that actually interest them.
flash can be useful, but i like to minimalise it and retain as much usability as possible in the site.

the biggest problem with flash online is the way it is used, i am sick to death of 'skip intro' buttons. in those cases the flash doesn't really add to the site, and if anything, detracts from it.

flash on google would be a silly idea because you're just looking for text info.. but the fact is, the internet is getting faster and people are planning for it.. researchers are getting into some pretty hardcore ultra broadband technology that we won't see for 10 years..
and sure - the internet won't be like a big television, but it WILL be like an electronic magazine with "television" integration.. the same way our tv's won't be like the internet but they are becoming more like an televised interactive network - hell i can play games against people with my remote control on cable tv.

if flash follows perception and reaction time guidelines like those set out on useit.com then it's really what the rich media part of the internet could/should be. In some aspects flash really could be seen as a rich media evolution.. i remember the first time i saw a flash site - gabocorp's first one - it really did change the way i saw the internet. what followed though did put a lot of people off.

sure there is a lot of wank on flash sites.. some of it justified (to keep a lightweight visual going to obscure the fact that the main site is loading in the background) and a lot of it not.. but it doesn't change the core ability of the technology to grab attention and sell or brand.. regardless of how much bad flash there is out there. (which you've already said - so im kinda just agreeing here i guess)

For webmaster purposes, I'm all about html.

Consider SilverCash's new interface, for example. It takes FAR too long to log in just to check stats real quick...

ok so i repeated flashfreak :) you crazy fast repliers.. - continuing on one of you points ff, you know that theres a quicktime technology that allows you to click on ANY object on the screen? so if you're watching "friends" and you like the vase on the table in the kitchen you can click on it and be taken to an online shopping area to learn more about it and perhaps buy it. product placement will get a lot uglier in 10 years :)

I do the same.

</head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><param name=movie value="http://www.subnovastudios.com/portfolio/wizzball.swf">
<param name=quality value=high>
<embed src="http://www.subnovastudios.com/portfolio/wizzball.swf" quality=high type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="770" height="470">
</embed></object></body></html>


:)

well.... I doubt I'll ever be convinced that Flash is a revolution or anything even remotely close.... it's primarily eye-candy. And it can be nice when used properly as such.... but there isn't anything out there that REQUIRES flash to accomplish its needs. I think backend programming/databasing type interactivity is far more important than flash will ever be.

So, that's my assessment.... eye candy. Nice in moderation, but all too often badly overused. I got into Flash when it first appeared, and I made some amazing shit with it too.... but then I got bored with the new toy and put it away in 1999.

you could still charge 50k for an average flash site in '99 what were you thinking? :)

I looked at it from the end users eyes instead of the developer-with-blinders-on eyes.... :glugglug

flash is annoying.

see but the same can be said about graphics.. nothing REQUIRES top notch graphics accomplish it's needs.. but it sure helps with things like branding and the way a surfer feels and reacts to the site. you might say "well thats part of it's needs" but the fact is that flash occupies the same space.. sure you can use other methods but why not one thats better able to brand and communicate?

actually back then it was more of a novelty than annoying.. and you'd be surprised at how much of the development wasn't actually driven by the developers themselves.. the companies ASKED for these kinds of sites.. i certainly wasn't pushing it onto them :) companies wanted flash intros for a long time after i tried to tell them it wasn't the best idea.
Toyota once asked us to put their ENTIRE 2000 product line in a flash intro - and even after being told firmly it would be a 200kb+ monstrosity that no one would watch they still asked to go ahead. the companies were even more hooked on the tech than the developers were.

well, I don't think we need to argue that visual graphics are essential to marketing or conveying a message. Even radio uses graphics. But the difference between graphics and flash is that you don't have to stand there and watch graphics prance around with some stupid intro 'presentation' waiting for it to get to the fucking point. A graphic, be it on a website, a billboard, the side of a van, or anywhere else gives you an instant message. What the fuck is flash doing besides pissing off the guy looking at it whos trying to figure out why it's taking so goddamned long to get to the freaking end result already?

a graphic isn't any more instant than a flash file - a graphic has to load too. don't forget there are plenty of animated signs out there.. on billboards.. on the side of the road..
if you're just talking about to ability to waffle-on in flash then yeah i agree with you - but that's not flash's fault.. thats the developer not getting to the point.. the developer "not getting to the freaking end result".

I firmly believe my flashed sig ad wouldn't be as effective in conveying what i need to get across as a gif or static ad and certainly not in the same file size.

that's what I was talking about.... not load times.... the long drawn out waxing poetic by the developers... there is no fucking way I will ever sit through some 7 minute long flash intro to a site. I'd rather just not ever see the site. That's what I was talking about. Whereas a graphic gives you an instant message.

oh yeah I 100% agree with you on that lol :) - the abuse of flash.. which should piss all flash developer's off as it taints the whole flash picture.

and as far as the (over) animated billboards.... I fuckin' hate those too. Why the fuck should anyone be watching some fucking movie on a billboard when they SHOULD be looking at the road.

There's billions of passengers that are potential customers too

im supposing they are for people stopped at intersections.

oop.. that too.

bah.... unnecessary distraction. Your passenger starts watching one and starts hitting your leg going "Oh look how cool that is!!!" and pretty soon you're in a wreck with a minivan carrying 9 blind children on there way to a charity cookie sale to raise money for underpriveleged kittens.

And of course, you'll blame it on the passenger, when it's really the owner of the animated billboard you should track down and kill.

So, I conclude: Animated billboards = needless blanket death and mass murder.

now that i think about it ...

maybe we should have the road construction crews do a rendition of 'Cats' while we're waiting to get through the line too....

it's all about entertainment value right.... anywhere and at any cost...we must be entertained 24/7.

Flash blows. After the advent of animated GIFS, and then the saturation on the net of animated GIFS (which have trained the web user to aggressively block them out of their interest field), Flash simply ups the ante on having people loathe whatever presentation the Flash is trying to conjure up or dazzle them with. It's bad marketing, plain and simple.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html

Flash is completely anti the web browsing experience: i.e., the surfer being in control of their web trawling and the pace and interest level they want to devote to the experience.

:ak47: As soon as I hit a site that's Flash heavy I groan and then hit my back button. I'm sure millions of other folks do the same.

thats your opinion. tell the makers of the dialerking ass fucking flash ad it was bad marketing.. everyone loved and remembered it. if flash was such a bad marketing decision then all the guys in mainstream delivering higher CTR's with flash block ads must be wrong :)

the flash 99% bad thing has been refuted many times - mainly because jacobs obsessively overreacted but still managed to couch his diatribe in the "tends to encourage bad design"
if jacobs had his way EVERY site would have the same layout and navigation.. now obviously thats not going to work.. i've got one of his books.. some of the research is very good, but his personal views get a bit much.. and he's got one of the worst ego's i've seen.
most flashers agree with his points.. his article is a very good deconstruction of bad flash.. however one of his first lines he also says it can add value. it just has to be done right.

Earlier I said that Flash is a great tool for influencing designers to think in the added dimensions of time and action sequences. This is in no way a statement that Flash is the next and entire evolutionary step on the Internet. You're starting to sound like my ex taking what I say and blowing it FAR out of proportion. =]

whenever there is a 'skip flash' intro button, i use it.

And here you say something similar to the entire LUMYR design philosophy... and that is:

Doesn't matter how pretty or impressive a site is, you build an adult site to MAKE MONEY. So if a Flash element increases conversion or retention you better damn well believe it's going in there. If not, then it's out. But my opinion, your opinion... don't mean shit. The only opinion I want is what % of visitors whip out their wallet and why!