good greif I hate all those sites that force a maximized window. I have it non-maximized for a reason, dumbass.
I also hate full flash sites with excessive dippy animations
I'm actually in the process of building my own site at the moment...I knew I wanted something fairly minimal, with mostly black and white and a very sparse, pointed use of color. I spent about an hour googling for sites to see how others had tackled some of the issues I was running into, and mostly I got nowhere. it's amazing the percentage of design-oriented sites that have terrible design. Then I found this site:
manamana- since you were listing your pet peeves...the little sermon that the subtraction site gives about ie vs other browsers at the very top of its page - before you even get to see whether you're interested in the content - annoyed me enough that i almost stopped looking.
bigness, the empty site is literally empty. Looking at the html reveals that there is only a little meta info in the code for copyright, authorship, and keyword searches, but as far as body, there is nothing. It is blank.
Since it doesn't even prescribe a background color, it must be showing your default. I am using Firefox and I see a white background. Anyone see grey?
Can't say I really liked that subtraction site either (I'd give it an 'ok'). The buttons are fine, but all that text was just distracting. I also hate how it reloads everythign and shifts it to the top when you go to a new page. To me, that's as annoying as pointless flash, if not more so. Sites that seem to have little organization in the size of the site (ie scroll 5 pages down, etc.) are the ones I leave the quickest.
I also hate sites that maximize the screens. The only time it's acceptable is when they 1) warn you/give you the option or 2) possibly for movie sites that are showing a small film and the visitors are aware of it.
i like how the controls don't change, i don't have to 'look' to see if i'm selecting the next info as opposed to selecting the same button in a sense. if that makes any sense!
how does everyone feel about asking for critiques to their online presence? i mean, can i post my site here and ask for constructive criticism (i do consider it a minimal website) or would you rather i make a different post entirely or simply it does not belong here will do... i would like to be 'politically' correct here. i am relatively new and do not want to be scolded or forced to change my name to noob until i get things straight. :)
i could use some feedback as i'm getting ready to go for my most perfect job... let me know the verdict, thanks!
hues
I don't know if I like the website, but your work is very nice. It's definitely not the kinf of drawings I would do, but there is a very particular atmosphere in many drawings, especially the culfer city drawing. How long do you spend on such a drawing (I'm curious because I work as an illustrator too)?
i'm sorry for the confusion... hues is not dennis allain.
i thought mr. allain's site was simple due to navigation. i do not like a website where there are so many links and they lead in chaotic places without any reasoning.
well, that's becuase my mind works that way and i'd like for a website to not... yes, okay, i'm trying so very hard to make a joke. not really working out as planned though.
i was not planning to post my site until i had persmission i suppose... again, sorry about the confusion.
I'm not seeing the anoyances your talking about...I checked adblock but it isn't blocking anything on that site, and I don't see any odd behaviour in navigation...
oh, ok, just tried it in i.e, and I see the warning. That takes away from it a bit, but I understand what he means...i.e. is famous for not adhering to web standards, every web designer I know wishes it would just go away.
As far as navigation...I guess I'd rather scroll than do lots of clicking. on a higher res monitor doing that is much faster for me.
nice indeed lb. i'm a big gan of the quiet use of flash. my site also uses flash in a rather simple and efficient way. nothing worse than seeing the same silly animation again and again and keeping you from the real content.
yes, I agree. I am a big fan of using flash to subtly enhance what would or could be a typical html. I rarely like html sites, to be honest, because of the constant and inconsistent loading. Obviously it works for some things.
manamana - I've got a 1600x1200 monitor, so I see more than most, but when I want to see content, I want the buttons in front of me, not 3 pages down. For forums, it's necessary to have a scrolling, but for content, it's not.
The nav issue I was referring to is as much an html issue as a design issue. I just found it odd to see the 'Category' list 2 pages down.
That said, I do like how bold the nav was and how consistent it was. Perhaps if I spent more time at the site I'd like it more.
For a portfolio site, I could see a similar strategy (and indeed have, as that 'style' is certainly not unique) implemented without the scrolling.
lb & Janosh - those are very nice sites. Good examples of how Flash can be used successfully to deliver a contained (no loose links, random loading, too much scrolling, browser inconsistency, etc. - all html issues) and controlled experience successfully.
lb- your right, alot better than most full flash sites, but it still breaks some cardinal rules: forward and back browser buttons/shortcuts don't work properly.
janosh, nice pictures, but that site royally borks browsers with tabs enabled-one of those things that makes my web-blood boil.
I don't know much about web design, but I really don't get why people like flash so much. it's bloated and almost always gives more trouble than benefits. even mediocre css sites are more of a pleasure for me to browse than the best full flash sites.
trace, could you link some design/portfolio sites that do something like that? I'm having a tough time finding some.
I'd agree with you 100% on the category thing if it was a portfolio site, but as a blog I think it's minor (puts the recent stuff as close to the top as possible)
but we're gonna have to agree to seriously disagree on the flash thing.
Flash needs a new name. If used more often for its functional advantages we could be discussing how effectively or efficiently Flash is being used here.
Personally I like the sites lb and Janosh showed. I won't argue that having images swell and resize isn't gratuitious, but it does seem to be more than "flashy" design - excuse the pun. Especially in Brian McCutcheon's site we see the flash used as the critical tool for the design - not bells and whistles - literally. I don't really like little bells an bips when I roll over buttons. And that stuff is (was always) possible in html!
Oh and I hate sites with animated splash/intro pages - I am looking at a site, not the start of a movie.
Although I like these sites, I still prefer sites (Flash) that load everything at once and don't 'blink' as pieces are loaded
There is no reason Flash sites have to be 'bloated'. You can make a minimal Flash site that is as small in size as an html site. The advanteges are many, especially for portfolio sites. The ability to control what happens and provide visual information while a download occurs makes it more viable to provide higher resoultion images without losing the viewers (anyone would leave an html site if there were large blank pieces vacant while large images downloaded). Also, Flash will look the same in any browser, eliminating so many variables (testing helps with html, of course, but you still can have problems) and problems.
I also, as a designer, enjoy the flexibility Flash offers. Similar to architecture, there are bland boxes that can serve basic functions but to create a design that is stimulating and interesting requires so much more.
It depends on the target audience and what the purpose of the site is.
Design is always a balance of purpose and expression, and webdesign - Flash or not - is no different.
well, like I said, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'll take any of the 5 sites you linked (except maybe the armchair hero site) over the best full-flash I've ever seen. I think they're more interesting, more professional, and easier to use how I want to use them.
flash sites don't have to be bloated, but 95% of the time they are. One guy I know compared it to being given a 70lb backpack to go on day hike, when all you wanted was the bottle of water and some granola bars. sure, if you decide you need your pots and pans and some macaroni, you've got them handy, but you still spent the day carrying around 50 lbs of crap you didn't need.
I don't think flash is any more viable for providing high res than non-flash is: a small thumbnail loads quick, and if you don't want the high res, you don't have to click the link to the high res. I want the choice over being force fed, and I don't want to wait for content to load before I even know if I want it, I'd rather have the little chunks as I request them.
I'm much more likely to skip out of a site initially loads slowly, that wastes my time with animated transitions, and doesn't let me use forward and back. Try linking somebody to a specific project in a full flash site. you can't. I find it unbelieveable that people are OK with such a removal of ease-of-use in exchange for what almost always amounts to little more than novelty.
flash will not look/behave the same in all browsers all the time - just look at the number of full flash sites that force a maximized or specific pixel width window. that's fine in I.E., but anyone using a tabbed browser is going to get mighty pissed, mighty fast. Sure, right now that's only about 13% of web users (and growing, thank you firefox), but when I.E. 7 comes out that's going to change dramatically. All that those sites really tell me is the person who designed it didn't care enough to consider tabbed browsers or where the web is headed. The future notwithstanding, are those siteowners really comfortable being an anoyance to 13% of people who visit their site?
I agree that "design that is stimulating and interesting requires so much more", but I'd say it's non-flash that offers that flexibility. Have you ever been to a full flash site that wasn't painfully, stereotypically obvious that it was done in flash? I haven't. it's worse than powerpoint to me. css, xhtml, dhtml, etc, may have a steeper learning curve (I'm going through it at the moment), but the results are much less inclined to boxed in, pedantic banality, even when both (flash and non-flash) are done well.
looking over the rant I've just furiously typed out, I think I can boil it down to one thing: full flash sites just don't look professional to me.
I fully agree with you on the final two sentences. I just think the target audience for full flash is very, very limited (games, for example)
'flash sites don't have to be bloated, but 95% of the time they are.'
hmm, can't the same be said of architecture? i think there are good html sites as well as good flash sites. there are also bad examples of both. i don't understand what you mean by high-res. web sites are not and should not be high-res. 72dpi is the standard. and content can be delivered in small chunks just like you are describing in flash to avoid long download times. sure, some full flash sites can look unprofessional, but i also know there are tons of full html sites that look just plain childish.
on a high res monitor you can see more of the page, which makes the need to vertically scroll less of an issue. For example, if I scroll all the way to the top of this thread, and I can still see the top of simon kim's post.
The point I meant to make is that it's easier to ignorantly produce a bloated flash site than a bloated html site. Now that css is coming into its own...css wins the efficiency battle hands down.
And you're right, there are plenty of crappy non-flash sites (and yes, architecture), that's why I said that even when both are done well, I find full flash sites harder to use and less professional.
to keep up with the building reference, it's like walking into a building, and instantly knowing that the stairs will be uncomfortably cadanced, windows too small, that rooms that don't need to be subdivided, are, and that once you go through a door, you won't be able to turn around and go back through it. if you try, a big guy named bubba will throw you out the window and make you start all over walking through the front door.
I have yet to see a single full flash site that I find as professional and easy to use as any of the links trace provided in his last post. If you have one, I'll happilly take a look.
manamana - I hear what you are saying, but I still find the opposite to be true - I notice a site that's in html as quickly as I do with Flash - the inconsistent loading is just horrible, imho.
I've got two large monitors - 20" and 24" and I still hate scrolling to see content. I like it presented in the browser as I look at it. As for sites that auto scale, well, that just stinks and I don't find it acceptable (with the exceptions I mentioned above).
e - what I meant was 'large' images, because you have a preloader you can choose to download larger images without losing the viewer because the screen just goes blank (with html) while it downloads (I know, I know, there are js preloaders...but).
Mana - last thing....sometimes sites are for a presentation, not just something to click and see an image. They are a destination unto themselves and it's not only about the content but an entire branding and image. This can be equated with avant garde architecture, where Bilbao or Libeskind's Denver Museum are destinations as much as the art inside.
So that's the view I come from - I care more about the architecture than the art inside, otherwise just make a box with diffused light (like Ando's recent Texas museum, which I would not drive out of my way to see - the other two, I'd fly across the world to see).
Design is not only about presenting content, sometimes it's about something more. And you'd be surprised at the target audience - it's larger than anything else out there and growing (for quality Flash sites). Fashion industries, automobile industries, entertainment industries, etc., all rely on a 'message' beyond the simple photograph of a car or shirt. And it works.
Everyone, I'm enjoying this design-related discussion. It raises some good general topics re: appearance, usability, etc. I admit, however, that it's really over my head as I am a computer-idiot.
So forgive me this dumb question: manamana, you are absolutely right about the brianmccutcheon website not being able to be navigated with the forward and back buttons, which is very annoying (I had never noticed it before).
Another aspect of his website - and I assume all flash sites - is you can't "grab" the images as you can .jpgs or whatever from other sites. I have to guess that's to keep people from using the image - or am I totally missing a way to do it? (If I could grab images off my husband's website I'd be peppering archinect with them all the time, so maybe it's a good thing that I can't!) So is there a sort of built-in content protection in a flash site? Or is it only protecting computer-illiterates like me?! ;-)
well, it is a deterrent, but you can still use a program like SnagIt to capture anything on your screen. you can also hit Print Screen (on your keyboard, on the top between the letters and number pad), open PS, hit CTRL+N, then CTRL+V. Viola, you have an image of your entire desktop.
You can also copy protect html with some code, but I think it's more annoying than anything (and you can always get around it).
The forward/backward button can be done in Flash, too, with a little effort. But for porftolio sites, it's not really necessary.
Manaf - almost forgot, what I meant by 'Flash looking the same in any browser' is that the SWF (the flash files as seen on the web) are self contained files - there are no links to break, and everything that occurs is controlled by the designer. So regardless of the browser, you are always looking at the site through the Flash Player.
Other advantages are the easy use of video. Because it's all within Flash, you don't have to worry about missing codecs. From my experience, the compression is damn good and quality very high. You'll see more and more sites done with Flash Video.
thanks for the clarity in language ppl. i think my site is easy to navigate while still being a flash site. it has no annoying animations, and i think delivers information in small chunks and only when the user decides they want it. that said, i don't think you'll be happy with it manamana. it does not allow you to you use forward and back buttons from you browser window.
e, I should have noted earlier that I agree: I think your website is also a "quiet use" of flash - lovely to look at, not distracting or self-concious, and easy to navigate. Good work too.
well, it's getting to be a good discussion. we're getting somwhere.
those wrong number dialers...they're easy - that's what the "KILL" button on your magic presto telephone is for.
trace: what I notice about a site that's not flash is just that, that it's not flash. the point I'm trying to make is that the possibilities are nearly endless with all the other technologies out there: dhtml, csss, php, asp, JS, and the general ajax/web 2.0 direction in which things are headed.
As we've covered, I'd rather scroll than click. Personal preference. most flash sites are 800x600 boxes, and when your browser window is ~1300x1500, it's a poor use of space. With other technologies, you can make a site that looks fine at 800x600 and grows intelligently with browser window size. it just requires more of the person designing the site, and that's at least part of why I find such intelligently designed sites more professional - they consider more than just the majority of users.
presentation... design unto itself... I completely agree. I just think other technologies are almost universally where that can be found. To keep with the analogy, I'd equate the best flash sites with disneyworld, and the jewish museum with some ajax-ish thing by a guy who REALLY knew his stuff, in all aspects, down to the code level. it's the sites (and architecture) where I don't understand how they work (literally and otherwise) that hold my interest the longest.
Another point on presentation: with a website, you're not standing up and giving a talk...it's interactive, and that requires relinquishing a great deal of control to the user. Fighting that (as some flash designers make sites that look like PP presentations) is in most cases pointless and very naive.
Everything I've seen indicates that full flash designs are on their way out, and have been for over a year or two.
LB - you can't grab (or link to, my pet peeve) specific images in full flash sites, but in addition to what trace said, you can grab the whole flash file and pick it apart with various programs. it's actually easier to steal a flash site than a non-flash site.
Trace: do you mean fw/back browser shortcuts or a fw/back button in the flash file? the latter is next to useless, but if you know of a site where the buttons in the browser toolbar work, I'd love to see it, as I've never seen one.
and you're right on video. video is probably the most promising future flash has. but that's hardly a full website.
e and others: I should clarify that I don't look on all flash sites with biting hatred - there are some that are quite good. I just think that even the best of them could be more interesting, more professional, and easier to use if done through other technologies that aren't full-flash.
as my father would say, "doing it right," as usual, requires more skill and more time, yes, but I think it's increasingly worth it.
I like your hubbies site except when I click to see a new photograph and the navigation changes location along with the photograph. If the navigation stayed in the same location, I wouldnt have to keep looking down at the nav buttons and could stay focused on the content.
Minimal Websites
My favorites:
http://www.twoxfour.net/
http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/
http://www.carusostjohn.com/www/flash.html
http://www.brucemaudesign.com/
Any others?
That 2x4 site is real nice. Here is one I finished recently.
http://saap.unm.edu
ours is pretty minimal I suppose...
http://www.arte-factory.com
heh
i really like that one...
Well, that wasn't supposed to do that. Let's try again:
www.arte-factory.com
jasoncross, is that your design? Nice!
heh, that site jason posted looks similar to my site. mine has a stormier background though.
yeah, i had a past life as a web designer before going into architecture...UNM hired me to develop their new site.
thanks for the kind words.
french, well met, I'm sending you an email
http://www.cahanassociates.com/
http://www.collider.com.au/index2.html
http://www.dunwoodie-architectureanddesign.co.uk/main.php
http://www.jenshellweg.com/
http://www.republik.ca/republik.html
web art
good greif I hate all those sites that force a maximized window. I have it non-maximized for a reason, dumbass.
I also hate full flash sites with excessive dippy animations
I'm actually in the process of building my own site at the moment...I knew I wanted something fairly minimal, with mostly black and white and a very sparse, pointed use of color. I spent about an hour googling for sites to see how others had tackled some of the issues I was running into, and mostly I got nowhere. it's amazing the percentage of design-oriented sites that have terrible design. Then I found this site:
http://www.subtraction.com/
very close to what I've been going for, only far more brutal - I had more halftones in what I've been going for...
great site, now I just have to find the willpower not to rip it off entirely.
The best:
emptywebsite
manamana- since you were listing your pet peeves...the little sermon that the subtraction site gives about ie vs other browsers at the very top of its page - before you even get to see whether you're interested in the content - annoyed me enough that i almost stopped looking.
manamana, is the empty website just empty, or is it just my browser?
bigness, the empty site is literally empty. Looking at the html reveals that there is only a little meta info in the code for copyright, authorship, and keyword searches, but as far as body, there is nothing. It is blank.
Since it doesn't even prescribe a background color, it must be showing your default. I am using Firefox and I see a white background. Anyone see grey?
nope, I see white.
Can't say I really liked that subtraction site either (I'd give it an 'ok'). The buttons are fine, but all that text was just distracting. I also hate how it reloads everythign and shifts it to the top when you go to a new page. To me, that's as annoying as pointless flash, if not more so. Sites that seem to have little organization in the size of the site (ie scroll 5 pages down, etc.) are the ones I leave the quickest.
I also hate sites that maximize the screens. The only time it's acceptable is when they 1) warn you/give you the option or 2) possibly for movie sites that are showing a small film and the visitors are aware of it.
i like how the controls don't change, i don't have to 'look' to see if i'm selecting the next info as opposed to selecting the same button in a sense. if that makes any sense!
how does everyone feel about asking for critiques to their online presence? i mean, can i post my site here and ask for constructive criticism (i do consider it a minimal website) or would you rather i make a different post entirely or simply it does not belong here will do... i would like to be 'politically' correct here. i am relatively new and do not want to be scolded or forced to change my name to noob until i get things straight. :)
i could use some feedback as i'm getting ready to go for my most perfect job... let me know the verdict, thanks!
hues
I don't know if I like the website, but your work is very nice. It's definitely not the kinf of drawings I would do, but there is a very particular atmosphere in many drawings, especially the culfer city drawing. How long do you spend on such a drawing (I'm curious because I work as an illustrator too)?
I don't think that the dennis allain site belongs to hues.
ah, sorry. Well, it's nice anyway. Not minimal at all but nice.
i'm sorry for the confusion... hues is not dennis allain.
i thought mr. allain's site was simple due to navigation. i do not like a website where there are so many links and they lead in chaotic places without any reasoning.
well, that's becuase my mind works that way and i'd like for a website to not... yes, okay, i'm trying so very hard to make a joke. not really working out as planned though.
i was not planning to post my site until i had persmission i suppose... again, sorry about the confusion.
the projects and c.v. section is minimal.
Stephen and trace -
I'm not seeing the anoyances your talking about...I checked adblock but it isn't blocking anything on that site, and I don't see any odd behaviour in navigation...
oh, ok, just tried it in i.e, and I see the warning. That takes away from it a bit, but I understand what he means...i.e. is famous for not adhering to web standards, every web designer I know wishes it would just go away.
As far as navigation...I guess I'd rather scroll than do lots of clicking. on a higher res monitor doing that is much faster for me.
my favorites so far are http://www.nlarchitects.nl/ and http://www.jenshellweg.com/, but i still like the ones i posted first the best, esp 2x4 and libeskind
I have to pimp my husband's site
www.brianmccutcheon.com which I think is a very quiet use of flash.
By my fiance/financiere.
lb, love that site. I've admired it before.
Janosh, nice photos! I like looking at these non-architecture sites for a change.
My husband and or fiance does not exist. Also, I am a straight male.
nice indeed lb. i'm a big gan of the quiet use of flash. my site also uses flash in a rather simple and efficient way. nothing worse than seeing the same silly animation again and again and keeping you from the real content.
yes, I agree. I am a big fan of using flash to subtly enhance what would or could be a typical html. I rarely like html sites, to be honest, because of the constant and inconsistent loading. Obviously it works for some things.
manamana - I've got a 1600x1200 monitor, so I see more than most, but when I want to see content, I want the buttons in front of me, not 3 pages down. For forums, it's necessary to have a scrolling, but for content, it's not.
The nav issue I was referring to is as much an html issue as a design issue. I just found it odd to see the 'Category' list 2 pages down.
That said, I do like how bold the nav was and how consistent it was. Perhaps if I spent more time at the site I'd like it more.
For a portfolio site, I could see a similar strategy (and indeed have, as that 'style' is certainly not unique) implemented without the scrolling.
lb & Janosh - those are very nice sites. Good examples of how Flash can be used successfully to deliver a contained (no loose links, random loading, too much scrolling, browser inconsistency, etc. - all html issues) and controlled experience successfully.
lb- your right, alot better than most full flash sites, but it still breaks some cardinal rules: forward and back browser buttons/shortcuts don't work properly.
janosh, nice pictures, but that site royally borks browsers with tabs enabled-one of those things that makes my web-blood boil.
I don't know much about web design, but I really don't get why people like flash so much. it's bloated and almost always gives more trouble than benefits. even mediocre css sites are more of a pleasure for me to browse than the best full flash sites.
trace, could you link some design/portfolio sites that do something like that? I'm having a tough time finding some.
I'd agree with you 100% on the category thing if it was a portfolio site, but as a blog I think it's minor (puts the recent stuff as close to the top as possible)
but we're gonna have to agree to seriously disagree on the flash thing.
Flash needs a new name. If used more often for its functional advantages we could be discussing how effectively or efficiently Flash is being used here.
Personally I like the sites lb and Janosh showed. I won't argue that having images swell and resize isn't gratuitious, but it does seem to be more than "flashy" design - excuse the pun. Especially in Brian McCutcheon's site we see the flash used as the critical tool for the design - not bells and whistles - literally. I don't really like little bells an bips when I roll over buttons. And that stuff is (was always) possible in html!
Oh and I hate sites with animated splash/intro pages - I am looking at a site, not the start of a movie.
Sorry. Rant time is over, I promise.
Oh, Janosh, by movie I am not refering to Mr. Price's slide show. That is nice - and functional.
ok, since you don't want anything Flash, here's a few html sites I thought were pretty good:
http://www.armchairhero.com/safer/index.html
http://www.chadboutin.com/
http://www.rksdesign.com/index.php
http://www.boora.com
http://www.thirteen.co.uk/home_static.html
Although I like these sites, I still prefer sites (Flash) that load everything at once and don't 'blink' as pieces are loaded
There is no reason Flash sites have to be 'bloated'. You can make a minimal Flash site that is as small in size as an html site. The advanteges are many, especially for portfolio sites. The ability to control what happens and provide visual information while a download occurs makes it more viable to provide higher resoultion images without losing the viewers (anyone would leave an html site if there were large blank pieces vacant while large images downloaded). Also, Flash will look the same in any browser, eliminating so many variables (testing helps with html, of course, but you still can have problems) and problems.
I also, as a designer, enjoy the flexibility Flash offers. Similar to architecture, there are bland boxes that can serve basic functions but to create a design that is stimulating and interesting requires so much more.
It depends on the target audience and what the purpose of the site is.
Design is always a balance of purpose and expression, and webdesign - Flash or not - is no different.
Nice, trace!
I like the subtle use of frames for Chad Boutin's site. HTML lives!
well, like I said, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'll take any of the 5 sites you linked (except maybe the armchair hero site) over the best full-flash I've ever seen. I think they're more interesting, more professional, and easier to use how I want to use them.
flash sites don't have to be bloated, but 95% of the time they are. One guy I know compared it to being given a 70lb backpack to go on day hike, when all you wanted was the bottle of water and some granola bars. sure, if you decide you need your pots and pans and some macaroni, you've got them handy, but you still spent the day carrying around 50 lbs of crap you didn't need.
I don't think flash is any more viable for providing high res than non-flash is: a small thumbnail loads quick, and if you don't want the high res, you don't have to click the link to the high res. I want the choice over being force fed, and I don't want to wait for content to load before I even know if I want it, I'd rather have the little chunks as I request them.
I'm much more likely to skip out of a site initially loads slowly, that wastes my time with animated transitions, and doesn't let me use forward and back. Try linking somebody to a specific project in a full flash site. you can't. I find it unbelieveable that people are OK with such a removal of ease-of-use in exchange for what almost always amounts to little more than novelty.
flash will not look/behave the same in all browsers all the time - just look at the number of full flash sites that force a maximized or specific pixel width window. that's fine in I.E., but anyone using a tabbed browser is going to get mighty pissed, mighty fast. Sure, right now that's only about 13% of web users (and growing, thank you firefox), but when I.E. 7 comes out that's going to change dramatically. All that those sites really tell me is the person who designed it didn't care enough to consider tabbed browsers or where the web is headed. The future notwithstanding, are those siteowners really comfortable being an anoyance to 13% of people who visit their site?
I agree that "design that is stimulating and interesting requires so much more", but I'd say it's non-flash that offers that flexibility. Have you ever been to a full flash site that wasn't painfully, stereotypically obvious that it was done in flash? I haven't. it's worse than powerpoint to me. css, xhtml, dhtml, etc, may have a steeper learning curve (I'm going through it at the moment), but the results are much less inclined to boxed in, pedantic banality, even when both (flash and non-flash) are done well.
looking over the rant I've just furiously typed out, I think I can boil it down to one thing: full flash sites just don't look professional to me.
I fully agree with you on the final two sentences. I just think the target audience for full flash is very, very limited (games, for example)
peace out,
flashhater
'flash sites don't have to be bloated, but 95% of the time they are.'
hmm, can't the same be said of architecture? i think there are good html sites as well as good flash sites. there are also bad examples of both. i don't understand what you mean by high-res. web sites are not and should not be high-res. 72dpi is the standard. and content can be delivered in small chunks just like you are describing in flash to avoid long download times. sure, some full flash sites can look unprofessional, but i also know there are tons of full html sites that look just plain childish.
very nice. very minimal. very smooth.
on a high res monitor you can see more of the page, which makes the need to vertically scroll less of an issue. For example, if I scroll all the way to the top of this thread, and I can still see the top of simon kim's post.
The point I meant to make is that it's easier to ignorantly produce a bloated flash site than a bloated html site. Now that css is coming into its own...css wins the efficiency battle hands down.
And you're right, there are plenty of crappy non-flash sites (and yes, architecture), that's why I said that even when both are done well, I find full flash sites harder to use and less professional.
to keep up with the building reference, it's like walking into a building, and instantly knowing that the stairs will be uncomfortably cadanced, windows too small, that rooms that don't need to be subdivided, are, and that once you go through a door, you won't be able to turn around and go back through it. if you try, a big guy named bubba will throw you out the window and make you start all over walking through the front door.
I have yet to see a single full flash site that I find as professional and easy to use as any of the links trace provided in his last post. If you have one, I'll happilly take a look.
"And these damn wrong number dialers! What the hell do we do about them?!"
basically theoretical... if you like to read.
but pretty much simple and straight forward
manamana - I hear what you are saying, but I still find the opposite to be true - I notice a site that's in html as quickly as I do with Flash - the inconsistent loading is just horrible, imho.
I've got two large monitors - 20" and 24" and I still hate scrolling to see content. I like it presented in the browser as I look at it. As for sites that auto scale, well, that just stinks and I don't find it acceptable (with the exceptions I mentioned above).
e - what I meant was 'large' images, because you have a preloader you can choose to download larger images without losing the viewer because the screen just goes blank (with html) while it downloads (I know, I know, there are js preloaders...but).
Mana - last thing....sometimes sites are for a presentation, not just something to click and see an image. They are a destination unto themselves and it's not only about the content but an entire branding and image. This can be equated with avant garde architecture, where Bilbao or Libeskind's Denver Museum are destinations as much as the art inside.
So that's the view I come from - I care more about the architecture than the art inside, otherwise just make a box with diffused light (like Ando's recent Texas museum, which I would not drive out of my way to see - the other two, I'd fly across the world to see).
Design is not only about presenting content, sometimes it's about something more. And you'd be surprised at the target audience - it's larger than anything else out there and growing (for quality Flash sites). Fashion industries, automobile industries, entertainment industries, etc., all rely on a 'message' beyond the simple photograph of a car or shirt. And it works.
Everyone, I'm enjoying this design-related discussion. It raises some good general topics re: appearance, usability, etc. I admit, however, that it's really over my head as I am a computer-idiot.
So forgive me this dumb question: manamana, you are absolutely right about the brianmccutcheon website not being able to be navigated with the forward and back buttons, which is very annoying (I had never noticed it before).
Another aspect of his website - and I assume all flash sites - is you can't "grab" the images as you can .jpgs or whatever from other sites. I have to guess that's to keep people from using the image - or am I totally missing a way to do it? (If I could grab images off my husband's website I'd be peppering archinect with them all the time, so maybe it's a good thing that I can't!) So is there a sort of built-in content protection in a flash site? Or is it only protecting computer-illiterates like me?! ;-)
well, it is a deterrent, but you can still use a program like SnagIt to capture anything on your screen. you can also hit Print Screen (on your keyboard, on the top between the letters and number pad), open PS, hit CTRL+N, then CTRL+V. Viola, you have an image of your entire desktop.
You can also copy protect html with some code, but I think it's more annoying than anything (and you can always get around it).
The forward/backward button can be done in Flash, too, with a little effort. But for porftolio sites, it's not really necessary.
Manaf - almost forgot, what I meant by 'Flash looking the same in any browser' is that the SWF (the flash files as seen on the web) are self contained files - there are no links to break, and everything that occurs is controlled by the designer. So regardless of the browser, you are always looking at the site through the Flash Player.
Other advantages are the easy use of video. Because it's all within Flash, you don't have to worry about missing codecs. From my experience, the compression is damn good and quality very high. You'll see more and more sites done with Flash Video.
thanks for the clarity in language ppl. i think my site is easy to navigate while still being a flash site. it has no annoying animations, and i think delivers information in small chunks and only when the user decides they want it. that said, i don't think you'll be happy with it manamana. it does not allow you to you use forward and back buttons from you browser window.
e, I should have noted earlier that I agree: I think your website is also a "quiet use" of flash - lovely to look at, not distracting or self-concious, and easy to navigate. Good work too.
thank you lb.
well, it's getting to be a good discussion. we're getting somwhere.
those wrong number dialers...they're easy - that's what the "KILL" button on your magic presto telephone is for.
trace: what I notice about a site that's not flash is just that, that it's not flash. the point I'm trying to make is that the possibilities are nearly endless with all the other technologies out there: dhtml, csss, php, asp, JS, and the general ajax/web 2.0 direction in which things are headed.
As we've covered, I'd rather scroll than click. Personal preference. most flash sites are 800x600 boxes, and when your browser window is ~1300x1500, it's a poor use of space. With other technologies, you can make a site that looks fine at 800x600 and grows intelligently with browser window size. it just requires more of the person designing the site, and that's at least part of why I find such intelligently designed sites more professional - they consider more than just the majority of users.
presentation... design unto itself... I completely agree. I just think other technologies are almost universally where that can be found. To keep with the analogy, I'd equate the best flash sites with disneyworld, and the jewish museum with some ajax-ish thing by a guy who REALLY knew his stuff, in all aspects, down to the code level. it's the sites (and architecture) where I don't understand how they work (literally and otherwise) that hold my interest the longest.
Another point on presentation: with a website, you're not standing up and giving a talk...it's interactive, and that requires relinquishing a great deal of control to the user. Fighting that (as some flash designers make sites that look like PP presentations) is in most cases pointless and very naive.
Everything I've seen indicates that full flash designs are on their way out, and have been for over a year or two.
LB - you can't grab (or link to, my pet peeve) specific images in full flash sites, but in addition to what trace said, you can grab the whole flash file and pick it apart with various programs. it's actually easier to steal a flash site than a non-flash site.
Trace: do you mean fw/back browser shortcuts or a fw/back button in the flash file? the latter is next to useless, but if you know of a site where the buttons in the browser toolbar work, I'd love to see it, as I've never seen one.
and you're right on video. video is probably the most promising future flash has. but that's hardly a full website.
e and others: I should clarify that I don't look on all flash sites with biting hatred - there are some that are quite good. I just think that even the best of them could be more interesting, more professional, and easier to use if done through other technologies that aren't full-flash.
as my father would say, "doing it right," as usual, requires more skill and more time, yes, but I think it's increasingly worth it.
crotchety old foagie (at 23), signing out.
LB,
I like your hubbies site except when I click to see a new photograph and the navigation changes location along with the photograph. If the navigation stayed in the same location, I wouldnt have to keep looking down at the nav buttons and could stay focused on the content.
Everybody has 2cents lying around....
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.