Nokrev - Fight Me >:(

talk random
1

Ok maybe not - but you seem to be so in love with CSS that you think its more interesting than flash.

i say an all CSS sites is boring. and to make them even mildly interesting, you need to use loads of fancy javascript code to make even something as simple as a menu any more than a crude ‘now you see it - now you dont’ piece of crap.

What makes movies/tv/games interesting? It holds our attention because there is percieved movement+sound, thus upping the mental effect…add to it rich interactivity and youve got people hooked (as most games do)

what im saying is that sites with well used flash (they dont have to be all flash sites) in places like navigation, galleries, etc are more effective, more interesting, and just plain better.

the average person is not going to keep coming back to, or even remember, a technically brilliant, standards complient, nicely designed, good typo, static CSS site. theres millions of those. They are going to go “hey i saw this cool site the other day, it had this cool interactive thing…what was it again? o yea thats it…” and show it to their friends.

the web is not just a means of presenting information. OK - for a site like WikiPedia - a CSS based design is great - but the web is also a means of advertising. its hard to hold peoples attention on the web, just like ads on tv have to be interesting to stop people flicking the channel.

thats what flash rocks at - and thats what css/js sucks at…

the issues of standards compliance and bla bla bla - that gets a bit overrated sometimes…all the internet savvy people get so wrapped up in it - but the majority of users of the net are not web developers - could they give a stuff about that icon on your site “This site is Valid XHTML Strict?”

no! people just want to see cool sites that are visually appealing, and hold their attention…

so i dont get your vendetta against flash - what any smart web designer should want is that browsers, technologies and stuff evolves to allow them to include **more **motion, sounds, interactivity - to make the web a richer experience…not to get stuck in a rut of same old same old boring technically correct valid css sites…

itd be like an advertising agency getting a vendetta against products like AfterEffects, Final Cut, Combustion etc, and to go back to a static, single-frame-for 30 seconds, nice graphic design “By our product now” Splash ad - thats ridiculous…

anyway - after that immense rant - peoples what do you think - do you want the web to live and breathe - or do you just want to read a virtual book with jerky transitions between the pages…

2

That was a rant and a half, eh.
I think it’s all a matter of personal opinion, just like the old PC / Mac thing…but Macs are obviously better :stuck_out_tongue:
But yeah, Nokrev likes CSS? Fair enough. You like Flash? Cool.
Me? I suck at Flash so I like CSS :smiley:

3

Can’t be bothered finding the link but Simp posted a link to a lightbox which used CSS for positioning etc and that was cool :slight_smile:

Dunno what sites you’ve been looking at but I find some (not all) CSS sites awesome, same goes for flash all depends on the developer…if their crap then they produce crap.

[ot]
@RampagingWalrus - hahahhaha, the mac didn’t like the username eh?? that’ll teach ya to desert the rock they call Windows :slight_smile:
[/ot]

4

all im saying is no css site yet has that ability to capture attention with intricate movement and animation…which are powerful tools for advertising and business, and yet some css lovers scoff at flash.

true flash aint perfect - but its the best way of delivering interesting, animating, truly interactive content over the web…css doesnt even come close.

5

The internet is not television, whatever people might think. And the last time I checked, Flash was a fairly closed format (there are specs, but you can only use them to write outputters for SWF, not players), with a closed-source player and a closed-source development tool. Rather goes against the ethos of the web, tbh.

6

I am not sure and I don’t know the history between you and Nokrev but the most important I will say that Flash and CSS are two different things. Flash is for rich presentation to a targeted audience or a concept you would like to produce which uses Flash for an appropriate context. CSS is to help give text and assist websites to look appealing if for a simple site where work is the emphasis. Both things are really different.

7

That depends on your opinion… If what you say is 100% true, than why hasnt everyone gone out and bought a flash site than? Why is it that sites like CSSBeauty.com or CSS Galleries exist still? Why is that there are still many web design firms that just still deal only with CSS and not Flash… Theres also PHP, Javascript, etc things that can be used in conjungtion with CSS/XHTML… IMO, CSS sites can be just as functional and good looking as flash sites if designed and implemented correctly… And why havent I seen a single flash e-commmerce site yet? huh? :stuck_out_tongue:

For Instance, just look at the Macromedia and Adobe homepages,there not 100% flash are they?

8

It really depends on the person.

Some web-savvy people may like CSS more, maybe seeing it as being more elegant or something. That isnt to say flash isnt a good thing. It encourages bad design though, which is why some people might not like it.

On the other hand, what you wrote might be right, in a sense. People who dont often use the internet look for familiar things they can associate with (they compare it to TV?), and so are more interested in engaging interaction.

I dunno what im writing, im not in the mood for writing :frowning:

9

Ok. I disagree. There are very many absolutely beautiful css sites (look at simplebits, for example), and they use no javascript. Sites with javascript often are even more beautiful.

As Nick said, the internet is not “movies/tv/games”, so it seems rather unfair to compare it to them. If you want a game, play a game; don’t get on the internet (unless of course you specifically go to a game site ;)).

Flash is definitely very good at interactivity, and it can make it much easier on the developer. However, I find this comes at far too great a disadvantage.

Then why do I wear A List Apart and Simplebits tee-shirts? :lol:

Yes it is. It is a means of presenting information.

I jost told you… :stuck_out_tongue:

They wouldn’t do that, they’re nto designing for the web. The web is a far different interface. For TV, they have closed-captioning… have you ever considered that?

I think I disagree with you greatly, but you do make a few interesting points. I’m also very hurried to write this, as I have to leave in one minute (6:50am), and it’s really early.

:lol:

10

Ok. I disagree. There are very many absolutely beautiful css sites (look at simplebits, for example), and they use no javascript. Sites with javascript often are even more beautiful.

all the sites like that - i have em in my bookmarks - i know they look nice - but a site with some well used flash has much more depth, interest and memorableness…

As Nick said, the internet is not “movies/tv/games”,

point i was making is - what makes movies and games so ‘watchable’ and playable? what makes countless people spend countless hours absorbed, involved in them? its that combination of movement, visuals and sound that makes the movie experience so attractive, and add interactivity to games and thats why youve got millions of addicted kids…

im not expecting web to deliver the same amount or standard of motion, sound, and interactivity, but its something to strive for, in the right places (ie not Wikipedia, but definitely on a BMW site).

I find this comes at far too great a disadvantage.

please elaborate.

Then why do I wear A List Apart and Simplebits tee-shirts?

cause your a nerdy web developer like all of us - normal users dont give a stuff…

i have yet to see a css/js only site that is little more than a jerky, nicely designed virtual book.

link me to one now and ill shut up.

11

Each has specific uses

Try making a database/user-driven website (community website) fully in flash. You’ll find it’s quite a pain in the neck to do the database>php>flash integration as soon as you wish to implement more modules.
CSS allows for clear content (less gimmicks than most flash sites) and flexible displaying.

Now, I’d hate to say a movie/car/artist website with dull css and sometimes flash sites kick arse !

12

cause your a nerdy web developer like all of us - normal users dont give a stuff…

nailed it. ‘normal’ users dont appreciate the finesse of css :frowning:

13

exactly. all they care about is if its interesting, or ‘cool’ or something like that.

14

if you take nothing away from the rest of this post, at least remember this:
above all, users care about content and functionality.

user expectations matter:
your basic argument is that the web needs more animation, more like tv and movies because those capture people’s attention for long periods of time. you need to understand that people have different expectations and reasons for using the 2 mediums. the reasons we watch tv/movies aren’t the same reasons we go to websites.

what we know about flash currently on the web:
the fact also remains that most flash on the web is crap. and with flash, when it rains, it pours. it’s not usable, it’s hard to access, and everyone thinks they’re great at making it.

on advertising:
is flash a powerful advertising medium on the web? yes. are text-only ads even more profitable and more user friendly than flash? absolutely.

15

bah…

:lol:

16

All I have to say is: “Use the right tool for the right job”.

Not all sites call for flash and not all call for css. And some require a hybrid. Neither technology is useless and all serve a purpose. For every ugly css site I see, I see 10 ugly flash sites. I think flash is highly overused and in some sense over-rated. Some do a flash site to take the easy route of not having to code and do browser acceptance. Then some use css to try to do motions and presentations with javascript that will be better served with flash. So in any event, pick your poison you wont satisfy everyone.

I love CSS and Flash equally :love:

17

I prefer PHP/CSS sites to Flash sites more often than not. I think they look a lot better, and usually contain more relevant information.

Ironically, even though I spend a lot of time learning Flash, and using it when ever I can, 99.999% of the time, if I see a “Loading” screen when I go to a website, I Close the Tab and move on.

18

simplebits is one of the ugliest sites ive seen…

with that said - “compliancy” is merely for developers to pat themselves on the back - if you’re doing it to be 508 compliant then I applaud you -

all clients out here in the real care about is like they said content and functionality…they could care less how you arrive at that point.

don’t get me started on compliant development - a friend of mine received like a 2.5 page letter on it last time - transitional is best, and you should design for the browser that is used the most… Internet Explorer.

running around trying to force tomorrow’s theoretical standards today is a nightmare and will cause more drama in your life than is needed.

with that said, all of our sites are CSS only combined with javascript, AJAX, PHP / ASP and flash

CSS has its uses but it is not the definition of “good” design.

besides most people out there don’t even use flash right.

ugh. can’t start on this one or i’ll keep going.

and i agree with D

19

yes - DDD and prstudio i agree 100%. thats what im talkin about :hugegrin:

20

“Web Standards” are usually a better solution. XHTML/ CSS is smaller, more functional, more compatiable.

Flash can be more impressive (TyokoPlastic) but mostly it is used by people who are more concerned with what Flash CAN DO, than they are with what Flash SHOULD DO.

95% of Flash on the web is overkill for the sake of it.