My new funny website.

[chimera15]

I thought you might get a kick out of this. I made it in my basic animation/flash class in college.  It's still a little buggy, but I thought you might all get a laugh, maybe at my expensive. lol


http://www.mechatype.com/index.html


I got a cool domain name at least. lol

Sorry about the music, it was an assignment requirement. lol

[timw4mail]

ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!! Flash should not be the main structure of a website.

Sorry...just don't like flash to be used for navigation and content.

[chimera15]

ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!! Flash should not be the main structure of a website.

Sorry...just don't like flash to be used for navigation and content.

It was a flash website and animation class essentially, so it had to be that way.  I know I like it for navigation, cause you can do cool things with buttons, but it can take a lot of coding to make it really up-datable.

My other recent website that I did in my basic web design class is http://www.hireanartgeek.com, which uses it for navigation but the rest is css/xhtml.  I much prefer that.  


I need to put a preloader on it and fix some other things as well. That menu would be tough to do without flash.

This was just a fun little flash site I made, it wasn't meant to really be a standalone site.

I think flash sites can be awesome though.  Have you seen the ones at activeden? Pretty amazing stuff.

http://activeden.net/item/xml-portfolio-template-v3/full_screen_preview/18585

This is also one of my favorite designed sites:
http://www.keio-ensoku.com/

[Rajagra]

Haha, nice idea closing a page by throwing it in the trash. :smile:

In the gallery page I needed to go in twice to see the thumbnails. Not sure if we're supposed to be able to zoom to full pictures, I never managed to.

[timw4mail]

It was a flash website and animation class essentially, so it had to be that way.  I know I like it for navigation, cause you can do cool things with buttons, but it can take a lot of coding to make it really up-datable.

My other recent website that I did in my basic web design class is http://www.hireanartgeek.com, which uses it for navigation but the rest is css/xhtml.  I much prefer that.

I really can't agree with using flash for navigation, as it is less accessible and updatable than HTML and CSS. If I were to use my iPod touch to browse your website, I wouldn't see any navigation: that's not good.

Besides which, that kind of animation can probably be done in javascript.

I'm really not trying to rag on you, there's just good reasons not to use flash for Navigation or Content.

[chimera15]

I really can't agree with using flash for navigation, as it is less accessible and updatable than HTML and CSS. If I were to use my iPod touch to browse your website, I wouldn't see any navigation: that's not good.

Besides which, that kind of animation can probably be done in javascript.

I'm really not trying to rag on you, there's just good reasons not to use flash for Navigation or Content.

It would take a lot of work in javascript, to make it come even close to what it is, which I have no idea really how to code something that complex in, and don't really have any desire to as well.  I have a javascript menu on my very old website, and I just feel like it's horrible, and don't want to deal with it anymore.  

Currrently that flash menu on hireanartgeek is very updatable, and I didn't have to do a lot of work to use it, and it looks really nice.  It's really awesome because it's a flash menu that calls out html pages.  It's done entirely with actionscript, and it interfaces with an external xml file to change all it's properties.  It's extremely well coded.  Not by me btw, I got it cheap on activeden when I really had no idea how to make a flash application of any sort.  I'm still just learning actionscript in flash, that menu is like hyperadvanced actionscript, I have the code and still have no clue what most of the functions or logic he used to do it were.


I don't really care about ipod/iphone users, which I am as well, but I would never browse the web on it.  Apple decided to handicap their ipods by not allowing flash, which essentially makes them worthless for browsing in my mind unless jailbroken.  I had flash on my palms up to my t5, it was rediculous for apple to do that.  It was really taking a step back, and if I had it to do again I wouldn't buy an ipod touch, in large part because it is useless for browsing, precisely because it doesn't support flash. I can do as much or more on my 5 year old palms as the ipod, and I don't have to put up with that horrible capacitive touch screen. So its their loss.  There are tons of things you can't do on the web without flash, it's the person's loss if they can't view the site.


If you don't think it's good for navigation or content, that means it's basically useless in your eyes, except for what, games? banners? lol

[Rajagra]

there's just good reasons not to use flash for Navigation or Content.

It has its uses.
The good, the bad, and the ugly.

[timw4mail]

If you don't think it's good for navigation or content, that means it's basically useless in your eyes, except for what, games? lol

Well, my problem with it is that it requires you to download a plugin that is not always available.

I really only see flash as a way to do things if you can't code in javascript, or if no alternative exists, like flash video players.

I doubt anyone with a screen reader would be able to navigate your site either. Only very recently has flash even been able to be indexed for search engines.

[chimera15]

Haha, nice idea closing a page by throwing it in the trash. :smile:

In the gallery page I needed to go in twice to see the thumbnails. Not sure if we're supposed to be able to zoom to full pictures, I never managed to.

Yeah the thing with the thumbs not loading is one of the bugs.  I'm not sure what's going on.  It's something funky with the loadMovie function.  As far as I can tell everything's right with it but I had to use some extended scripting to get the photos to resize, so that's probably what's keeping it from loading completely.

I don't have a gallery script on it yet. I just finished this basic part for the requirements of the project.

Eventually I plan to add a flash gallery in it so it updates with my flickr photo stream.  The assignment wanted us to use the loadMovie function, so had to do it that way.

[timw4mail]

By the way, it is a cool idea.

[chimera15]

By the way, it is a cool idea.

Thanks.

I thought about making a virtual keyboard website, so people with like touchscreens can use different web pages for inputing instead of the windows tablet input junky little keyboard.   So a practical idea might come out of it. lol

Would take a lot of coding to do that if it was possible though too.

[keyb_gr]

Cool idea? Yep. Looks like a fun exercise.

Suitable as the backbone for a "real" website? Nope. (Reasons have been outlined above.)

[AndrewZorn]

AOL email

[hyperlinked]

It would take a lot of work in javascript, to make it come even close to what it is, which I have no idea really how to code something that complex in, and don't really have any desire to as well.

It's actually not that hard to do the menu for Hire an Art Geek in JavaScript. You're actually already halfway there. You're using the MooTools JavaScript framework to do the gallery image loader effects on your gallery page. I'm going to guess you downloaded that just for the slimbox effect and set up the effects from step by step instructions.

Doing up your menus in MooTools, would be harder, but has its advantages to coding it up in Flash. If you're doing your Flash menus in Actionscript, then you'll probably find it easier to do it in MooTools. If you're binding button actions and effects to the button objects themselves, writing code in MooTools to do it will be harder, but 100x faster once you figure out the basic MooTools syntax.

MooTools is actually the primary JS framework that I use. It's kick ass powerful, but it's not the most popular one out there. It's one of the major ones though. I think jQuery may be the leading one in terms of common usage, but I'm not sure. There are a lot more books written about jQuery than the other frameworks and in comparison to some of the other notable JS frameworks, jQuery is pretty straight forward to learn.

[timw4mail]

It's actually not that hard to do the menu for Hire an Art Geek in JavaScript. You're actually already halfway there. You're using the MooTools JavaScript framework to do the gallery image loader effects on your gallery page. I'm going to guess you downloaded that just for the slimbox effect and set up the effects from step by step instructions.

Doing up your menus in MooTools, would be harder, but has its advantages to coding it up in Flash. If you're doing your Flash menus in Actionscript, then you'll probably find it easier to do it in MooTools. If you're binding button actions and effects to the button objects themselves, writing code in MooTools to do it will be harder, but 100x faster once you figure out the basic MooTools syntax.

MooTools is actually the primary JS framework that I use. It's kick ass powerful, but it's not the most popular one out there. It's one of the major ones though. I think jQuery may be the leading one in terms of common usage, but I'm not sure. There are a lot more books written about jQuery than the other frameworks and in comparison to some of the other notable JS frameworks, jQuery is pretty straight forward to learn.

Basically, there's no reason to write Javascript from scratch these days, as there's a lot of frameworks out there that will make it a lot easier.

Personally, I prefer to just use CSS for dropdown menus, rather than have a roving hover effect like that.

[hyperlinked]

It has its uses.
The good, the bad, and the ugly.

You bastard. I'm going to have to give up milk products until the images from that cow video goes away in my head.

[chimera15]

AOL email

What about it? lol  I've had it for like 13 years.

[chimera15]

Basically, there's no reason to write Javascript from scratch these days, as there's a lot of frameworks out there that will make it a lot easier.

Personally, I prefer to just use CSS for dropdown menus, rather than have a roving hover effect like that.

I think there's a way to do the roving effect in css too, but I'm very sold on flash.  I'm not of the opinion that flash sites are bad in some way.  I think the only reason you would think that is if you were a linux/old computer user. lol  I consider myself more of an artist/designer than a scripter/coder, so I'd prefer to stick to flash which you can at least have a lot of creative elements drawn and then attach code to the visual elements. It makes more sense for me.

I don't know how to program very well, and don't want to spend a ton of time dealing with learning programming.  I want to learn it so much as it gets the design elements done, and functioning, but that's about it.

[chimera15]

There are exceptions to the rule. No Flash, no zombo.com! Where would we be without.. zombo com?

Hahahaha

[chimera15]

I'm in doubt whether he is ignorant, and proud of it, or a really good troll. In any case, Flash is dead baby.

Flash is dead? lol  I'll agree flash 10 sucks, but there are a ton of add ons and other programs that use flash that hardly make it dead.

You can hardly call flash dead when every video on youtube is flash based, let alone all the players on the web.  Even the entire player interface on stickam is flash based.

  The most amazing sites on the web are flash based.  What language or tool can compare to flash pages in creativity?

[keyb_gr]

I consider myself more of an artist/designer than a scripter/coder, so I'd prefer to stick to flash which you can at least have a lot of creative elements drawn and then attach code to the visual elements. It makes more sense for me.

When all you have is a hammer, any problem looks suspiciously like a nail...

I think that there are always two sides of a publishing problem:
1. What can I (the sender) do to get my message across?
2. What works on the receiver side, and how well does it do that under varying circumstances?
You have the first one covered, but the second one still needs some work. It's not like you'd be the first or the last one, not at all - artistic folks tend to think like that. Nonetheless it would be a good idea to research the "can of worms" caveats in terms of usability and accessibility so that appropriate countermeasures can be taken.

You can hardly call flash dead when every video on youtube is flash based, let alone all the players on the web.  Even the entire player interface on stickam is flash based.

Everything has good uses, and that is one example. Video plugins always were sort of a mess. Flash was reasonably widespread and allowed a unified interface. (That being said, I prefer downloading and viewing things I like locally, so that I can take advantage of hardware acceleration features and have better playback.) At the same time, navigation still is carried out the same way as ever. Horses for courses.

[chimera15]

When all you have is a hammer, any problem looks suspiciously like a nail...

Just because every problem may not be a nail, doesn't mean every problem can't be solved with a hammer. lol

When all you have is a hammer, any problem looks suspiciously like a nail...

I think that there are always two sides of a publishing problem:
1. What can I (the sender) do to get my message across?
2. What works on the receiver side, and how well does it do that under varying circumstances?
You have the first one covered, but the second one still needs some work. It's not like you'd be the first or the last one, not at all - artistic folks tend to think like that. Nonetheless it would be a good idea to research the "can of worms" caveats in terms of usability and accessibility so that appropriate countermeasures can be taken.

I really have no interest in catering to people who can't update their software or hardware that you can buy off ebay for less than $100, and get for free on any normal computer system, or people who purposely choose to not be compatible with the majority of people in the computer world.

[timw4mail]

The most amazing sites on the web are flash based.  What language or tool can compare to flash pages in creativity?

I beg to differ. Have you seen Google Wave? That's completely HTML/Javascript/CGI based. Flash is only involved in plugins. How about meebo? Google Docs?

Flash is only used to display videos because there is no standard way to display videos in html. The only other way to view videos and hear sound in a web browser is some sort of plugin to a media player installed on the user's computer.

To be honest, I don't blame you for wanting to deal with Flash because it's easier. But the reality is that Flash is not, and never has been an accessible way to view content. With a traditional computer setup, Flash works fine, but there are so many different ways to access the internet (Specifically the world wide web) now that Flash is becoming, in some ways, irrelevant.

Creativity is great, but sometimes I think designers need to look at the real world restrictions. Flash is almost entirely tied to the traditional computer.

[timw4mail]

I really have no interest in catering to people who can't update their software or hardware that you can buy off ebay for less than $100, and get for free on any normal computer system, or people who purposely choose to not be compatible with the majority of people in the computer world.

I suppose people with visual disabilities are purposefully choosing to be incompatible with the rest of the computer world? That's rather insulting.

[itlnstln]

It depends on the purpose. If you're an (visual) artist, you probably don't care about catering to people that are visually impared (harsh, but true). If you're running a store-front, that would be a different case. In chimera's case, I can agree with him. Flash would probably be the best way to present his work (check out the sites of professional photographers, for example). Amazon.com or Google Maps, OTOH, would be a complete disaster if it were Flash-based. It's all perspective.

[chimera15]

I suppose people with visual disabilities are purposefully choosing to be incompatible with the rest of the computer world? That's rather insulting.

Yeah pretty much.  

Someone needs to make a cyborg implant so they will be compatible or something.

Didn't they already do that sorta?

If yer disabled you are incompatible with the world, let alone the net, by definition, that's why it's called being disabled.

[chimera15]

I beg to differ. Have you seen Google Wave? That's completely HTML/Javascript/CGI based. Flash is only involved in plugins. How about meebo? Google Docs?

Flash is only used to display videos because there is no standard way to display videos in html. The only other way to view videos and hear sound in a web browser is some sort of plugin to a media player installed on the user's computer.

To be honest, I don't blame you for wanting to deal with Flash because it's easier. But the reality is that Flash is not, and never has been an accessible way to view content. With a traditional computer setup, Flash works fine, but there are so many different ways to access the internet (Specifically the world wide web) now that Flash is becoming, in some ways, irrelevant.

Creativity is great, but sometimes I think designers need to look at the real world restrictions. Flash is almost entirely tied to the traditional computer.

Those are mostly stand alone downloadable apps aren't they?

What different ways? I'd take a oqo 2 over an iphone any day of the week.

[timw4mail]

Those are mostly stand alone downloadable apps aren't they?

What different ways? I'd take a oqo 2 over an iphone any day of the week.

None of those are downloadable...they're web apps, and they work on more than flash applications do.

Different ways? How about phones, Mobile Internet Devices, Video Game Consoles, et cetera?

http://www.meebo.com/

[chimera15]

None of those are downloadable...they're web apps, and they work on more than flash applications do.

Different ways? How about phones, Mobile Internet Devices, Video Game Consoles, et cetera?

http://www.meebo.com/

Meebo's pretty cool, but it's basically just boxes, no real heavy design.  What's it written in again?   Obviously they had a lot of time and money and programmers to work on it though huh?  I bet the coding is huge.

All those devices are useless to surf the web except in an emergency.  The oqo is only slightly larger, and has the full capabilities of a normal computer, and doesn't cost that much more than most of them.  Why would I want any of those when I can have a full sized computer power in a umpc.  It's those devices that are going to be on death row. Not flash.

[hyperlinked]

I mirror everything timw4mail's saying and I agree with itlnstln too.

I've built a complex demo tool in Flash and I've done some really heavy JavaScript sites too. I have to agree that if I were merely making things as an artist, I wouldn't care as much about making my work accessible to everyone... however to totally dismiss the importance of putting forth something accessible sounds like someone making an excuse to cover up a shortcoming in experience (whether it's true or not).

My Flash experience is a lot lighter than my experience with other things and I'll be the first to admit that I don't appreciate it enough for what it can do, but I have done enough work in it to see how it's superior in every way for certain things and completely completely wrong for many ways that people are using it.

Chimera, there's two problems with that roving menu on Hire An Art Geek. It didn't need to be in Flash and all things being equal, it's actually harder to do that kind of menu in Flash. For you it was probably easier because you know Flash better and that's a perfectly fine reason to do it the way you did it because it works within your limits and leverages your strengths, but it doesn't mean that it's a good approach for what you used it for.

We've got some pretty hard core coders here and I'm sure all of them would agree that there are a lot of things they do in their coding that they know to be against best practice guidelines, but they're doing it anyway because there's only so many hours in the day and they know their piecemeal procedure will work. If they're truly hard core coders, they'll accept this and be at peace with it and will openly admit there are things they suck at, but they'll be thinking about doing it better the next time around if the chance presents itself again.

[hyperlinked]

If yer disabled you are incompatible with the world, let alone the net, by definition, that's why it's called being disabled.

Man, you need to spend a day in a rehab ward at an inpatient hospital.

[timw4mail]

Meebo's pretty cool, but it's basically just boxes, no real heavy design.  What's it written in again?   Obviously they had a lot of time and money and programmers to work on it though huh?  I bet the coding is huge.

All of it is in Javascript, which I'm sure interacts with a server-side programming language.

Rounded corners are a pain in the neck to do, boxy or not, it's difficult to get a good rounded corner effect, at least, at this point.

All those devices are useless to surf the web except in an emergency.  The oqo is only slightly larger, and has the full capabilities of a normal computer, and doesn't cost that much more than most of them.  Why would I want any of those when I can have a full sized computer power in a umpc.  It's those devices that are going to be on death row. Not flash.

Well, sometimes I'd like Flash to be "on death row". It's the single most common reason that a browser crashes. It's very CPU intensive, so things like netbooks don't always play Flash at a very comfortable speed.

One thing everybody should know about doing anything on the web: it's complicated. With a relatively simple site you may deal with HTML, CSS and Javascript. That's your Content, Presentation, and Behavior layers.

 Flash is this plugin that loads into the browser, adds security holes, wastes CPU cycles, and is an impediment to accessibility. Flash doesn't have the separation of content, presentation, and behavior. There may be separation of content and presentation/behavior, but that's messy in comparison.

Sure, Flash seems to make things easier. But if someone doesn't have Flash installed, for security, performance, or because they didn't have a choice, you don't have a fallback. In the case of Flash navigation, that makes your website completely unusable.

The web was designed for universal access, not to be limited to plugins. Most of the reasons Flash used to be used have been replaced by AJAX, (Asynchronous Javascript and XML) which is a way of changing the content of a webpage without refreshing the whole page. With AJAX, the main reason Flash used to be used is pretty much gone.

Sorry for such a long rant, but I just wanted to try and demonstrate why Flash is usually not the best solution.

[Buckling_Summer]

I like to see well designed Flash sites. From an artistic perspective is the best tool in web design. Big commercial firms have been using flash extensively.

The main problem with flash in the era of visibility is the S.E.O incompatibility.
SE robots and spiders dislike flash sites.

[hyperlinked]

I like to see well designed Flash sites. From an artistic perspective is the best tool in web design. Big commercial firms have been using flash extensively.

The main problem with flash in the era of visibility is the S.E.O incompatibility.
SE robots and spiders dislike flash sites.

The thing is, Flash is NOT Web design. It's a killer multi-media medium and I'm envious when I run into an impressive Flash site, but it's technically not Web design. It actually circumvents the Web, which is why a lot of us who do a wide range of Web work day in and day out have issues with it and what makes things worse is that it keeps getting used for things it should not be used for and it's not just a problem for people who are too lazy or poor to upgrade.

My biggest issue about the 100% Flash site is that the content window is fixed. When text overflows, I get a scroll bar inside my window that might already have a scroll bar. What's worse is that my scroll wheel, keyboard shortcuts, and mouse macros don't work inside this alternate environment. I can accept this tradeoff when there's some killer multimedia make the overall experience appealing, but not when it's that way because the site builder isn't interested in going outside of Flash.

The Meebo site does not look that hard to do. It's actually a blend of Flash and JS. The JS/CSS portions of it are very easy to do with a framework.

[AndrewZorn]

i think flash is a bad idea for most applications.  some exceptions exist, like the ones listed here and stuff like http://www.homestarrunner.com (which is apparently also well-done, as it worked flawlessly on my phone) (upon revisiting, the main pages are still the best part)

[cheater1034]

I hate flash - worst crap ever, but if it was for the project then I understand

(but nobody should learn flash anyway, because of how much it sucks)

[o2dazone]

Until those bastards in the HTML5 spec solidify on a standard for

[HaaTa]

I learned flash about 5 years ago. Made a few projects (About 50-70 hours for each).
Then I got pissed off at web development in general, and never touched flash since.

[chimera15]

Well, that's true, someone made a point that people may not be able to access it from business's that have security protocol that may not be able to install flash..  My father works in the government and I know he's had problems with accessability like that on his system at work.

Hmm, well this whole thing has made me wonder more about my hireanartgeek site.  Is there a way to put flash over xhtml/javascript?  So like if they don't have a flash player installed, it will just show the html?  I need to try that, maybe it would be possible with css....

That way people that have flash can see the fancier menu, but those who don't would still be able to navigate.  I really don't want to have 2 menus showing..  I may have to try that....

[hyperlinked]

Until those bastards in the HTML5 spec solidify on a standard for

Well, I wouldn't go so far to say that Javascript is fit as a replacement for much of Flash. It's a great replacement for the things that Flash should never have been used to do in the first place, but there are a couple of areas in which I would never pick Javascript over Flash

• Cross-site widgets: the most popular example of this would be video players. Even if a
• Sites that are really games or apps: Most any blockbuster movie site would fit this definition perfectly.

Chimera, about putting Flash over Javascript and XHTML, yeah you can do that. I don't remember how to do it off the top of my head and I don't have time to look it up right now. Not long ago, I had to fix a bug in an app for a client that served up either a Flash version of a banner ad or a plain HTML version of the banner ad depending on whether Flash was detected or not.

Again though, if it's for a menu it really should be done in Javascript. There are plenty of programs that you can use to make building menus much easier so if you don't want to learn a lick of Javascript to do it, you don't have to.

[chimera15]

Well, I wouldn't go so far to say that Javascript is fit as a replacement for much of Flash. It's a great replacement for the things that Flash should never have been used to do in the first place, but there are a couple of areas in which I would never pick Javascript over Flash

• Cross-site widgets: the most popular example of this would be video players. Even if a
• Sites that are really games or apps: Most any blockbuster movie site would fit this definition perfectly.

Chimera, about putting Flash over Javascript and XHTML, yeah you can do that. I don't remember how to do it off the top of my head and I don't have time to look it up right now. Not long ago, I had to fix a bug in an app for a client that served up either a Flash version of a banner ad or a plain HTML version of the banner ad depending on whether Flash was detected or not.

Again though, if it's for a menu it really should be done in Javascript. There are plenty of programs that you can use to make building menus much easier so if you don't want to learn a lick of Javascript to do it, you don't have to.

Hmm, yeah there's a javascript that's written specifically to do that to see if a flash player is detected, then takes you to the flash install page or whatever, maybe that could be adapted to just display html instead of putting up the page that says to install flash...hmm.

[Mr.6502]

Hmm, yeah there's a javascript that's written specifically to do that to see if a flash player is detected, then takes you to the flash install page or whatever, maybe that could be adapted to just display html instead of putting up the page that says to install flash...hmm.

SWFObject makes that quite easy.  It is a javascript library that uses javascript to detect flash and load it onto the page.  The alternate content is always there which makes the page useful even with browsers that don't have javascript.

You include the swfobject.js file and run swfobject.embedSWF() with the parameters you want.  One of the parameters is the ID of a container on the page.  

Then, elsewhere, you have the container:

Code: [Select]

<div id=&quot;flashContainer&quot;>

...alternate content...

</div>

The beauty here is the web indexers will see the alternate content and not just write your site off as empty.  

Overall, I would also reinforce what a lot of people are already saying.  Flash is a crutch necessary since things like a solid

[chimera15]

SWFObject makes that quite easy.  It is a javascript library that uses javascript to detect flash and load it onto the page.  The alternate content is always there which makes the page useful even with browsers that don't have javascript.

You include the swfobject.js file and run swfobject.embedSWF() with the parameters you want.  One of the parameters is the ID of a container on the page.  

Then, elsewhere, you have the container:

Code: [Select]

<div id=&quot;flashContainer&quot;>

...alternate content...

</div>
The beauty here is the web indexers will see the alternate content and not just write your site off as empty.  

Overall, I would also reinforce what a lot of people are already saying.  Flash is a crutch necessary since things like a solid

Cut and paste?  I made that site for my basic web design class, I haven't had time to go back and make all the elements gell together. I wrote almost the entire thing by hand to learn css and xhtml.  I added the flash menu and scripts to use a flickr feed to automatically update the galleries after so it would be a usable site.   Anyway it's not done either, but it's far from being cut and paste.  I designed it from the ground up as well.  Hopefully I can address some of the issues with it in my advanced web design class.

My main goal in using that menu with it was to learn how that flash menu and the actionscript in it worked since it interfaces with html/xml so well.  I modified a lot of the actionscript in the flash file to work so that it would have 2 instances of it on the same page, since a lot of the callout function names had to be changed and point to different files and such.  I still need to go back into the actionscript and modify a lot of the design elements.  Since the entire thing is coded in actionscript, even the visual elements, it's very difficult to understand, it's not a typical flash like file at all where there are graphical elements, which I expect why it's so fast and small.


Adding the javascript to put a html feature in there instead of a flash menu should be pretty interesting, which I will try to do if I get time.  

 I still don't agree that flash is just being implemented because there's no other solution.  There's no reason that the entire web couldn't be flash based.  Websites I've seen like the Keio-ensoku site are what inspired me to try to become a web designer.  They're all encompassing and engrossing and show the potential of the web.  No non flash site I've ever seen has that kind of potential to interact with a viewer, at least not one that doesn't have a huge team of developers that have put thousands of hours into coding it.

[timw4mail]

I still don't agree that flash is just being implemented because there's no other solution.  There's no reason that the entire web couldn't be flash based. Websites I've seen like the Keio-ensoku site are what inspired me to try to become a web designer.  They're all encompassing and engrossing and show the potential of the web.  No non flash site I've ever seen has that kind of potential to interact with a viewer, at least not one that doesn't have a huge team of developers that have put thousands of hours into coding it.

There's plenty of reasons the entire web couldn't be flash based. The first of which is that there isn't a standard protocol for serving flash pages. Flash is embedded in HTML which requires HTTP. Yet again, accessability.

Javascript is a full-fledged programming language. Flash is a binary plugin. Javascript is completely platform-agnostic, flash is limited by the plugin needed to view it.


That's yet another reason that Flash is unimpressive to me. It's a shortcut, and it's a shortcut that isn't as accessible, and therefore isn't as usable.

Here's a game written in Javascript, that you'd normally see written in Flash:
http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/BunnyHunt/

Flash isn't web design.

[chimera15]

There's plenty of reasons the entire web couldn't be flash based. The first of which is that there isn't a standard protocol for serving flash pages. Flash is embedded in HTML which requires HTTP. Yet again, accessability.

Javascript is a full-fledged programming language. Flash is a binary plugin. Javascript is completely platform-agnostic, flash is limited by the plugin needed to view it.


That's yet another reason that Flash is unimpressive to me. It's a shortcut, and it's a shortcut that isn't as accessible, and therefore isn't as usable.

Here's a game written in Javascript, that you'd normally see written in Flash:
http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/BunnyHunt/

Flash isn't web design.

Just because javascript is built into browsers now doesn't mean that flash won't be in the future.  You had to install Javascript separately for years, and still do right for certain things?  I could be wrong here, I never really followed or cared about javascript, because everything I've ever seen done in it is pretty junky.
If browsers start to install flash along with their installation you would feel differently?  Just because browsers are dumb and don't feel it necessary to install with their installations doesn't mean that it's not web design.

Show me some good javascript that didn't take thousands of hours of coding, and years of study that can equal even the worst flash and I might agree with you.

That bunny shooting thing was unimpressive, it didn't even have sound?  What's a shooting game without sound?

[keyb_gr]

Javascript is a full-fledged programming language. Flash is a binary plugin. Javascript is completely platform-agnostic, flash is limited by the plugin needed to view it.

Yep. (This actually is the flipside of it being more powerful. TANSTAAFL.)

Here's a game written in Javascript, that you'd normally see written in Flash:
http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/BunnyHunt/

It seems to perform as well as any Flash based game, too. CPU load during the game appeared to be insignificant.

Flash isn't web design.

Yep, in much the same way that a Java applet is not. An applet is just a thing on a web page. A Flash applet can also be run standalone on a local computer if you want.

[timw4mail]

Just because javascript is built into browsers now doesn't mean that flash won't be in the future.  You had to install Javascript separately for years, and still do right for certain things?  I could be wrong here, I never really followed or cared about javascript, because everything I've ever seen done in it is pretty junky.
If browsers start to install flash along with their installation you would feel differently?  Just because browsers are dumb and don't feel it necessary to install with their installations doesn't mean that it's not web design.

Wow...Javascript has been around a long time, as an integral part of Netscape. You haven't used many of Google's tools, have you? Most all of them make great use of Javascript. Javascript isn't limited to the stupid window resizing, cursor trails, and other nonsense that used to seem to be it's only use.

Flash is not going to start coming with Flash, because Flash is not a standard. Javascript, and HTML were around before they became a standard, and are now standardized.

Show me some good javascript that didn't take thousands of hours of coding, and years of study that can equal even the worst flash and I might agree with you.

That bunny shooting thing was unimpressive, it didn't even have sound?  What's a shooting game without sound?

That was a one person experiment. Javascript doesn't take thousands of hours of coding, especially since most everybody uses a framework like JQuery, Prototype, MooTools, etc.

This site has all it's slideshows in Javascript:
http://wjrexploresmichigan.com/

Maybe not the most impressive replacement of Flash, but it also doesn't require a third party plugin, and the transitions are just as smooth as with Flash.

[chimera15]

How is flash non standardized?  It's not like an avi where there's like dozens of different compressors and decoders.  One flash player will play every swf as far as I'm aware.  This is even true between different versions, it's completely backwards compatible.  A flash 9 player will play 90% of the flash apps out there, even the ones written in flash 10, assuming I guess they didn't use actionscript 3?  I'm not sure what the decider is on that actually.  But it's completely standarized.  

The only real difference really is the companies that own the different languages right?  Adobe vrs like who does javascript? Sun microsystems?  Adobe probably just wants more money to add it into a browser than Sun did or something. lol

[timw4mail]

How is flash non standardized?  It's not like an avi where there's like dozens of different compressors and decoders.  One flash player will play every swf as far as I'm aware.

It's Adobe's standard. It's not an open standard.

[lal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#Criticism

[Mr.6502]

Cut and paste?  I made that site for my basic web design class, I haven't had time to go back and make all the elements gell together. I wrote almost the entire thing by hand to learn css and xhtml.  I added the flash menu and scripts to use a flickr feed to automatically update the galleries after so it would be a usable site.   Anyway it's not done either, but it's far from being cut and paste.  I designed it from the ground up as well.  Hopefully I can address some of the issues with it in my advanced web design class.

My main goal in using that menu with it was to learn how that flash menu and the actionscript in it worked since it interfaces with html/xml so well.  I modified a lot of the actionscript in the flash file to work so that it would have 2 instances of it on the same page, since a lot of the callout function names had to be changed and point to different files and such.  I still need to go back into the actionscript and modify a lot of the design elements.  Since the entire thing is coded in actionscript, even the visual elements, it's very difficult to understand, it's not a typical flash like file at all where there are graphical elements, which I expect why it's so fast and small.


Adding the javascript to put a html feature in there instead of a flash menu should be pretty interesting, which I will try to do if I get time.  

 I still don't agree that flash is just being implemented because there's no other solution.  There's no reason that the entire web couldn't be flash based.  Websites I've seen like the Keio-ensoku site are what inspired me to try to become a web designer.  They're all encompassing and engrossing and show the potential of the web.  No non flash site I've ever seen has that kind of potential to interact with a viewer, at least not one that doesn't have a huge team of developers that have put thousands of hours into coding it.

When I said copy and paste I was referring just to the flash menu itself as the same menus appear on other sites and appear to be practically identical.  I understand what you are saying about changing things in it as I am familiar with mostly actionscript flash files as I have developed quite a few of them.  

But if you are already programming in a dialect of ECMAScript fixing (what sounds like) crappy code and the destination is a browser, might as well try javascript out :-D

Because of the limitations of flash, any times I've worked with it professionally it has been to provide, essentially, flash applications that run on desktops, not in web browsers.  Usually the intranet sites I work on have to meet accessibility guidelines that flash can't accomodate.  Many of the corporate websites on the internet will not use it for anything vital on their internet sites for the same reason.  

There isn't actually a reason to exclude disabled folks from being able to view a site.  For an individual's site its just their personal preference to exclude people because of their disability.  If the page is made well, it can be beautiful and still be 100% accessible to disabled visitors.  The key is to learn how to develop the page elegantly.  

I hope one of the courses includes making a webpage that looks beautiful as it degrades from a full browser with plugins to a browser with no plugins to a browser with no JS all the way to a text based browser.  If you build your sites with that in mind the net result will work on the vast majority of browsers with very little work and will be beautiful and accessible.

[chimera15]

When I said copy and paste I was referring just to the flash menu itself as the same menus appear on other sites and appear to be practically identical.  I understand what you are saying about changing things in it as I am familiar with mostly actionscript flash files as I have developed quite a few of them.  

But if you are already programming in a dialect of ECMAScript fixing (what sounds like) crappy code and the destination is a browser, might as well try javascript out :-D

Because of the limitations of flash, any times I've worked with it professionally it has been to provide, essentially, flash applications that run on desktops, not in web browsers.  Usually the intranet sites I work on have to meet accessibility guidelines that flash can't accomodate.  Many of the corporate websites on the internet will not use it for anything vital on their internet sites for the same reason.  

There isn't actually a reason to exclude disabled folks from being able to view a site.  For an individual's site its just their personal preference to exclude people because of their disability.  If the page is made well, it can be beautiful and still be 100% accessible to disabled visitors.  The key is to learn how to develop the page elegantly.  

I hope one of the courses includes making a webpage that looks beautiful as it degrades from a full browser with plugins to a browser with no plugins to a browser with no JS all the way to a text based browser.  If you build your sites with that in mind the net result will work on the vast majority of browsers with very little work and will be beautiful and accessible.

We had a large section of our web design class which dealt with user accessibility and following those guidelines.  I just never agreed with the laws that the government sites have to follow.   I don't see why I shouldn't exclude disabled people, why I should limit my tools and abilities, and why I should make things harder on myself in my design so that less than 10%, and possibly even 1% of the possible people that would view the site can see it in whatever even further degraded way they would view it in.

It's like 10 times worse than putting 20 handicap parking spaces in a parking lot, that nobody ever uses!!!  It just makes it harder on everyone, and less of an experience for the sake of the few people that should expect to have to have it harder on themselves because of their condition in the first place.

It's not my problem that disabled people can't view my website.  I refuse to design for the weakest possible viewer.  It's not going to take my websites to the next level.  You can be elegant perhaps with such tools, but you're never going to be MIND BLOWING, and mind blowing is what I want to aim for, even if I never make it.

[timw4mail]

We had a large section of our web design class which dealt with user accessibility and following those guidelines.  I just never agreed with the laws that the government sites have to follow.   I don't see why I shouldn't exclude disabled people, why I should limit my tools and abilities, and why I should make things harder on myself in my design so that less than 10%, and possibly even 1% of the possible people that would be view the site can see it in whatever even further degraded way they would view it in.

It's not my problem that disabled people can't view my website.  I refuse to design for the weakest possible viewer.  It's not going to take my websites to the next level.  You can be elegant perhaps with such tools, but you're never going to be MIND BLOWING, and mind blowing is what I want to aim for, even if I never make it.

You have lost any respect I might have had for you.

[AndrewZorn]

I CANNOT READ YOUR POST as your text is too small please enlarge it you should not be telling people like me i cannot read your post you are probably talking behind my back arent you you scum

[chimera15]

I CANNOT READ YOUR POST as your text is too small please enlarge it you should not be telling people like me i cannot read your post you are probably talking behind my back arent you you scum

roflol

[chimera15]

You have lost any respect I might have had for you.

You know, I'm not heartless, I just don't agree that design, let alone function as in parking lots, should be limited for the weakest.  The solution lies in designing specifically for individual handicaps that allows them to be as or possibly even more functional than a normal capable person.  Not for every designer to design in their fields for them.  For instance designing a walker/weelchair that can climb steps, instead of every bloody building having to have a ramp.  The solution shouldn't be for the many to suffer and slow down to the speed of the handicapped person, because the few handicapped people can't keep up.

[timw4mail]

You know, I'm not heartless, I just don't agree that design, let alone function as in parking lots, should be limited for the weakest.  The solution lies in designing specifically for individual handicaps that allows them to be as or possibly even more functional than a normal capable person.  Not for every designer to design in their fields for them.  For instance designing a walker/weelchair that can climb steps, instead of every bloody building having to have a ramp.  The solution should be for the many to suffer because the few can't keep up.

Well by that viewpoint, I shouldn't have to deal with Internet Explorer. I shouldn't have to care what percentage of the population uses it. Because it's the biggest stumbling block to web design. Internet Explorer insists on doing everything just slightly differently. From a design standpoint, it's my biggest obstacle. So I should just ignore it.

That's what you're saying isn't it?

[itlnstln]

Not to drive this further into irrelevancy, but I love it when I'm at the store see fat people using the scooters.

[AndrewZorn]

all this sounds so familiar but i cant think, FROM WHERE...

[itlnstln]

I don't know if I should laugh or punch that guy in the throat.  I'm leaning towards punching him in the throat.

[chimera15]

Well by that viewpoint, I shouldn't have to deal with Internet Explorer. I shouldn't have to care what percentage of the population uses it. Because it's the biggest stumbling block to web design. Internet Explorer insists on doing everything just slightly differently. From a design standpoint, it's my biggest obstacle. So I should just ignore it.

That's what you're saying isn't it?

Yeah, pretty much, if they choose to be non standard, then it's their loss.  But even so, all the ie's together make up something like 40% of the market, and hardly non standard, they pretty much are a second standard, and hardly a handicapped minority to write off.


http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

[AndrewZorn]

I don't know if I should laugh or punch that guy in the throat.  I'm leaning towards punching him in the throat.

well, the abbreviation is fairly well-known, it is much easier to simply abide by what it is telling you to do

[chimera15]

I hope karma catches up with you.

Show Image

roflol

I hope there's a Spock around to take me to Talos IV when it does. roflol

[hyperlinked]

You know, I'm not heartless, I just don't agree that design, let alone function as in parking lots, should be limited for the weakest.  The solution shouldn't be for the many to suffer and slow down to the speed of the handicapped person, because the few handicapped people can't keep up.

Portability and accessibility is not just something to do for those less fortunate than you. Regardless of how you feel about people with disabilities, it's not all about inconveniencing you so that a minority can be accomodated. Stuff that's accessible is also far more durable. Content that's made accessible can be easily integrated into whatever future technologies come about  that we cannot even envision today and when those new devices come about, the inventors may make the decision that they can't accommodate the minority of designers who decided that everything should be in Flash.

Although we keep bringing up the name "Flash" the issue of accesibility isn't a game of Flash lovers against the world. You can have awful Javascript or other standards based protocols that suffers from the same problems that Flash does.

It might just be my impression, but what I see is a guy who's feeling insecure and is getting defensive in response to critique. The things that are getting pointed out have nothing to do with how any of us feel about art and creativity or handcuffing artists so that they can't create anything beautiful.  Nobody gives a damn how you built a site if you did it that way because that was to the best of your ability at the time or if you just don't have time to learn how to do it a better way. It has nothing to do with how we feel about creativity and art. Contrary to popular belief, really good developers are not cold pure left brained logic machines. Web development is very much a right brained discipline as well in many ways.

BTW Tim, the bunny game was a neat example, but I think I gotta agree with Chimera that it's not that impressive. It probably would have been better and easier to do that game in Flash. Flash is perfect for stuff like that.

[chimera15]

Portability and accessibility is not just something to do for those less fortunate than you. Regardless of how you feel about people with disabilities, it's not all about inconveniencing you so that a minority can be accomodated. Stuff that's accessible is also far more durable. Content that's made accessible can be easily integrated into whatever future technologies come about  that we cannot even envision today and when those new devices come about, the inventors may make the decision that they can't accommodate the minority of designers who decided that everything should be in Flash.

Although we keep bringing up the name "Flash" the issue of accesibility isn't a game of Flash lovers against the world. You can have awful Javascript or other standards based protocols that suffers from the same problems that Flash does.

It might just be my impression, but what I see is a guy who's feeling insecure and is getting defensive in response to critique. The things that are getting pointed out have nothing to do with how any of us feel about art and creativity or handcuffing artists so that they can't create anything beautiful.  Nobody gives a damn how you built a site if you did it that way because that was to the best of your ability at the time or if you just don't have time to learn how to do it a better way. It has nothing to do with how we feel about creativity and art. Contrary to popular belief, really good developers are not cold pure left brained logic machines. Web development is very much a right brained discipline as well in many ways.

BTW Tim, the bunny game was a neat example, but I think I gotta agree with Chimera that it's not that impressive. It probably would have been better and easier to do that game in Flash. Flash is perfect for stuff like that.

If there's anything I've learned about the computer world, anything you make or create is worthless and Dunsel as soon as you make it. lol I don't really care about the future, cause you can do everything you think you can to make something future compatible and you'll be wrong, as you said, it even effects things you wouldn't think it would.

That's probably one of the reasons I like keyboards so much, there's only been one major upheaval in keyboard formats in all the years of pc's, that can't easily be adapted for at least, so that's pretty good. lol

[Rajagra]

They should get their own house in order before making demands on us.

[chimera15]

No one uses ramps anymore.