Beautiful Flash Sites? Not So Much…
Posted on June 11th, 2009 in BAD Flash, Inspiration |
This is a multi-part article. Intro | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
As I mentioned in my last post, a recent article on Smashing Magazine about “50 Beautiful Flash Websites” had me scratching my head a bit. I don’t want to pick on Smashing Magazine (they are probably the most useful design blog I read) but I do want to pick apart some of the 50 sites they showcased.
In a lot of ways I suppose the “50 Beautiful Sites” are a pretty accurate snapshot of the decent flash sites out there… but I guess that’s what I found a bit discouraging.
The decision to build your site entirely within Flash is a decision that fewer people are making today, and with good reason. I’m happy that the days of plumbers with Flash sites are basically gone. A full Flash site, while it has many strengths, certainly has its drawbacks as well: diminished SEO; deeplinking issues; longer loading times. Even I freely admit these drawbacks, and I design Flash sites for a living! On the other hand, the advantages that a well-designed Flash site can have over using CSS and XHTML or Javascript in certain circumstances far outweigh the drawbacks, and in those cases, choosing Flash is a no-brainer.
But are developers making the correct choices about when to use Flash? This is one of the big questions I attempt to address here at the Good Flash Site. I cringe when I see a site built in Flash that has none (or very few) of the true advantages a Flash site can bring to the table. This is why I was a bit disappointed in Smashing Magazine’s 50 sites.
Yes, all of the sites were beautiful. Concerning their use of Flash, there were definitely some excellent sites in the list, but some were only passably good, and some of them didn’t really take advantage of Flash’s strengths at all.
Today, let’s look at a couple of sites that I believe didn’t use Flash well.
Yes, the site is pretty… but the only interactivity in the main page are simple rollovers. No motion at all. The galleries feature some motion in the thumbnails… so they’re a fraction better, but to be honest, a Flash gallery like that is a component you can buy at a place like Flashden.net for about fifteen dollars. Hardly what I’d call showcase material.
What could have been done better?
Any kind of motion at all would have vindicated the use of Flash, in my opinion: either transitions when clicking on a section; or motion when you roll on or off a button; or some kind of smooth slide transition in the galleries (instead of just “Wham! Here’s your next picture!”). When I describe what Flash is to people who are computer-illiterate, I tell them, “It’s what makes things move on the internet.” …So prove me right, and please make something move.
Again, a pretty site, for sure. The biggest question mark for me, though, is the HUGE amount of text on each page. Have these people not read anything about what you should and shouldn’t use Flash for? None of the text is selectable, and by the layout you would really think that it was done in HTML… but, no, the whole thing is Flash. Why, oh why would they do that? There is no discernable benefit that I can see.
Yes, they’ve got a cool wipe transition when each page loads; yes, their menu has a slick little animated “arrow dent”; yes, they have a slideshow happening on the main page; yes, they have nice rollover animations on a lot of the side images. There are lots of legitimate uses of Flash here, and well done as well. But why make the whole page Flash? Why not break up the page so the animated sections are in Flash and the rest is in HTML? It would have kept all that coolness but dramatically increased the usability. Heck, with transparent div’s, they can still have their Flash content animating over their HTML… so why didn’t they? It makes no sense to me…
Also, big minus– no deep linking. The whole site is at one address: no navigation buttons allowed here. I don’t understand, are they trying to show what not to do? Do they not know that there are ways to do this, even in Flash? or are they just SO lazy that they can’t be bothered to improve the site’s usability to the user? …or did I just miss a memo somewhere along the way?
More tomorrow…
4 Responses
Excellent Excellent article! Bravo James! I have netvibes organizing my RSS feeds to design blogs and all I see are reposts of Smashing Magazines’ “Incredible Websites for Inspiration”.
You can look for inspiration anywhere but to find an article where designers do an in-depth critique about it’s design AND code is rare to find among the thousands of design blogs that are out there.
Flash can be your friend but easily can be your greatest enemy.
Again, bravo James!
[Reply]
James Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Thanks very much for your kind comment!
[Reply]
“But are developers making the correct choices about when to use Flash?”
I think this statement, or at least the placement of the decision on the developer end, isn’t completely accurate. Sometimes it is the client that is focused on the site being in Flash. For example, I am working on a project for a client and this client wanted to use a simple Flash template and have it customized. I gave him all the info on the drawbacks of Flash, such as SEO, iPhone issues, plugin requirements, and so forth [not to mention the fact that is was a template and, thus, stock], and despite my attempts at informing him and trying to persuade him to go a CSS/XHTML custom design route for the project, he still insisted on the Flash. So, what can I do but give the client what he wants?
I guess I just see it as odd that the project always reflects on the designer/developer. What is a good designer to do when he/she has to build something they know has flaws based on the urging of a stubborn client? After all, they’re only going to shell out the money if they get what they want - though sometimes what they want isn’t neccessarily what they need.
In addition, I think the first example you give is somewhat flawed in that this is a graphic designer’s website. I assume it was self made and he most likely has a better grasp of Flash than Dreamweaver. He’s definitely about showcasing his ‘look’ rather than his ‘code’, so while your critique of it is correct, I can also see reasons for this implimentation. You are spot on with your second example. I just don’t see why a professional design firm would do what they did there.
[Reply]
James Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
You are absolutely right about how often the decision actually lies with the client– I myself have been in the same boat in the past, where a client insists on doing things a certain way in spite of my recommendations. In fact, I suspect many designers/developers implement clients’ wishes while inwardly cringing because they know that what they are doing is very poor practice. So yeah, I agree that it’s not always the developer’s fault, but I guess they’re the easiest one to blame!
As far as your point about the first example– you are probably right that the designer made it in Flash because he had a better grasp of Flash than Dreamweaver. But that’s exactly my point–he used the wrong tool for the job. It’s sites like that one, built in Flash (even though they shouldn’t be) by people who don’t know any better, that really give Flash a bad name.
[Reply]