Bad side of Flash 5

Posted on October 07, 2000

in IA/Usability

by nicholas schaffner (nicholas)

Rated 3.43 (Ratings: 3) (Add your rating)

Want more?

More articles in IA/Usability
More articles by nicholas

nicholas schaffner

Member info | Full bio

User since: October 07, 2000

Last login: October 07, 2000

Articles written: 1

Macromedia, a money hungry monster of poor usability

One of the biggest hurdles a web-designer must overcome is bringing together a site that allows access on all platforms, browsers, and systems. Many people thought that the Flash swf format solved that problem. A developer was able to have full control over a presentation that looked exactly the same across the diversity of web users, as long as the users had the plugin installed on their computer.

If the user did not have the plugin, then he/she could not see the content. Thus, Flash did not solve the diversity problem. It is the same as requiring Netscape to view a site, if the user does not have Netscape, he/she does not see the content. All of these Flash developers have been lying to themselves, just so they could make some lengthy, bandwidth-heavy intro movie.

"But Nick, everyone knows that over 90% of users have Flash installed on their computers!"

Yes that is true, 90% have the Flash plugin installed, however that statistic represents those who have the Flash 2 plugin installed, not the current Flash 4 plugin. (only 74% of users have that) Those who don't have the latest version of the plugin installed will be treated to a movie lacking sound, advanced interaction (actionscript) and forms. While there are techniques for detecting plugin versions, most sites do not use them. (statistics source)

Finally, down to the point of this article. Macromedia recently released the latest version of Flash, version 5. To view Flash 5 files on websites, one needs to download the latest plugin version, or you are treated to a sub-par experience.

It has taken over a year for 74% of the online populous to bring Flash 4 onto their computers, how long is it now gonna take for the upgrade to Flash 5? Those confident few who have already started using Flash 5 are just kicking their users in the balls and contributing to the overall unfriendliness of the net.

The solutions; don't upgrade to Flash 5, don't upgrade the plugin, and don't upgrade your Flash 4 creation software. Sure, you can do some more complex programming with Flash 5, but there are other working solutions to such problems. Learn Perl, or CGI, use solutions that work automatically on the web, not ones that require your users to jump through hoops to see your content. Your life will be easier, and your visitors will be just as happy.

16 comments on this article. Log in to add your comment |

Submitted by aardvark on October 8, 2000 - 10:01.

There are two other good rants about Flash on the web that I have enjoyed. As a developer concerned about accessibility and usability, I often resist Flash solutions — no matter how much I like building the stuff. Anyway:

Submitted by daverau on October 9, 2000 - 06:57.

Asking users to download a 60Kb plug-in and asking them to use a TOTALLY different browser is not a fair comparison. Bashing a technology because most people are not taking full advantage of it, or using it improperly isn't fair to the technology. How many lame ass web pages are there? Check geocities and government sites and then come tell us why HTML sucks too. There are certain situations where flash solutions work. If you can't or don't know how to take 3 min to download the most popular browser plug-in and get your software up to date then get the hell off a computer. There are lots of problems with developers, but there are MORE problems in offering $400 computers and free internet connections to the (m)asses. Not every sites audience is that of cdnow or amazon. You can't expect people to change their own oil in their car, but changing a tire is certainly reasonable, and a WHOLE lot more work than clicking and waiting to download a plug-in. If you own a car and can't change a tire, you have a problem. If you own a computer, surf the web, and can't download the Flash plug-in you too have a problem...seek help. I'm tired of Jacob Nielsen's followers bashing everything that doesn't work on a 486 with Netscape 2.0. This IS the 2000, is it not? hehe, I shall await my punishment (via other comments) for this post.

Submitted by djc on October 9, 2000 - 09:52.

Dave - First off, you're confusing the issue between 'lame ass web pages' and Flash. 'Lame ass web pages'(LAWP) are a design implementation. They're lame because the design(to you and I at least) isn't very appealing. However, we don't need a special plugin or browser to view these LAWP's. There could just as easily be horrible design in a Flash page. Further, the anoalogy with cars is a poor choice here for a couple reasons. Generally the people that read this site and develop with Flash 5 *can* install a plug-in without a problem - we all work and live in the world of computers. However, ask me if I know the first thing about changing a tire. Although this might seem trivial to a mechanic, I have no clue. The same holds true for me installing a plug-in, the mechanic would be clueless. No one is saying everything should work with a 486 and an old browser. But think about the other end of the spectrum - Should things only work with a PentiumIII and the latest copy of the latest browser with the latest plugins? Of course not. Its all about finding the happy medium for any particular situation and achieving true web development enlightenment.

Submitted by dawn on October 9, 2000 - 10:11.

If the user wants to see the content badly enough, they will get the plugin, irrespective of whether that plugin is flash or beatnik or real player or pulse3D (the first 3d plugin I have ever bothered installing, simply because I wanted to see the content (ahem, The Muppets) that they highlighted on their site www.pulse3d.com). The amount of hassle a user is willing to go through to get that plugin will be proportional to how much they want to see the stuff. Otherwise they will go elsewhere. It is up to our judgements as designers whether our info is a) suitable for flash and b) worth the wait and in the case of new version features, worth the faff of upgrading the plugin. The same argument runs for css and dhtml in the coded web. If they've been around since Flash 2, they most certainly will have the necessary experience to click on a link and run a setup program.

Submitted by MartinB on October 9, 2000 - 11:18.

Part of the issue with many Flash sites is that the content need not be in a Flash format - the Flash is adding little or no value to the offering. It's usually entirely gratuitous - take a look at balthaser.com for the kind of vacuous self-indulgence I'm thinking of. In fact, in these cases, the Flash serves to mask the lack of content. So with many developers' use of Flash, the main return on your investment is upset users who you have condemned as inept or worse - this is not good business or communication. I hate to break this to you, but the largest number of users have not been around since Flash 2.0. CSS is built into browsers (so doesn't need a download or plugin), has been since IE3 at one level or another and if coded right will often degrade gracefully. This isn't to say that Flash is never useful - even banks can use it for appropriate content, but it's rarely the case. More often the result is a site which is very pretty, but not a lot of use.

Submitted by manindersk on October 9, 2000 - 21:40.

I think there is more at stake here than just plain download of a plug-in. My feeling as somebody who has been involved with evolving systems is that Flash 5 combined with Generator has a potential unmatched for creating dynamic and automated sites. And though it may sometimes seem that Flash is just another flashier substitute for HTML, that may not be entirely correct, Flash 5/generator has the flexibility to interact with multiple data sources, to work in both offline and online mode. For people like me, it has cut down development time to almost 1/4. My point being that there is substance in Flash 5, the deal is to utilize it where needed and not everywhere, to exploit what it offers intelligently in which case the plug in download will be a small price to pay

Submitted by aardvark on October 10, 2000 - 19:06.

Flash is not a substitute for HTML. It does not offer the features that HTML does (accessibility, user customization), and HTML does not offer the features Flash does (audio and animation widgets). Thinking of them as interchangeable is part of the problem. Remember, you can have plain old HTML interact with all sorts of data sources thanks to server-side scripting. People are also forgetting that making a user download a plug-in doesn't always result in that user hanging around. Ultimately it comes down to knowing your audience and the goal you are trying to achieve. But this article is about why Flash 5, in particular, offers no overriding reason for users to upgrade. It may be easier for you to develop in, but does the user care?

Submitted by frogg on October 12, 2000 - 06:56.

The author's closing comments regarding the more complex programming that is achievable through the use of Flash5 show a lack of understanding between client-side programming and server-side programming - and there is a big big difference!! It is not possible to write 'Perl, or CGI' that will run in the browser, as these are server-side technologies!! Furthermore, the new ActionScript in Flash5 is a massive improvement over that in Flash4. By bringing the language more in line with the ECMA script standard I am now able to write complex client-side code (with beautiful graphics) with as much power as JavaScript - but WITHOUT the hassle of testing under every different browser/JavaScript combination. If you need this kind of power from script (and you need it now) then Flash5 is a very good solution. (BTW: I am a software engineer not a designer...)

Submitted by aardvark on October 12, 2000 - 07:35.

I think that his last statement wasn't about running CGI (etc.) on the client-side, but instead not relying on the browser to do all the work. One of my rules is, if you can do it on the server, then do it on the server. Things like form validation, personalization, randomization, etc., can be done on the server, and should be done on the server whenever possible. Once you've got that right, then you can add some features to the client side to help the user (like JS-driven alerts when textareas are too big, etc...). That being said, relying on someone to have the Flash 5 plug-in is much like relying on someone to have Neato Browser 5.5. It's a small audience for now, and doesn't help the rest of the users. Sure, you can do more with it when people adopt it, but to restate a point above, who is that easier for, you or the user? Developing for just that audience shuts out everyone else.

Submitted by quintus on October 13, 2000 - 05:37.

I have collected some interesting links to articles about Flash Usability. Check them out at: http://www.quintus.org/use/

Submitted by nemo on November 1, 2000 - 07:44.

In trying to decide whether to use Flash content or not, the central issue should be what works best for the site and its users. Sure, you can take an educated guess as to who has the plug-in and what they might do if they don't have it. From a business point of view it might be more productive to launch parallel sites, as many do already. From a marketing point of view if the site is in anyway dependant on search engine listings then Flash scores zero points. By offering an HTML home page with options to visit Flash areas within the site, the search engines will take more notice of the site and you can also track where your visitors are going. If they all shoot straight to the Flash area than thats the right approach for you. It may also be a case of 'horses for courses'. I am involved in graphic design so our site has a rich graphic content and Flash provides an easy way to showcase our work but I cant imagine using Flash to build a home page.

Cry cry cry

Submitted by Breezy on February 2, 2002 - 10:49.

Listening to people whine all the time should come with extra duty pay! Why is it that people who complain about it's too hard to download a 60k plug-in are smart enough to register to get on the board? All you have to do is go to the site and click download here! It's not hard at all. The problem is simply they don't want to learn another language! I was upset at first that after all the training in Flash 4 then a change in language. But I got over it when I realized all the great possibilities. Downloading the plug-in is not the problem. It's angry people not wanting to learn something new. And like any other webpage, be it due to graphic intensity or what not, if it takes more than 10 or 15 seconds to load... GO SOMEWHERE ELSE and quit crying! Just my opinion crybabies... LoL :-) Smile and only stress over the tuff stuff! Breezy.

A STOP to more advanced development?

Submitted by sharkk on March 27, 2002 - 00:24.

So you're actually saying NOT to upgrade to a more advanced technology development version (5, MX) just because some users won't want to download the plugin? IMHO, i think it's kind of dumb. no offense, but, that'd be like saying: the transaction system of our bank wont be ever upgraded because some clients and card holders just dont have IE 5 or NS6, and well we have to keep using our 1hr per request system. Come on, 56k is the slowest internet connection standard available, and you wont download a 100- kb plugin? doesn't make sense to me. Flash CAN be used to disguise bad content (but that wont apply to professional sites), then you'd be visiting a personal site or whatever, and if you dont want to spend 30 precious seconds downloading it to be able to experience the improvements of hundreds of hours of work by the developers, then just dont visit the .... site. either way, Flash, if professionally used, can enhace the experience a user may have either by the way the information is presented or the visual pleasure you get by watching a well designed intro or something like that. personally i think it's stupid to remain with a quite OLD version of a software when you can have the latest, after all, it's free right? learning CGI, Perl? Flash's supposed to be user friendly, and I can assure it is.....i mean, one can practically sit and use the software for the first time and produce a decent movie in about 5 hours. Learning perl....CGI...what? 2, 3 months? come on.... PLEASE think 'bout what you're gonna write next time.. peace. sharkk.

couple points

Submitted by aardvark on March 27, 2002 - 00:34.

56k is not the lowest standard. I have a Commodore 64 with a 300 baud modem that still works. I also got a request from a client today to target modem users at 28.8k, the highest average rate of their audience.

Though the plug-in may be a small download, imagine an generic user, like a secretary at a law firm, being asked to download a plug-in while surfing for work. She might not understand what it is, and may skip the download. This is assuming she has administrative rights on her machine to install it, of course.

Regardless of how silly we think it is, or how odd, both of those are real scenarios. It's worth keeping them in mind.

point taken

Submitted by sharkk on March 27, 2002 - 03:11.

i agree about both scenarios being a fact, good point. its just I dont think it's fair to put macromedia as a money-hungry monster. they're doing their best to develop what i think most of us like (cause it makes our work easier, and it's cool, i like to think) and then people like the author of this article just going: "hey macromedia sucks cause you have to download a plugin (OMG, what a sacrifice) to be able to see the improvements in movies done with their latest version of the software." i mean, if you CAN download the plugin, go for it, i think (opinion, not a fact) that is very worthy. most sites have a HTML version available (if u do not have flash, or ur conxion is too slow), but as i said, i dont think it's cool to encourage people to stay with old versions or qualify a company or product as bad just because someone think it is. Nick, if all you want is 'friendliness' in the net, just go with plain TEXT converted to HTML.....thats it. no images, no tables, blah. the browsers wont be able to screw the design and hopefully it will look the same in all browsers (which is what you want, right?). but if someone wants to offer a cool flash version, or take advantage of the dynamic graphics creation, heck, let them be! im taking User Centered Design this semester and i've learned that you have to try to deal with every possible scenario out there, but its just impossible to make a design or product fit every scenario. Just go ahead and try. Lets take for example the fact that i had to register an account on this site just to post....would it be cool for me to flame the site just cause i have to register to post? No, it's just something the admins want, and it's cool, it's their site. which, btw i congratulate the admins, very well designed and interesting content. well, just my 2 cents. peace.

Flash

Submitted by bs0d on March 27, 2002 - 11:42.

Sees nothing wrong with flash....

Start of page header

Other Fine Evolt.org Sites

Navigation Starts

Submit

Article Categories

Highest rated articles

Recent comments

Main Page Content