Comments on: Usability & Animation

By: Jason

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:37:33 +0000

Flash doesn’t hurt people – programmers do.

]]>

By: Kelvin Luck

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:48:51 +0000

I have to disagree that “Flash is Bad”. I think Flash is actually really good… That doesn’t mean that it can’t be abused of course. In fact, I’d probably agree that it’s easier for someone to develop a bad flash website than a bad HTML website. Although I’ve seen some terrible HTML websites and some bad JS usage which brings all of the lack of navigability and bookmarkability that you associate with flash.

If a developer is any good and can be bothered it’s pretty easy to add back button and SEO ability to a flash site (google swfaddress to see how)…

Anyway, a challange… I’ll take back my opinion if you can show me something like this built without flash:

http://www.hobnox.com/index.1056.en.html

In fact – play back a streaming video in a reliable cross platform cross browser manner without Flash and I’ll be impressed with just that!

]]>

By: Adrian Westlake

Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:03:07 +0000

Hi James,

Just to enter the ‘Flash is bad’ debate, I actually think it does and will always have a place.

I work for a large integrated marketing agency, and we have a variety of projects rangin from long term corporate websites, to short term promotional websites. I am a HTML/CSS guy and although dabble in Flash its not really my thing.

I would say for the short term sites which need a definite wow factor, then Flash is definitley going to be your best option. These sites users will likely visit mostly once or twice, and it needs to wow them for them to pass onto their friends, and hence a campaign spreads. A campaign such as this is meassures on how many people see it and talk about it, not really how many people come back to it. The sites on thefwa.com are those kinds of sites. However a lot of those sites have bad usability of the kind you mentioned, but if the same principles you use in HTML sites for navigation etc, then you have a Flash site which still wows and is usable. If there are accessibility concerns generally we go for an accessible HTML version with just the information bits extracted from the experience, but in reality clients dont care about this for short term promotions. The sites are only up for a few months

Obviously all other sites we use standards complient HTML/CSS and use JQuery effects where necessary and appropriate, I am certainly with you on that one.

So dont dismiss Flash so easily, it still has its place and I am afraid it is here to stay, as much as us HTML/CSS/JS guys hate it. Most Flash site developers come from a design/animation background, and it is just an education process to make sure that they still retain good usability principles. I am sure there will be continued steps in the accessibility area too.

]]>

By: Jamie Nordmeyer

Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:23:51 +0000

Great post, James! And I agree completely that animation is something best left minimal. I’ve always felt that if you can use it to enhance your site, then do it, but it should almost be subconscious to the user. For instance, a quick fade out and fade in when changing tabs or images, the key word there being quick.

As for Flash, I agree with Shane that many of the places using it today are inappropriate, and look like the developer is just trying to be cool. But it can definitely have its place, such as movie sites, or for games.

]]>

By: James

Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:01:44 +0000

Thanks for the comments 🙂

I guess I shouldn’t have been that harsh on Flash, it’s not all bad. What really annoys me is how some people insist on making entire websites in Flash; I’m sorry, but it’s simply a bad practice. Not only are Flash websites largely inaccessible but the navigation and other functional features are normally implemented in random and unconventional ways. For example, having to click on objects on a ‘virtual’ desk to navigate around a site – it may be pretty but it’s not usable at all!

]]>

By: john brandt

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:08:51 +0000

Good thoughts and observations. I agree with you fully. I am miffed by people who fill websites with lots of pretty pictures and animations and dynamic effects when 99% of the time I am there looking for content. If I want pictures or glitz, I go to Flickr, YouTube or put a DVD in the telly.

Love this quote:
“I don’t give a damn about ‘immersive experiences’ when I’m surfing the web, all I want is my damn information!”

]]>

By: Shane

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:53:29 +0000

Less is certainly more with animation – it’s best when you almost don’t notice it.

Users are an impatient lot, and having to wait for a number of seconds to be able to access some information can be infuriating. At best, the transition will be appealing on the first or second viewing, but it will always plumit to the depths of anger.

I imagine that if Flash was made by Apple, you’d have had about 100 comments on here by now. You’re entitled to you opinion, and I’m not keen on Flash either, but it’s not totally inappropriate all the time. Again, it’s how it is used. For certain types of site, it’s the best solution, and let’s not forget about Flash Video 😉

]]>

By: Swapnil Sarwe

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:03:34 +0000

Very well said, all that glitters is not gold. just bcoz its animation or nice easing effect does not mean its good. its only good if u use it at the right place for the right purpose.
Eg. the links at the right sidebar on ur site when they slide onhover i don’t like that effect. Reason: its a very small shift of position and hence its jerky (if it wud have been a shift of around 100px, i wudnt have noticed those jerks), all the js frameworks are still not that good in animation, just b’coz they were never meant to do that. You take any easing algorithm by Robert Penner’s.
But the best part of ur site is, that it does not hinder my usability, it moves or not moves or it moves whichever way, I am still able to click on it very easily.

]]>