Would flash etc put you off...?

Hi All
Not sure if this the correct place to ask if not my apologies, I have done a number of web sites and people ask for more graphics e.g. flash etc what is the general consensus of sites that are more than standard html

Hello mopar

We are only concerned about the content of the website, not how it is presented.

However if a site requires specific plugins, some editors will not be able to review it and it may take longer for it to be reviewed by one who can. (You may occassionally find a site listed in the directory with a note such as '[may not work in all browsers]' in the description where this has happened).

You can check out our guidelines for more information.

Hope that helps.

regards

Thanks Eric-the-Bun

Ther are also some editors who believe that Flash represents a security risk to their machines, who do not have flash installed, and thus cannot review a site if navigating through flash is a requirement.

This usually means a greater delay for the site owner as the site must wait until an editor willing to deal with Flash comes along.

A site owner can avoid this probem by making it possible, via HTML, to skip or bypass the flash. some designers make the process of skipping flash a flash control, which somewhat (to say the least) makes it difficult to use the control if one dies not have flash installed.

Other editors have felt strongly enough about flash to put a flash warning in the description, along the lines of [requires Flash]

While it is not a major factor I consider in looking at potential sites, I do take note of how complicated they are and how long they take to load. After all, not everyone has a high-speed internet connection--many people still work with dial-up connections.

Just from a personal perspective, having edited thousands of sites, flash is a bit annoying, doesn't impress me as a surfer, slows me down from getting to the real information I'm looking for, and can sometimes be confusing, and be a big problem for those who still use dial up.

Having said that, as an editor, it wouldn't stop me from reviewing the site, but, I really do appreciate a "Skip Introduction" link so I can get past it quickly, and I would definately put "Flash required" at the end of the description.

But, as far as listability or my own personal preferences in reviewing the site, it would have no effect, it would be treated just as any other site suggestion would be treated, . Good question.

The following comments aren't anti -Flash - they're anti poor website design.

Some 'cool' navigation schemes done in Flash aren't at all obvious, leading the editor to think that there isn't any useful content. This has a predictable consequence. If experienced editors are mislead, what chance has the average surfer?

Others can be so clever as to be unintuitive, giving the impression of user hostility. I have a particular abhorrence of mystery meat navigation systems because they slow me down and sometimes prevent me from easily finding the info I need.

Pointless fancy transitions also slow me down. As an editor, I'll put up with them unless they take absolutely ages. As a potential customer, I won't.

Style shouldn't win out over substance. Websites are usually trying to convey a message and excessive style can obliterate it.

In this example, we don't even find out who they are until the intro movie is over. At least you can skip that, but you quickly wish you hadn't .

Yes, that last example might cause me to move onto another site also, it's irritating and too time consuming. If flash is used as an intro, and I can skip it, it's not a problem, but, when it starts wasting my time, that's another matter.

Fortunately, I've only run into two or three such sites, and they're probably still waiting to be reviewed.