ODP and Flash Intro Sites

[takenbydigital]

Hey Guys,

 

I don't know if this is a silly question, recently submitted a site which is awaiting review, a friend told me that sites with "flash intro" pages often get rejected and that the URL submitted should be for the sites "home" page, is this true or am I being misinformed? As the site I submitted has a "flash intro". (Hopefully this is submitted to the correct thread)...

 

Sincerely

[spectregunner]

No, Flash is not grounds for rejection, but any number of editors simply refuse to review flash sites due to the massive security risk that they pose (so they stay a lot longer in the submissions pool until an editor willing to deal with flash infested sites comes along), and many editors put warning labels in the desription to alert surfers to the flash content.

[jimnoble]

Flash is not grounds for rejection

That's true, but sites can be declined for poor usability (euphemism for user hostility ).

 

Bearing in mind that the average surfer gets bored after waiting around 10 seconds for a website to appear, it's as well to understand that a large enforced download with no escape clause might prompt an editor to wonder if the website is there to serve the user or to serve the webmaster's vanity.

[takenbydigital]

Thanks for the feedback, my site is certainly not "flash infested" Just a short intro page and 1 little flash graphics on the home page, other than that its all about my photography.....All the flash scripts are secure though, otherwise my hosting company would not allow it....

 

Thanks for the feedback, I'll wait and see what happens...

 

Nigel

 

P.S Why are Flash website graphics considered a security threat? Many major organizations use them, if they are a threat why are they so widely used??

[motsa]

Don't know about the security part of it but from my point of view Flash is just really, really annoying and (unless your whole site is Flash-driven) pointless...a little of glitz and glamour for a lot of trouble. My default browser is currently set to not display Flash so if I were to happen across a site with a Flash intro page that I couldn't get past without having Flash running, I'd have to leave that site sitting there for someone else to review.

[sole]

I used to review Flash sites, but my computer is eight years old and not compatible with the newer versions, so for me it's no longer an option.

 

If a page has a skip intro option. Or a html and Flash version, I'll take the html version and review the site. Otherwise, it sits until someone with a newer computer comes along.

[hutcheson]

>>All the flash scripts are secure though, otherwise my hosting company would not allow it....

 

Ah. And if you had been concealing e-mail-spammer engines in your flash scripts, you would have told us about it, right?

 

I don't mean to be sarcastic: but "I am not a lying crook" is not a auto-validating statement. And we'd have a hard time getting that promise from each of the zillions of hosts out there -- so we can take no notice of it. Even if there is a possibility that it's true, we can't verify it.

 

The security issue is this: on the Infernal Exploder (AKA the Internet Infector), Flash is an ActiveX plugin. In itself, it may not totally destroy the security of your system -- I really don't know, and it really doesn't matter. The problem is, ActiveX DOES totally destroy the security of your system. Any ActiveX component can hose your registry and your registration, reformat your hard disk, and leave you with no data and no usable computer. And in order to use Flash, you must allow ActiveX components to run.

 

It is as if you called a plumber to come fix your faucet, and he said "I won't come into your house unless you permanently disable every lock on every door or container, and destroy every barrier on every window. And in addition you must place all your money, jewelry, and negotiable securities in the top dresser in the master bedroom, and leave them there until they are stolen." Would you accept? Or would you spurn that arrogant jerk like the abetter-of-criminals he is?

 

It is completely beyond my comprehension why ANYONE would EVER treat their computer like that. (It is therefore also beyond my comprehension why anyone would ever create a Flash website knowing that they inevitably require that people open up their computers like nobody would ever open their home.)

 

Flash is, IMO, a valuable technology in some ways; and I think it is highly regrettable that Microsoft has chosen to impose these unconscionable and intolerable demands on surfers through their insistance on ActiveX plugin technology.

[sole]

I stand corrected. It may not be the age of my computer that prevents me from installing Flash, it may just be that I no longer allow Active X controls on my computer.

 

It all comes to the same thing. If there isn't a way around the Flash, I don't look at the site.

[bobrat]

I review a lot of Flash sites, but they had better load fast, and they had better have a skip option, otherwise I drop them back into unreviewed, and go on to something else, until I have time to waste.

 

I have a DSL line, an up to date computer, and use the Mozilla browser.

 

Life is short - flash is too long.

 

I find a lot of web designer's sites want to show off their flash skills, but it looks totally foolish in most cases, the navigation usually is cryptic, and they can't spell or write sentences, so it tends to fall flat.

 

I also review some entertainment/perfomer's sites, where the Flash was justified, and maybe every few months I get one that is really good. One was good enough to go back a few times and enjoy it.

[hutcheson]

sole, my post overlapped yours. I didn't mean to correct you; in fact, you may be correct. IIRC, earlier versions of the Infernal Exploder supported the standard browser plugins, under user control -- and you may well have loaded a Flash browser plugin. But when you revenue-enhanced Microsoft by installing a newer software product, you lost that feature, and your old plugins ceased working. (And now your ActiveX setting gets involved, whereas it didn't before.)

[xixtas01]

Flash running on Windows under Mozilla or Opera doesn't have this problem. It's an IE security problem. Not a Flash problem per se.

 

I have no problem reviewing Flash sites. I've got pretty good hardware and connection speed.

[hutcheson]

xixtas, I agree with your technological assessment. But when 90% of surfers use IE, the ActiveX setting that enables Flash also exacerbates their security problems. (OK, you say, how much worse can it really get? When your entire dinner is from the world's largest petri dish for computer diseases, what'a a little Salmonella side dish? And ... I don't know: I just use ZoneAlarm to prevent IE accessing the net.)

[takenbydigital]

Wow so many replies This is really interesting, I did'nt realise that activex could be a problem, I'm glad to say I'm also using Mozilla, a much faster program than IE.....Anyways, I am somewhat worried now, although I am wondering when you think of a "flash site" are these ones like Tiffanys, where a flash website window pops up on top of the standard first page? Mine is just a regular webpage with a little intro (or maybe better to say flash animation) that has a skip button, which then takes you to another regular browser with my website written in HTML there is just a little flash animation on the main page which plays once in the left hand corner, but does not effect browsing, i.e. you could skip right past it to another page while it's doing it's 5 second performance... Maybe I should have said "flash animation" rather than "flash website"....

 

Thanks for the informative responses, it made me go read all about activeX plugins

 

Nigel

 

P.S I'm 99.99% sure though that to play the flash animations you only need the macromedia plug-in (as the flash was designed in macromedia dreamweaver), is that also to do with directx?

[hutcheson]

I use Mozilla also. It's easy (and fun!) to forget how slow, clunky, and unreliable the IE is. On Mozilla, using the old standard plugins, I do not know of any significant security risk with Flash (or Java, or Javascript, for that matter. Unlike the Browser Everyone Loves to Hate.)

 

And I almost hate to suggest it, but you really need to check your website with IE to see what those 90% are seeing. The IE is not particularly good at standards compliance -- or perhaps they didn't try. So your carefully-crafted CSS may be rendered rather in the meat-packing sense. When that happens (which is most of the time in my experience) you want to know about it.

[takenbydigital]

Hey Hutcheson,

 

Thanks so much for the info Mozilla is a wondeful thing, I remember when I first got it, it was like that moment when you switch from dial-up to DSL lol Thanks for the info on the flash too, I feel a little better now With this being my first site I was somewhat over the top in testing on different systems, my CSS seems to be as it should be in all the mac/win browsers that I (and my friends around the world) tested including IE *sighs in relief*

 

Thanks again,

[Guest wrathchild]

Sorry to further promote thread drift, but not only do I use Mozilla Firefox for most of my browsing, but I use the "Flash click to play" extension, which turns all embedded Flash animations into buttons that don't go off until I click them.

 

If I can get past the Flash at the front door and if I'm not forced to use Flash for navigation then it's all good. If, however, the site is completely unusable without allowing Flash to run, well, I'm afraid the site's going to have to wait a bit.

[flicker]

If your site has a little "skip intro" text link under the Flash movie, then having the Flash there shouldn't delay your site's review at all. It's a nice idea from a site design standpoint, too. (-:

[motsa]

You gotta hate sites that don't show you the skip intro link until the Flash animation is loaded, though.

[giz]

All it takes is this simple piece of HTML code to be added on the front page:

 

<p class="skip"><a href="the-next-page.html" title="Go Directly to Main Site">Skip Intro</a></p>

 

Any website designer incapable of doing that cannot really be doing a good job for their clients, as they are alienating many of the visitors to the site.

 

Who, in their right mind, would expect to be paid well for doing such a poor job?

[takenbydigital]

Good point, I hate sites that "force" you to watch the intro, there are a few big corporate ones like that, like you say it's pretty poor if a skip link is not included, especially if it's a site that will be revisited by customers etc....

[senox]

I wouldn't worry too much about editors reluctant to review sites using Flash when talking about Visual Arts, including Photography, or Design related categories, many sites in these areas use Flash. We understand it's part of the 'visual experience' which is probably more important here than elsewhere, although we as editors are more interested in content than site design, and aware of potential security issues.

 

Just speaking for myself here, 'skip intro', reasonable loading times even for those not having broadband connections, and a HTML version should be a basic courtesy to visitors.

[hutcheson]

More about Internet Infector Security

 

This must-read is just in, by a big-name IT journalist: "Internet Explorer Is Too Dangerous to Keep Using."

 

The problem: having merely recently visited any one of many reputable sites (which ones? WE DON'T KNOW!) will mean any personal passwords, credit cards, or other information stored on your computer, or typed on its keyboard to be stolen by hackers (presumably in Russia). There is currently neither a way to detect this, or a patch to fix it. Since you don't know what websites were affected (except that all of them were running on Microsoft IIS), you have no way of even estimating your exposure.

 

The only solution for death-or-glory permanent-slaves-of-the-IE is "If you must run IE, ... you can disable all active scripting and ActiveX on all IE zones." This will, of course, disable Flash.

 

More rational victims of IE (like the author) will have been moving to other browsers. Mozilla, Firefox, and Opera all get high ratings from users, few rapes by hackers, and good scores for functionality and performance.

 

Read the article at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1617931,00.asp . If you're not convinced, read it again. (In fact, read it over and over until you're positively terrified.)

[krishnadasan]

Flash may be bad for google

 

Flash web sites are seldom ranked in robot based search engines. Also in india, it is irritating to have a flash intro because of the internet speed. I have seen lots of good flash sites in DMOZ

 

See this site : david-carter.com/websites/flash.htm

they say flash will damage a website !

 

krishnadasan design

New Delhi, India

[Pumpirony]

Clarification

 

Perhaps I'm being dense but it seems to me the original question was never fully addressed. And as I'm about to be in the same boat, I'd really like to be certain of the answer.

 

I understand all the concerns regarding the use of Flash, and I appreciate the importance of "skip intro" links and other user-friendliness considerations, but bottom line... is it acceptable to submit, say, www.abcdefg.com/index.html if the page that comes up consists of nothing more than a Flash animation -- with a "skip intro" link, naturally -- that, upon completing or skipping, redirects to store.abcdefg.com?

 

To put it another way, does a Flash animation in itself constitute enough content to make www.abcdefg.com/index.html more than just a redirect page?

 

Obviously, I'd prefer to submit the more elegant "www" domain name if possible, but I want to be sure I'm abiding by your rules.

[pvgool]

We don't look at 1 page for enough unique content. We only look at complete sites. As the flash intro is part of the site we normaly would list it and not the next page it redirects to. Preferably we list a site as http://www.sitename.com (without index.htm or whatever is used as first page).