By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,855 Members | 1,988 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,855 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Flash Loons

P: n/a
I was thinking about where to go for lunch the other day, so I went to
hardees.com to see what the menu looked like these days. What
comes up is a big note that my flash version is not new enough so I
can't use the site. What complete losers!

When are businesses going to understand that the purpose of a web
site is to communicate with customers or business parterns and NOT
so your "web master or "web engineer" can show off what they learned
down at the community college last week!

So I went to Taco Bell. A couple or years ago a similar thing happened
when I went shopping for a new backpack. The frist place on the google
list refused to work because I didn't have flash install. I went to the
next business and orders several hundred dollars in gear. Hopefully
the losers at the first place went out of business.

I am beginning to believe that FLASH is, on total, a loss for the
Internet. It breaks browsers (especially mozilla/firefox), it chews
up cpu cycles on the clients, and it can write stuff on you
computer. And more.

To do my small part, I installed FLASHBLOCKER on by browser.

End of rant.

Jun 30 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
115 Replies


P: n/a
po*********@yahoo.com wrote:

When are businesses going to understand that the purpose of a web
site is to communicate with customers or business parterns and NOT
so your "web master or "web engineer" can show off what they learned
down at the community college last week!

Close. The purpose of most web sites (not web *applications*, mind you)
is marketing. Marketing, marketing, marketing. Unfortunately for you,
John and Jane Doe are more attracted to pretty pictures and "gee-whiz"
animation than they are to usability and real information. They both
use Windows and Internet Explorer, and have Flash installed (whether
they know it or not, because they don't bother to read browser pop-up
windows before clicking buttons to make them go away).

Even more unfortunately, these are the people that companies care about
because they are the vast majority and flash-haters are a tiny minority.
The companies see you as a grumpy, Get-Off-My-Lawn type who is not
going to buy their product anyway, because you're far too busy thinking
about the Early Bird Special at Fresh Choice and boasting about your
grandchildren :-)

I personally think flash has its place. I'm not going to go out of my
way to block it, but I'm not going to go out of my way to make it work,
either. I definitely agree that it's VASTLY over-used, especially in
banner ads. Dear lord, I hate banner ads - it's a bit hypocritical that
I work for a company that produces them :-P

Jeremy
Jun 30 '06 #2

P: n/a

po*********@yahoo.com wrote:
I was thinking about where to go for lunch the other day, so I went to
hardees.com to see what the menu looked like these days. What
comes up is a big note that my flash version is not new enough so I
can't use the site. What complete losers!

When are businesses going to understand that the purpose of a web
site is to communicate with customers or business parterns and NOT
so your "web master or "web engineer" can show off what they learned
down at the community college last week! Haha.
Siriously, that's a dam good question.
I do not know the answer though.
Then again, I think it may have to do more with the clients then the
web designers.

So I went to Taco Bell. A couple or years ago a similar thing happened
when I went shopping for a new backpack. The frist place on the google
list refused to work because I didn't have flash install. I went to the
next business and orders several hundred dollars in gear. Hopefully
the losers at the first place went out of business.

I am beginning to believe that FLASH is, on total, a loss for the
Internet. It breaks browsers (especially mozilla/firefox), it chews
up cpu cycles on the clients, and it can write stuff on you
computer. And more.

To do my small part, I installed FLASHBLOCKER on by browser.

End of rant.

I tend to agree, that Flash is indead a bad tool for the web,
especially when it is badly implermented.
It has it's place, perhaps on an arts site, where you need to be
perswaided by some good visual design in order to buy a product, but
not on a food retailer site, where all you want to do is look at a
menu.
I also think that a good websites goal is to solve the customer and or
users problems.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

Jul 1 '06 #3

P: n/a
On 1 Jul 2006 00:48:16 -0700, "Chaddy2222" <ro***********@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
It has it's place, perhaps on an arts site, where you need to be
perswaided by some good visual design in order to buy a product, but
not on a food retailer site, where all you want to do is look at a
menu.


Flash can potentially have a use on almost any site, provided it is used
as a supplement to the basic textual information, not as a substitute
for it.

But most actual uses of it are indeed pretty irritating.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 1 '06 #4

P: n/a
On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Stephen Poley wrote:
But most actual uses of it are indeed pretty irritating.


Yes, but advertisements are *meant* to be irritating. What other
explanation could there be for what we get to see?

And (on the other hand) the efforts on the users' behalf that go into
suppressing the display of unwanted advertising? If it wasn't so
irritating, where would be the motivation for working so hard to
suppress it?

So much for generalities. As to specifics: I've got the latest flash
installed, but protected by the flashblock extension. If and when I
decide to view the flash, I can press the flashblock button, and view
whatever it was.

Several web sites, however, somehow contrive to prevent the flashblock
button from appearing, and instead they tell me I haven't got flash
installed. The various cases that I've met so far, I reckon have been
more their loss than mine, so I haven't bothered to work out what
they're doing wrong.
Warning - I'm about to ramble off about a site that I very recently
needed to use and stuck in my memory. I'm not suggesting it's
particularly worse than many another vendor site...
Here's an interesting piece of logic. If I go to the Dell euro
support site,
http://support.euro.dell.com/support...=uk&l=en&s=gen , then
it shows me an image of some text that's telling me "This page
requires Macromedia Flash to be viewed properly". If I turn off
images, it stops claiming that, and appears to be "viewed" just fine,
modulo the occasional image lacking its mandatory alt attribute. It
even sprouts a "Skip to main content" link, suggestive of someone with
a glimmer of an idea (I have my own opinions about such links, but I
concede that my opinion is in a minority).

So what do they mean by "viewed properly" ??? There surely can be no
"proper" way to view a page that fails HTML syntax validation (a mere
112 syntax errors).

The page is even claiming:

Dell Support Web site wins international award for
excellenceExternal link
If I open the same page with Lynx, then I get a series of error
reports about cookies with invalid cookie domains, but, after agreeing
with Lynx's proposal to reject them, I can view the site. But several
of the advertised operations produce an "unsupported URL scheme" for
"javascript:..." URLs. What a pity that "international award for
excellence" doesn't necessarily mean the site has to actually *work*,
in WWW terms.

Do any cookie fans understand why these cookies failed one of Lynx's
criteria, whereas Mozilla, Opera etc. seem willing to swallow them
without any kind of alert or warning?
It'll come as no surprise to this group that the awarding body's own
web page http://www.lisa.org/awards/index.html doesn't even pass HTML
validation. I had to turn its stylesheet off to be able to read it
comfortably. And it failed automated checking for 508 or W3C WAI, as
one would expect.

It claimed to be "XHTML/1.0 Transitional". Is it just me, or is that
an instant bogosity detector?

cheers
Jul 1 '06 #5

P: n/a
On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Alan J. Flavell wrote:

(about
http://support.euro.dell.com/support...=uk&l=en&s=gen )
If I open the same page with Lynx, then I get a series of error
reports about cookies with invalid cookie domains, but, after
agreeing with Lynx's proposal to reject them, I can view the site.


Sorry, I'm drifting off-topic for this group - but I'm not sure where
the proper place is for discussing this.

The above scenario seems to be analogous to what's reported in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253974

In the present case, AFAICS, support.euro.dell.com were attempting to
set a cookie for domain .dell.com - that's illegal according to the
RFCs. RFC2109 4.3.2 for Set-Cookie ("shall not store", i.e a mandatory
requirement on clients):

| Examples:
| A Set-Cookie from request-host y.x.foo.com for Domain=.foo.com
| would be rejected, because H is y.x and contains a dot.

Also RFC2965 3.3.2 (SHALL NOT, i.e a mandatory requirement on clients)
for Set-Cookie2, with a similar example.

The following text in what seems to be a related Moz. bug 263931 is
more than a little worrying:

| We tried enforcing that once or twice and broke big-name sites. It
| might be their fault for violating the spec but the user blames *us*
| for having a broken browser.

Does that say that Mozilla are content to compromise their users'
privacy because "big name" web sites violate the specifications?
That's not very nice!!!
Jul 1 '06 #6

P: n/a
po*********@yahoo.com wrote:
I was thinking about where to go for lunch the other day, so I went to
hardees.com to see what the menu looked like these days. What
comes up is a big note that my flash version is not new enough so I
can't use the site. What complete losers!

When are businesses going to understand that the purpose of a web
site is to communicate with customers or business parterns and NOT
so your "web master or "web engineer" can show off what they learned
down at the community college last week!

So I went to Taco Bell. A couple or years ago a similar thing happened
when I went shopping for a new backpack. The frist place on the google
list refused to work because I didn't have flash install. I went to the
next business and orders several hundred dollars in gear. Hopefully
the losers at the first place went out of business.

I am beginning to believe that FLASH is, on total, a loss for the
Internet. It breaks browsers (especially mozilla/firefox), it chews
up cpu cycles on the clients, and it can write stuff on you
computer. And more.

To do my small part, I installed FLASHBLOCKER on by browser.

End of rant.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/internet/Webdevelopers.html#flash>.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>
Jul 2 '06 #7

P: n/a
po*********@yahoo.com wrote:
I am beginning to believe that FLASH is, on total, a loss for the
Internet.
I think it's great - nearly as good as HTML email. How else can I have
such clear and simple annotation for "you don't need to bother reading
this bit" ?

Jul 3 '06 #8

P: n/a
In article <11**********************@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups .com>,
"Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.com>" <di*****@codesmiths.comwrites
>po*********@yahoo.com wrote:
>I am beginning to believe that FLASH is, on total, a loss for the
Internet.

I think it's great - nearly as good as HTML email. How else can I have
such clear and simple annotation for "you don't need to bother reading
this bit" ?
That's about the funniest and truest thing I've read today (which tells
you something about my day!!)

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jul 3 '06 #9

P: n/a
In article <Pi*******************************@ppepc87.ph.gla. ac.uk>,
Alan J. Flavell <fl*****@physics.gla.ac.ukwrites
>So what do they mean by "viewed properly" ??? There surely can be no
"proper" way to view a page that fails HTML syntax validation (a mere
112 syntax errors).
Sure there's a proper way to view such a page. You click the Back button
and view it disappear!! It's a lovely feeling. You can even call out
"Bye bye loser" as it goes. Makes me feel a whole lot better sometimes.
>The page is even claiming:

Dell Support Web site wins international award for
excellenceExternal link
Ah, but they don't say for what. They can easily claim excellence in
validation errors. I reckon that one page has more of them than all of
my web sites put together!!

Ta ra

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jul 3 '06 #10

P: n/a
In article <sy*********************@newssvr29.news.prodigy.ne t>,
Jeremy <je*****@uci.eduwrote:
po*********@yahoo.com wrote:

When are businesses going to understand that the purpose of a web
site is to communicate with customers or business parterns and NOT
so your "web master or "web engineer" can show off what they learned
down at the community college last week!


Close. The purpose of most web sites (not web *applications*, mind you)
is marketing. Marketing, marketing, marketing. Unfortunately for you,
John and Jane Doe are more attracted to pretty pictures and "gee-whiz"
animation than they are to usability and real information. They both
use Windows and Internet Explorer, and have Flash installed (whether
they know it or not, because they don't bother to read browser pop-up
windows before clicking buttons to make them go away).
Then again, there are folks who use Flash in very creative ways...

Try (assuming you have Flash installed/enabled)
http://www.cbc.ca/mapleshorts/

My favourite:
http://www.cbc.ca/mapleshorts/films/?filmid=4

A little harmless time-wasting never hurt anyone!
Jul 4 '06 #11

P: n/a
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:02:46 -0400, David Stone in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>Then again, there are folks who use Flash in very creative ways...
>Try (assuming you have Flash installed/enabled)
http://www.cbc.ca/mapleshorts/
>My favourite:
http://www.cbc.ca/mapleshorts/films/?filmid=4
Thanks for sharing ! Did you have a direct involvent with either/or ?
>A little harmless time-wasting never hurt anyone!
Exactly ! In my experience it's luddite developers whom can't stand
progress, that dislike Flash so strongly.

It's a no brainer that everyone dislikes the Flash splash pages of a
bygone era -- But, anyone whom considers themselves a Web Developer, has
to provide clients and their clients, the end users, what they want.

Increasingly this is multi-media, rich interfaces, that in most cases
can't be done with CSS/HTML. Flash is the best way in my opinion of
providing that experience. It's also the best way to provide video on
the Web as of Flash Player 8&9.

Flash is here to stay folks and will be increasingly used. To deny
otherwise is to stick your head in the sand, and refuse to believe the
inevitable.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Jul 4 '06 #12

P: n/a
In article <sl****************************@sweetpig.dyndns.or g>, Stephen
<St*************@gmail.comwrites
>Exactly ! In my experience it's luddite developers whom can't stand
progress, that dislike Flash so strongly.
No, what we luddites don't like is when the usability of the site is
sacrificed in the name of flashy design. Sure the site needs to satisfy
the client's requirements for being attractive, but it also needs to be
usable. Too many Flash sites have serious usability issues, and not just
for people with disabilities.

As many have said before, the problem is not Flash per se, it's the
(ab)use of Flash in practice. When done well it can enhance a site.

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jul 4 '06 #13

P: n/a
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Alan Silver wrote:
<St*************@gmail.comwrites
Exactly ! In my experience it's luddite developers whom can't
stand progress, that dislike Flash so strongly.

No, what we luddites don't like is when the usability of the site is
sacrificed in the name of flashy design. Sure the site needs to
satisfy the client's requirements for being attractive, but it also
needs to be usable.
Usable? - that's just what a certain kind of deezyner can't stand. The
last thing that they'd want is for the user to have any kind of
control over *their* precious presentation[1]. That's one of the
reasons that flash appeals to them - it gives them the impression that
/they/ are going to be in control of the user, instead of vice
versa.[2]
As many have said before, the problem is not Flash per se, it's the
(ab)use of Flash in practice. When done well it can enhance a site.
Indeed, and that goes for pretty much any kind of media, if
appropriate to the purpose to which it's being put. But to make an
otherwise useful web site /dependent/ on those other media is a
different story. Those whose current browsing situation doesn't
facilitate viewing (for some wide sense of the term "viewing" ;) the
other media are then, at least, in a position to decide whether
they'll revisit when they're in a position to view it.

Given a choice, though, I'd prefer an open format to a proprietary
one.

HTML is still a "lingua franca" of the web; it would be foolish to
toss it aside and make one's basic navigation depend on something else
(whether it be flash, java, MS Word, PDF or whatever).

regards

[1] a few years back, one of these deezyner types posted, apparently
in all seriousness, on a German language discussion to say that any
user who interfered with the settings of their browser was in
violation of the author's artistic copyright under German law, since
the law said that authors of works of art could mandate the conditions
under which their work could be shown, and - in that poster's opinion
- the HTML and CSS *were* that mandate. I didn't see anyone else
supporting their argument, though!

[2] The truth may be that Flash is in control of both of them :-}
Jul 4 '06 #14

P: n/a
In <Pi*******************************@ppepc87.ph.gla. ac.ukon
Tue, 4 Jul 2006 19:10:57 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@physics.gla.ac.ukwrote:
>On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Alan Silver wrote:
><St*************@gmail.comwrites
Exactly ! In my experience it's luddite developers whom can't
stand progress, that dislike Flash so strongly.

No, what we luddites don't like is when the usability of the site is
sacrificed in the name of flashy design. Sure the site needs to
satisfy the client's requirements for being attractive, but it also
needs to be usable.

Usable? - that's just what a certain kind of deezyner can't stand.
If a report on BBC News24's flavour-of-the-week cool-gimmick
worshipping Click programme is a sign of the times, that old
"Luddite" argument might be about to cause some serious blushing.

According to the report, it appears the latest really kewl thing
to hit "the net" is a revolutionary new discovery by several large
corporations that the way to get more business via their websites
is - wait for it -

a) to place content high on the front page
b) to cut out unnecessary graphics
c) to dump fancy navigation bollocks in favour of text links.
Laugh? I nearly bought a round. Not a dry leg in the house.

--
DG
Jul 4 '06 #15

P: n/a
In article <fo********************************@4ax.com>, Dick Gaughan
<dg@dickgaughan.co.ukwrites
>If a report on BBC News24's flavour-of-the-week cool-gimmick
worshipping Click programme is a sign of the times, that old "Luddite"
argument might be about to cause some serious blushing.

According to the report, it appears the latest really kewl thing to hit
"the net" is a revolutionary new discovery by several large
corporations that the way to get more business via their websites is -
wait for it -

a) to place content high on the front page
What? You mean real content? Like the stuff that people can actually
read????? Why didn't someone tell me this before?
>b) to cut out unnecessary graphics
Oh all my graphics are necessary. The 3.4Mb splash screen graphic simply
can't be dropped for anything, and the 1.7Mb banner at the top of the
page (different version for every page of course) is core to the very
essence of the site.

I guess I *could* drop the 1.2Kb single-pixel .gif file I used for
spacing though. A few more nested tables might just create the same
effect.
>c) to dump fancy navigation bollocks in favour of text links.
Text links? Can't use them, people might be able to read the words.

Deary me, whatever do these idiots think they are talking about? They
obviously don't understand anything about the web like we kewl
dee-zinerz do.
>Laugh? I nearly bought a round. Not a dry leg in the house.
Didn't buy me one. Huh.

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jul 5 '06 #16

P: n/a
In <6$**************@nospamthankyou.spamon Wed, 5 Jul 2006
14:23:46 +0100, Alan Silver <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <fo********************************@4ax.com>, Dick Gaughan
<dg@dickgaughan.co.ukwrites
>>a) to place content high on the front page

What? You mean real content? Like the stuff that people can actually
read?????
'fraid so - all that boring stuff that fills up the spaces between
the funky bits.
>>Laugh? I nearly bought a round. Not a dry leg in the house.

Didn't buy me one. Huh.
The significant word in that sentence was "nearly".

--
DG
Jul 5 '06 #17

P: n/a
In message <lr********************************@4ax.com>, Dick Gaughan
<dg@dickgaughan.co.ukwrites
>'fraid so - all that boring stuff that fills up the spaces between the
funky bits.
ITYM "verses". HTH.

--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
Jul 5 '06 #18

P: n/a
In article <lr********************************@4ax.com>, Dick Gaughan
<dg@dickgaughan.co.ukwrites
>>>Laugh? I nearly bought a round. Not a dry leg in the house.

Didn't buy me one. Huh.

The significant word in that sentence was "nearly".
OK, but I bet you didn't even nearly buy me one!!

Listen, if I want to sulk, then you can't stop me so ner, ner, ner. I've
had a bad day already, being told that my web site is supposed to have
some real content in it, you can't expect me not to react at not nearly
being bought a drink can you?

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jul 6 '06 #19

P: n/a
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 19:10:57 +0100, Alan J. Flavell in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>Usable? - that's just what a certain kind of deezyner can't stand. The
last thing that they'd want is for the user to have any kind of
control over *their* precious presentation[1]. That's one of the
reasons that flash appeals to them - it gives them the impression that
/they/ are going to be in control of the user, instead of vice
versa.[2]
<sighIt's not the designer(s), it's the clients ! In the end it
doesn't matter what we want, we're paid to provide a service, which is
in the majority of cases _Marketing_. Marketing people know what sells.

<snip>
>Given a choice, though, I'd prefer an open format to a proprietary
one.
Sure and Flash is an _open_ specification.
>HTML is still a "lingua franca" of the web; it would be foolish to
toss it aside and make one's basic navigation depend on something else
(whether it be flash, java, MS Word, PDF or whatever).
I don't think anyone is arguing that HTML should be replaced.
>regards
>[1] a few years back, one of these deezyner types posted, apparently
in all seriousness, on a German language discussion to say that any
user who interfered with the settings of their browser was in
violation of the author's artistic copyright under German law, since
the law said that authors of works of art could mandate the conditions
under which their work could be shown, and - in that poster's opinion
- the HTML and CSS *were* that mandate. I didn't see anyone else
supporting their argument, though!
Just because _some_ designers think this way, doesn't mean the majority
of us do. I've been in the industry since 1994. I don't see this
attitude amongst any of the designers I work with or have worked with
over the years. Schools don't teach this, at least in the neck of the
woods where I'm from. So, sure anyone can find minority instances where
some attitudes persist, but it's not the norm from my experience.

The bottom line is to give what the client expects. Increasingly this is
rich interfaces and video.
Jul 6 '06 #20

P: n/a
In article <sl****************************@sweetpig.dyndns.or g>,
Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
><sighIt's not the designer(s), it's the clients ! In the end it
doesn't matter what we want, we're paid to provide a service, which is
in the majority of cases _Marketing_. Marketing people know what sells.
No, they don't -- at least according to my sister who's a marketing
PhD who concentrates on internet issues. Marketers generally DON'T
know what sells when it comes to the Web. They're still flailing
around trying to adapt their knowledge of longer-established media
(print, TV, radio) to the internet. It doesn't work.

Some marketing folks DO what sells: an informative and *efficient*
experience for the visitor. A visitor who has to wade through Flash
animations and several layers of rich-media to get to any useful
content, won't become a customer.

Marketers are learning lessons from Google. No flashy stuff in
google ads, just informative text. And it's very effective.

-A
Jul 6 '06 #21

P: n/a
In <VP**************@pigsonthewing.org.ukon Wed, 5 Jul 2006
22:58:14 +0100, Andy Mabbett <us**********@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
>In message <lr********************************@4ax.com>, Dick Gaughan
<dg@dickgaughan.co.ukwrites
>>'fraid so - all that boring stuff that fills up the spaces between the
funky bits.

ITYM "verses". HTH.
The more I think about this analogy, the better I like it.

Nice one, Mr M.

--
DG
Jul 7 '06 #22

P: n/a
begin quotation
from Stephen <St*************@gmail.com>
in message <sl****************************@sweetpig.dyndns.or g>
posted at 2006-07-06T15:08
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 19:10:57 +0100, Alan J. Flavell in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>>Given a choice, though, I'd prefer an open format to a proprietary
one.
Sure and Flash is an _open_ specification.
Flash is not an open specification. You must agree to a license
agreement before being allowed to download it, and this agreement
significantly restricts what you can use the specification for, namely
writing your own Flash player (you can only use it for making programs
which export Flash content).
I don't think anyone is arguing that HTML should be replaced.
Many of the idiot "deeziners" who use Flash, use it to replace what used
to be good enough for a Web site with HTML and CSS, making one gigantic
Flash movie served over HTTP.

--
___ _ _____ |*|
/ __| |/ / _ \ |*| Shawn K. Quinn
\__ \ ' < (_) | |*| sk*****@speakeasy.net
|___/_|\_\__\_\ |*| Houston, TX, USA
Jul 10 '06 #23

P: n/a
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:31:31 +0000 (UTC), axlq in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>In article <sl****************************@sweetpig.dyndns.or g>,
Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
>><sighIt's not the designer(s), it's the clients ! In the end it
doesn't matter what we want, we're paid to provide a service, which is
in the majority of cases _Marketing_. Marketing people know what sells.
>No, they don't -- at least according to my sister who's a marketing
PhD who concentrates on internet issues. Marketers generally DON'T
know what sells when it comes to the Web. They're still flailing
around trying to adapt their knowledge of longer-established media
(print, TV, radio) to the internet. It doesn't work.
I disagree with your sister (sorry). Online marketing is _NOW_ huge
and successful, all one has to do is look at the Google/Yahoo model.

Ad agencies I work for, and indeed the schools here in Southern Ontario,
teach and use targeted Internet marketing respectively. I think your
sisters experience is more from the mid to late 90s were your assertion
was quite correct -- At that time Internet marketing was poorly focused,
implemented and targeted.
>Some marketing folks DO what sells: an informative and *efficient*
experience for the visitor. A visitor who has to wade through Flash
animations and several layers of rich-media to get to any useful
content, won't become a customer.
Bottom line is that the end-users decide, not us. I'm only interested in
giving my clients a product that sells, because at the end of the day, if
they don't do well selling or providing a successful user experience, I'm
out of a job.
>Marketers are learning lessons from Google. No flashy stuff in
google ads, just informative text. And it's very effective.
<grinYou can't have it both ways. In the first paragraph in your
previous post, you state that marketers don't know what sells on the
web -- Yet, you're saying now that Google is effective with it's
advertising ? I agree of course. 8)

There are lots of uses where Flash, and a "rich" user interface is
applicable and desired. Flash Ads are being used, because they are
effective and it is widely supported by browser manufactures via a
default plugin. Besides it's the best way to provide video for the
Web IMO.

Jul 15 '06 #24

P: n/a
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:02:32 -0500, Shawn K. Quinn in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>begin quotation
from Stephen <St*************@gmail.com>
>Sure and Flash is an _open_ specification.
>Flash is not an open specification. You must agree to a license
agreement before being allowed to download it, and this agreement
significantly restricts what you can use the specification for, namely
writing your own Flash player (you can only use it for making programs
which export Flash content).
What about Ming then ? <http://ming.sourceforge.net/>
>I don't think anyone is arguing that HTML should be replaced.
>Many of the idiot "deeziners" who use Flash, use it to replace what used
to be good enough for a Web site with HTML and CSS, making one gigantic
Flash movie served over HTTP.
Yeah I keep hearing of those examples. I've found it hard to find recent
examples of that type of designer though. Most Flash designers aren't
creating websites in Flash -- They're using it in applications. It does
present a nice way to deal with a dynamic charting, as well as being good
for animated signage.

The demand for it is growing, gotta deal with the flow. ;)

Jul 15 '06 #25

P: n/a
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:32:17 -0700, Michael Vilain in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>In article <sl****************************@sweetpig.dyndns.or g>,
Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
<snip>
>Yeah I keep hearing of those examples. I've found it hard to find recent
examples of that type of designer though. Most Flash designers aren't
creating websites in Flash -- They're using it in applications. It does
present a nice way to deal with a dynamic charting, as well as being good
for animated signage.

The demand for it is growing, gotta deal with the flow. ;)
>Here's a great example of what could have been a simple informational
site turned into a "new age experience" by some stupid designer:
>http://www.michaelsheateaching.com/
Good example of something that could be in HTML, however the Flash
implementation is not that bad. No splash page, and he's used HTML for
SEO. <shrugIt's fast loading on my broadband, and I have no problem
using it.

The one problem I really have with such sites, is these designers use
too small fonts, and I agree that another problem with this type of
usage of Flash, is that fonts can't be scaled up. So, websites IMO
shouldn't be built in Flash.

The majority of us Flash designers don't use Flash to build websites.
>I've sent email after email to the guy telling him his site is hard to
use, takes forever to load on slow links, and is being totally ignored
by Google. He doesn't seem to care.
Well according to Google's Toolbar PageRank indicator it's at a ranking
of 3.

And, I wouldn't worry too much about his/her not caring -- There are
more important things in life to worry about.

P.S. Would you mind trimming your replies before posting ? I find it
amusing that such an advocate for catching the misuse of Flash, himself
doesn't seem to know how to trim attributions to a reasonable length.
It's almost as bad as those idiot Flash designers, using splash pages
and superfluous animation. <grin>

Jul 15 '06 #26

P: n/a
begin quotation
from Stephen <St*************@gmail.com>
in message <sl****************************@sweetpig.dyndns.or g>
posted at 2006-07-15T01:09
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:02:32 -0500, Shawn K. Quinn in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>begin quotation
from Stephen <St*************@gmail.com>
>>Sure and Flash is an _open_ specification.
>Flash is not an open specification. You must agree to a license
agreement before being allowed to download it,
What about Ming then ? <http://ming.sourceforge.net/>
That's an SWF *writer*. It's not an SWF *reader*. The only authorized
SWF *reader* is non-free software released for operating systems
Macromedia (Adobe now?) decides it's in its best interest to compile
binaries for.
>Many of the idiot "deeziners" who use Flash, use it to replace what used
to be good enough for a Web site with HTML and CSS, making one gigantic
Flash movie served over HTTP.
Yeah I keep hearing of those examples. I've found it hard to find recent
examples of that type of designer though.
I've seen too many to count.
Most Flash designers aren't creating websites in Flash --
Because such a thing (to me anyway) doesn't exist. You have World Wide
Web sites, and then Flash movies. (I don't consider the minimal amount
of HTML to properly frame a Flash movie enough to qualify for World Wide
Web site status.)
They're using it in applications. It does present a nice way to deal
with a dynamic charting, as well as being good for animated signage.
As long as a non-Flash alternative exists, it's not a problem to me.
However, when essential site information or navigation is made into a
Flash movie with no alternatives, this is a huge problem.

--
___ _ _____ |*|
/ __| |/ / _ \ |*| Shawn K. Quinn
\__ \ ' < (_) | |*| sk*****@speakeasy.net
|___/_|\_\__\_\ |*| Houston, TX, USA
Jul 16 '06 #27

P: n/a
Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
>>Many of the idiot "deeziners" who use Flash, use it to replace what used
to be good enough for a Web site with HTML and CSS, making one gigantic
Flash movie served over HTTP.

Yeah I keep hearing of those examples. I've found it hard to find recent
examples of that type of designer though.
One example I came across recently: http://www.fantasy-interactive.com/

The common denominator between such Flash sites seems to be a lack of
actual content, their sole purpose seems to be to create a "wow factor"
and to dazzle the user.

Sites like these expose the arrogance of the creators and of the people
who hire them. Peacock type creatures who believe that impressing users
with a dazzling display of multi coloured feathers will do much more
than entertain. The trend that these creatures have missed is that users
are taking control over what they are willing to watch.
>Most Flash designers aren't
creating websites in Flash -- They're using it in applications.
Applications are increasingly hosted on the web with the UI running on
the remote client. The server - terminal model is making a morphed
comeback.
>It does
present a nice way to deal with a dynamic charting, as well as being good
for animated signage.
Some people who create web interfaces think that the principles and
lessons of UI design don't apply to the web. Animated signage certainly
manages to draw attention, what it draws attention to however is
annoyance.
>The demand for it is growing, gotta deal with the flow. ;)
For now it is certainly possible to find commissioning companies who
believe that dazzling users will bring success. In future market forces
will eventually turn these people around.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 16 '06 #28

P: n/a

Spartanicus wrote:
Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
>Many of the idiot "deeziners" who use Flash, use it to replace what used
to be good enough for a Web site with HTML and CSS, making one gigantic
Flash movie served over HTTP.
Yeah I keep hearing of those examples. I've found it hard to find recent
examples of that type of designer though.

One example I came across recently: http://www.fantasy-interactive.com/
If you thaught that was bad, I can beet it hands down.
http://www.3bbrfm.org.au it causes IE six to crash (even on a high
speed broadband connection.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

Jul 16 '06 #29

P: n/a
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 23:57:14 -0500, Shawn K. Quinn in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>begin quotation
from Stephen <St*************@gmail.com>
in message <sl****************************@sweetpig.dyndns.or g>
posted at 2006-07-15T01:09
>On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:02:32 -0500, Shawn K. Quinn in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
<snip>
>>Flash is not an open specification. You must agree to a license
agreement before being allowed to download it,
>What about Ming then ? <http://ming.sourceforge.net/>
>That's an SWF *writer*. It's not an SWF *reader*. The only authorized
SWF *reader* is non-free software released for operating systems
Macromedia (Adobe now?) decides it's in its best interest to compile
binaries for.
By 'reader' I assume you mean player ? Here are some;

<http://osflash.org/open_source_flash_projects#flash_players>

The point is, it's similar to PDF; there are other means to produce
and read Flash, than using Adobe products, as is the case with Acrobat/PDF.
>>Many of the idiot "deeziners" who use Flash, use it to replace what used
to be good enough for a Web site with HTML and CSS, making one gigantic
Flash movie served over HTTP.
>Yeah I keep hearing of those examples. I've found it hard to find recent
examples of that type of designer though.
>I've seen too many to count.
Sure, but as a total % of HTML designed websites, a very small token I'd
wager. Anyway this conjecture isn't helpful in this discussion, as it's
anecdotal.
>Most Flash designers aren't creating websites in Flash --
>Because such a thing (to me anyway) doesn't exist. You have World Wide
Web sites, and then Flash movies. (I don't consider the minimal amount
of HTML to properly frame a Flash movie enough to qualify for World Wide
Web site status.)
I'm saying that it's for SEO indexing, I'm not saying that it's a web page
because of the added HTML. At least we should recognize that he was aware
of the issue of Flash and SEO. 8)

All I can say is we had better get used to Flash, because we're going to see
an increase in usage going forward, not a decrease.

There are some fascinating things happening now, with that platform now that
Adobe and Macromedia are one. There will be a lot of 2 way Flash/Acrobat support
along with some other RIA enabling technologies.

There are a lot of things that HTML isn't designed for or good at. Creating
a rich media experience is one of them. Since the Internet is evolving,
it's only natural for people to be attracted to the sites that display
interactive technology in a consistent manner.

I've spent much time in focus group dynamics. The younger demographic,
are the ones demanding the "Rich Interactive Experience". Technologies
mature and evolve, as does marketing. We, in this business are part and
parcel of marketing, as we're getting a message across or helping a user
interact with a company, and/or companies products.
>They're using it in applications. It does present a nice way to deal
with a dynamic charting, as well as being good for animated signage.
>As long as a non-Flash alternative exists, it's not a problem to me.
However, when essential site information or navigation is made into a
Flash movie with no alternatives, this is a huge problem.
This is improving in Flash, and will only improve going forward.
Jul 16 '06 #30

P: n/a
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:23:41 GMT, Spartanicus in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
>>>Many of the idiot "deeziners" who use Flash, use it to replace what used
to be good enough for a Web site with HTML and CSS, making one gigantic
Flash movie served over HTTP.

Yeah I keep hearing of those examples. I've found it hard to find recent
examples of that type of designer though.
>One example I came across recently: http://www.fantasy-interactive.com/
>The common denominator between such Flash sites seems to be a lack of
actual content, their sole purpose seems to be to create a "wow factor"
and to dazzle the user.
Look I'm not going to debate this old argument with you. I don't think
many of you here are really up-to-date with what the Flash community is
doing now. The old arguments are boring and well old, and not very
relevant at this point in time. There are bad sites that exist, I can
point out far more using HTML than I can using Flash, simply because of
the numbers -- So What.
>For now it is certainly possible to find commissioning companies who
believe that dazzling users will bring success. In future market forces
will eventually turn these people around.
Something you need to understand, is that all things in marketing
change/evolve -- That's the nature of the beast. You know the refrain,
"what's old is new again" ? So you may well be right, I doubt it, but
who knows, in 2020, plain HTML websites may be a novelty for 5 seconds
or so once again.

We shouldn't concern ourselves too much with what may or may not happen
in the distant future. We need to concern ourselves with the immediate
reality. That is for me, the increase usage of Flash demanded from
clients, because their research, (remember research, it's not about you
or me Spartanicus) indicates that predominantly younger demographics
demand the bells and whistles of a rich experience.

These folks didn't grow up with Gopher and BBSes, they have little or no
concept of plain text e-mail or even Usenet. They're into videophones,
instant chat, iPods and RIA.

Jul 16 '06 #31

P: n/a
Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
>>One example I came across recently: http://www.fantasy-interactive.com/
>>The common denominator between such Flash sites seems to be a lack of
actual content, their sole purpose seems to be to create a "wow factor"
and to dazzle the user.

Look I'm not going to debate this old argument with you. I don't think
many of you here are really up-to-date with what the Flash community is
doing now.
The company who's url I provided claim to have won several awards handed
out by "the Flash community". That suggest that what they do provides a
good indication of "what the Flash community is doing now".
>>For now it is certainly possible to find commissioning companies who
believe that dazzling users will bring success. In future market forces
will eventually turn these people around.

Something you need to understand, is that all things in marketing
change/evolve -- That's the nature of the beast. You know the refrain,
"what's old is new again" ? So you may well be right, I doubt it, but
who knows, in 2020, plain HTML websites may be a novelty for 5 seconds
or so once again.
The "you want to go back to plain HTML" claim is stale and nonsense.

The quality of a user interface has little to do with how plain or rich
it looks. It can be either, although it has little effect on it's
effectiveness.
>We shouldn't concern ourselves too much with what may or may not happen
in the distant future. We need to concern ourselves with the immediate
reality. That is for me, the increase usage of Flash demanded from
clients, because their research, (remember research, it's not about you
or me Spartanicus) indicates that predominantly younger demographics
demand the bells and whistles of a rich experience.
There is a lot of poor quality research around. The result of user
behaviour analysis that I have been involved with was quite different.
That may have something to do with the fact that we looked at what
actually worked for users rather than asking them what they liked.
>These folks didn't grow up with Gopher and BBSes, they have little or no
concept of plain text e-mail or even Usenet. They're into videophones,
instant chat, iPods and RIA.
The high quality user interfaces that we tested resulted in significant
higher usage success and satisfaction rates across the age ranges when
compared to so called dynamic user interfaces created with Flash.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 16 '06 #32

P: n/a
Spartanicus <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
The common denominator between such Flash sites seems to be a lack of
actual content, their sole purpose seems to be to create a "wow factor"
and to dazzle the user.
A while back, I encountered http://www.chipotle.com/ while trying to find
the address of the nearest Chipotle restaurant. There is actual content on
the site, but it's hidden behind the gee-whiz of Flash.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Not all those that wander are lost." - J.R.R. Tolkein
Jul 16 '06 #33

P: n/a
On 16 Jul 2006 17:08:35 +0200, Stephen <St*************@gmail.com>
wrote:
>We shouldn't concern ourselves too much with what may or may not happen
in the distant future. We need to concern ourselves with the immediate
reality.
Well OK, let's concern ourselves with immediate reality. And I mean
immediate. I just received (not for the first time) a complaint from a
Flash-based site that it couldn't run because I didn't have a
sufficiently recent version of Flash. (As it happens my computer is only
about eight months old, so my version of Flash can hardly be ancient,
but apparently compatibility and graceful degradation don't feature much
in the Flash vocabulary.)

So I go to the link provided to download the latest version of Flash -
and it's broken.

So I go searching for the latest version of Flash and download it. I
install it - and the install fails silently. I reboot the computer, try
again - and it still fails silently. No information whatever as to why
the install does not work.

On the site I find a link which claims to help me if I have problems
installing Flash - and it leads to a completely blank page.

I'm afraid this is all too representative of my experience with Flash -
it's all about designers and marketeers enjoying themselves, and the
poor customer can get stuffed.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 16 '06 #34

P: n/a
Stephen wrote:
>
We shouldn't concern ourselves too much with what may or may not
happen in the distant future. We need to concern ourselves with the
immediate reality. That is for me, the increase usage of Flash
demanded from clients, because their research, (remember research,
it's not about you or me Spartanicus) indicates that predominantly
younger demographics demand the bells and whistles of a rich
experience.
You mean: "Yoong fawk today like flashy stuff". And I'll tell you for
free: young people don't like being referred to as "demographics".

It all depends on what questions you ask them, of course. Young people
today, in my experience (I'm a dad) are wiser about advertisers' crap
than my generation were, on the whole. So I'm pretty sceptical about
your "demographics". Fer certain my kidz don't "demand" Macromedia
Shockwave Flash.

Young people don't join political parties. Smart advertisers about five
years ago were trying to get to young people through what they called
"viral marketing" - i.e. marketing that didn't look like marketing.
Movie makers were busy selling "product placement" slots.

Young people today are wise to that, too.

Understimating the intelligence of your audience is seriously bad
marketing. But advertisers don't care, and their customers seem mostly
to be to ignorant to be able to tell their agencies where to get off.
Very rarely, there's an ad campaign that appeals to peoples'
intelligence; but my kidz don't see it.
>
These folks didn't grow up with Gopher and BBSes, they have little or
no concept of plain text e-mail or even Usenet. They're into
videophones, instant chat, iPods and RIA.
Yup. And they aren't into advertisers' crap. If that's what it looks
like, they won't watch it. Hey - who watches TV these days? Not my kids,
and not their friends. Ask your demographics about that "rich
experience". TV is for auld fawk these daze. Same goes for Macromedia
Shockwave Flush.

--
jack.
Jul 16 '06 #35

P: n/a
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:49:07 GMT, Spartanicus in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:

<snip>
>The company who's url I provided claim to have won several awards handed
out by "the Flash community". That suggest that what they do provides a
good indication of "what the Flash community is doing now".
Well I have to admit that http://www.fantasy-interactive.com/ themselves
have a nice website. I have seen worse. They also have a pretty good Google
page ranking as well. The home page is '7'.

Don't know anything about them personally so can't comment.

<snip>
>The "you want to go back to plain HTML" claim is stale and nonsense.
Says you.
>The quality of a user interface has little to do with how plain or rich
it looks. It can be either, although it has little effect on it's
effectiveness.
It's not an either or, and doesn't depend on whether one is using Flash
or HTML. Bad design is bad design, period.

<snip>
>There is a lot of poor quality research around. The result of user
behaviour analysis that I have been involved with was quite different.
That may have something to do with the fact that we looked at what
actually worked for users rather than asking them what they liked.
<sighThe only bad research is the type that bad decisions are based
on. I work with companies that are leaders in their genre, and that have strong
balance sheets. That speaks for itself. I do what my clients pay me to
do. Plain and simple, end of story. With 10s of thousands of $ being
spent on a web front end, clients will make sure it appeals to whatever
demographic they're attempting to reach. The web side of marketing is no
different really, than the campaigns in other media -- In fact with RIAs
we'll probably see more convergence.

<snip>
>The high quality user interfaces that we tested resulted in significant
higher usage success and satisfaction rates across the age ranges when
compared to so called dynamic user interfaces created with Flash.
Well no doubt, especially if one skews the results using badly designed
RIAs in that User Interface testing. We have found that it depends
largely on the demographic groups being tested, as to the results
vis-a-vis RIAs vs HTML/Javascript.
Jul 16 '06 #36

P: n/a
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:04:44 +0100, Jack in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
<snip>
>These folks didn't grow up with Gopher and BBSes, they have little or
no concept of plain text e-mail or even Usenet. They're into
videophones, instant chat, iPods and RIA.
>Yup. And they aren't into advertisers' crap. If that's what it looks
like, they won't watch it. Hey - who watches TV these days? Not my kids,
and not their friends. Ask your demographics about that "rich
experience". TV is for auld fawk these daze. Same goes for Macromedia
Shockwave Flush.
Do you realize how many product placements are in hip hop culture today ?

There is some good reading on the subject only one example I'll give but
it's good reading. I have also seen a good documentary on the subject a
year or so ago. It was quite interesting and eye opening. Anway here is
one such article; <http://tinyurl.com/gje5fThe URL was quite long
and ugly so this tinyurl will have to suffice.

Look at any music video, that pertains to hip/hop. Everything is marketed
to this generation in ways never heard of before. Young people today are into
bling, bling and don't mind marketing at all. It simply has to be the _right_
kind of marketing.

It's not what people say, it's what they _do_. Good research determines
this.

My generation was no different, we hated the old advertising of our
parents, but were unwise or didn't care of the new ways that marketers
found to market to us. Marketing will never die nor get it wrong
entirely -- There is too much $ involved. Advertisers quickly find out
what works and what doesn't, because in most cases it's the way they
sell their product -- It's survival.

Anyway this is getting way off-topic.
Jul 16 '06 #37

P: n/a
Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
>>The quality of a user interface has little to do with how plain or rich
it looks. It can be either, although it has little effect on it's
effectiveness.

It's not an either or, and doesn't depend on whether one is using Flash
or HTML. Bad design is bad design, period.
Part of the design process is choosing the best technology for a given
task, for most of the work authored in Flash it is a poor choice of
technology.
>>There is a lot of poor quality research around. The result of user
behaviour analysis that I have been involved with was quite different.
That may have something to do with the fact that we looked at what
actually worked for users rather than asking them what they liked.

<sighThe only bad research is the type that bad decisions are based
on. I work with companies that are leaders in their genre, and that have strong
balance sheets. That speaks for itself.
As I stated before, all that says is that currently there are sufficient
clue impaired corporate marketeers to keep the dazzlers in business. It
says nothing about the success of Flash interfaces with users.

I deal with people who commission commercial web sites on a daily basis,
the majority haven't got a clue about what works best on the web. It
requires a lot of effort to educate them using proper user behaviour
research.
>I do what my clients pay me to
do. Plain and simple, end of story.
A shortsighted approach that isn't in the interest of clients. It should
keep your bread buttered for as long as there are sufficient clue
impaired marketeers, but I wouldn't expect that to remain to be the
case.
>With 10s of thousands of $ being
spent on a web front end, clients will make sure it appeals to whatever
demographic they're attempting to reach.
It's not about appeal, it's about what works.
>The web side of marketing is no
different really, than the campaigns in other media
Are you being serious? Marketing on the web is radically different from
other media.
>>The high quality user interfaces that we tested resulted in significant
higher usage success and satisfaction rates across the age ranges when
compared to so called dynamic user interfaces created with Flash.

Well no doubt, especially if one skews the results using badly designed
RIAs in that User Interface testing.
Flash UIs are inherently poor quality UIs.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 17 '06 #38

P: n/a
Stephen wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:04:44 +0100, Jack in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>Stephen wrote:

<snip>
>>These folks didn't grow up with Gopher and BBSes, they have
little or no concept of plain text e-mail or even Usenet. They're
into videophones, instant chat, iPods and RIA.
>Yup. And they aren't into advertisers' crap. If that's what it
looks like, they won't watch it. Hey - who watches TV these days?
Not my kids, and not their friends. Ask your demographics about
that "rich experience". TV is for auld fawk these daze. Same goes
for Macromedia Shockwave Flush.

Do you realize how many product placements are in hip hop culture
today ?
I accept that particular point: hip hop culture does seem to be one area
of young peoples' interests that is dominated by branding, hype and
flashy emptiness, and that relies very rarely on an appeal to
intelligence. I overlooked it.

There is such a thing as underground hop hop, though; within that
sub-genre, although there's still a lot of hype, here's quite a lot more
resistance to the hype from the 'demographics' themselves.
>
Look at any music video, that pertains to hip/hop. Everything is
marketed to this generation in ways never heard of before. Young
people today are into bling, bling and don't mind marketing at all.
It simply has to be the _right_ kind of marketing.
That's what murketers always say. But it's possible you're right; I
surely can't insist that my anecdotal experience (which is at odds with
your claim) trumps marketers' research, however little I'm inclined to
trust that research. Researchers will generally tell you what you pay
them to tell you.
>
It's not what people say, it's what they _do_. Good research
determines this.

My generation was no different, we hated the old advertising of our
parents, but were unwise or didn't care of the new ways that
marketers found to market to us. Marketing will never die nor get it
wrong entirely -- There is too much $ involved.
Well, the evidence of history is that the customers of marketers have
been willing to spend quite ridiculous amounts of money on campaigns
that are positively counter-productive, in ways that a blind man could
have forseen. The fact that people spend money on crap doesn't mean it
isn't crap.
Advertisers quickly find out what works and what doesn't, because in
most cases it's the way they sell their product -- It's survival.
According to an old saying: there's no sucker for a salesman like
another salesman. The customer of an advertiser is a company's marketing
department. Advertisers sell their hype to people who believe in the
effectiveness of hype.
>
Anyway this is getting way off-topic.
Agreed.

--
Jack.
Jul 17 '06 #39

P: n/a
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:09:52 GMT, Spartanicus in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>Flash UIs are inherently poor quality UIs.
Again says you. I prefer to let the consumer decide, and let Marketing
measure the effectiveness -- That's what they do.

BTW I don't think you're very connected to the business of marketing. Results
are always measured against economic return. Companies don't use
marketing that doesn't work, and once it's discovered something isn't
working, adjustments/changes are made. That's inherit in marketing and a given.

And speaking of RIAs (remember RIAs aren't just used on the web, the new
generation is going to be desktop and web-based). It will be almost
transparent to the end user whether they're online or not. Again it's
progress folks, better get used to it, 'cause that's the way the
industry is heading, like it or not.

Here's a nice example of an RIA;
<http://www.asfusion.com/apps/homelocator/>

You apparently have made a decision to not like this technology. Fine, and
fortunately, the world isn't determined by developers, but by end users.
I'm pragmatic and will put my own feelings aside, in the interest of my clients
customers, and what they expect for a successful user experience.

Therefore, I'm not really interested in debating this further. It's clear
that argument is done for arguments sake. If you don't believe marketing
research, than I have to wonder how you or your company makes decisions.
You see, I don't fly by the seat of my pants, I need to have information
as do my clients, in order to make crucial business decisions. What I
think, or a gut feeling, isn't something clients are often willing to
invest 10's of thousands of dollars in, without facts driving
decisions.

Cheers,

Stephen
Jul 17 '06 #40

P: n/a
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:38:06 +0100, Jack in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:

<snip>
>That's what murketers always say. But it's possible you're right; I
surely can't insist that my anecdotal experience (which is at odds with
your claim) trumps marketers' research, however little I'm inclined to
trust that research. Researchers will generally tell you what you pay
them to tell you.
They say it because it's true. Marketing to kids is often done through the
coolness factor. There is a whole industry set up just to determine what
kids think is cool, and to capitalize on it. It's proved to be very
effective. The HIP/HOP article is just one example. I could have
provided more.

<snip>
>According to an old saying: there's no sucker for a salesman like
another salesman. The customer of an advertiser is a company's marketing
department. Advertisers sell their hype to people who believe in the
effectiveness of hype.
You have no idea how scientific this business is. Add to that a
healthy dose of actuarial science. Lets call it what it is, propaganda,
and some types of it are very effective.

Kids of this generation are marketed to like never before. Children are
consumers as young as 4,5,6 these days. You still think marketing isn't
working with children ? <sighThere is a line of cell phones out
specifically for children under the age of 10 YOA and proving very
popular.

Anyhow here is a quote from research done via the University of Wales, in
Australia; <http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/children.htmlcirca
1998 so one can reasonably assume that the numbers have increased;

"In the US there are over 57 million school age children and teenagers
who spend about $100 billion each year of their own and their family's
money on sweets, food, drinks, video and electronic products, toys,
games, movies, sports, clothes and shoes.[5] Additionally children 12
and under spend more than $11 billion of their own money and influence
family spending decisions worth another $165 billion on food, household
items like furniture, electrical appliances and computers, vacations,
the family car and other spending.[6] For example, one study estimated
that children influenced $9 billion worth of car sales in 1994. One car
dealer explains: "Sometimes, the child literally is our customer. I have
watched the child pick out the car."[7]

This means that car manufacturers cannot afford to ignore the children
in their marketing. Companies such as Nissan sponsor the American Youth
Soccer Organization and a travelling geography exhibit in order to get
exposure for their brand name and logo in child-friendly settings.
Chrysler distributes 100s of thousands of glossy cardboard pop-up
promotional books by direct mail that will appeal to children who love
pop-up books. And Chevrolet has used advertisements featuring children.
Some car dealers have added children's play areas and arcade games to
their facilities.[8]"

I'm done.

Cheers,

Stephen.
Jul 17 '06 #41

P: n/a
Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
>
Here's a nice example of an RIA;
<http://www.asfusion.com/apps/homelocator/>
Is that a joke? I see a blank screen and nothing else. I would be
less antagonistic to so called "rich" interfaces if they worked more
often.

--
Ben.
Jul 17 '06 #42

P: n/a
Stephen wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:09:52 GMT, Spartanicus in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>Flash UIs are inherently poor quality UIs.

Again says you. I prefer to let the consumer decide, and let Marketing
measure the effectiveness -- That's what they do.

BTW I don't think you're very connected to the business of marketing. Results
are always measured against economic return. Companies don't use
marketing that doesn't work, and once it's discovered something isn't
working, adjustments/changes are made. That's inherit in marketing and a given.
You are naive. Companies *do* use marketing that doesn't work. As you
say, once they discover they are using marketing that doesn't work they
try to remedy the problem; but who's going to tell them, and will they
listen?
>
And speaking of RIAs (remember RIAs aren't just used on the web, the new
generation is going to be desktop and web-based). It will be almost
transparent to the end user whether they're online or not. Again it's
progress folks, better get used to it, 'cause that's the way the
industry is heading, like it or not.

Here's a nice example of an RIA;
<http://www.asfusion.com/apps/homelocator/>
Nasty. Over here, that comes up as:
Alternate HTML content should be placed here. This content requires the
Macromedia Flash Player. Get Flash
>
You apparently have made a decision to not like this technology. Fine, and
fortunately, the world isn't determined by developers, but by end users.
Seriously, I think you are mistaken. End users didn't invent Macromedia
Flush.
I'm pragmatic and will put my own feelings aside, in the interest of my clients
customers, and what they expect for a successful user experience.

Therefore, I'm not really interested in debating this further. It's clear
that argument is done for arguments sake. If you don't believe marketing
research, than I have to wonder how you or your company makes decisions.
Jeez, the worst companies I have worked for were those in which
murketers were the people who made the decisions. Business is not
synonymous with marketing.
You see, I don't fly by the seat of my pants, I need to have information
as do my clients, in order to make crucial business decisions. What I
think, or a gut feeling, isn't something clients are often willing to
invest 10's of thousands of dollars in, without facts driving
decisions.
Facts are subjective things, I'm sorry to have to tell you. Facts that
are provided by marketers are even more subjective than normal facts.
You are evidently beiAlternate HTML content should be placed here.
This content requires the Macromedia Flash Player. Get Flash

ng seduced by murketer's hype; take care.

--
Jack.
Jul 17 '06 #43

P: n/a
Stephen wrote:
>
You have no idea how scientific this business is.
You don't seem to know what "science" is.
Add to that a healthy dose of actuarial science. Lets call it what it
is, propaganda, and some types of it are very effective.
Propaganda, hype, whatever. Everyone knows that suckers exist; there are
plenty of them, so it's said ("one born every minute"). The question
isn't whether marketer's hype works (FSVO "works"); obviously it does.
The question is whether some particular kind of hype works as well as
its proponents claim.

I'm saying that Macromedia Flush probably doesn't work as well as you
believe.

And I cite *your* reference:
http://www.asfusion.com/apps/homelocator/

Try it on a browser without Flush support.

--
Jack.
Jul 17 '06 #44

P: n/a
In article <sl****************************@sweetpig.dyndns.or g>,
Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
Here's a nice example of an RIA;
<http://www.asfusion.com/apps/homelocator/>
A totally blank, invalid page that accomplishes nothing is a nice
example?

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
Jul 17 '06 #45

P: n/a
Rik
Eric Lindsay wrote:
In article <sl****************************@sweetpig.dyndns.or g>,
Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
>Here's a nice example of an RIA;
<http://www.asfusion.com/apps/homelocator/>

A totally blank, invalid page that accomplishes nothing is a nice
example?
No, the fact that it takes 45 seconds to load with my connection, allthough
my connection is certainly not slow...

And the fact that only after that loadperiod it states I should use Flash
Player 9, would you like to install? Nope....

Grtz,
--
Rik Wasmus
Jul 17 '06 #46

P: n/a
Rik wrote:
Eric Lindsay wrote:
> Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
>>Here's a nice example of an RIA;
<http://www.asfusion.com/apps/homelocator/>

A totally blank, invalid page that accomplishes nothing is a nice
example?

No, the fact that it takes 45 seconds to load with my connection,
allthough my connection is certainly not slow...
Turn off JavaScript, and it is a blank page. Double Trouble.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
Jul 17 '06 #47

P: n/a
Rik
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Rik wrote:
>Eric Lindsay wrote:
>> Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:

Here's a nice example of an RIA;
<http://www.asfusion.com/apps/homelocator/>

A totally blank, invalid page that accomplishes nothing is a nice
example?

No, the fact that it takes 45 seconds to load with my connection,
allthough my connection is certainly not slow...

Turn off JavaScript, and it is a blank page. Double Trouble.

Yup, it does load faster though :-)

Grtz,
--
Rik Wasmus
Jul 17 '06 #48

P: n/a
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:32:57 +0100, Jack wrote:
Stephen wrote:
>>
You have no idea how scientific this business is.

You don't seem to know what "science" is.
Perhaps 'method' would be better
>Add to that a healthy dose of actuarial science. Lets call it what it
is, propaganda, and some types of it are very effective.

Propaganda, hype, whatever. Everyone knows that suckers exist; there are
plenty of them, so it's said ("one born every minute"). The question isn't
whether marketer's hype works (FSVO "works"); obviously it does. The
question is whether some particular kind of hype works as well as its
proponents claim.

I'm saying that Macromedia Flush probably doesn't work as well as you
believe.
The irony is someone's fallen for Macromedia's advertising here...

--
Matt
Jul 17 '06 #49

P: n/a
On 17 Jul 2006 15:03:37 GMT, Ben Bacarisse in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
>>
Here's a nice example of an RIA;
<http://www.asfusion.com/apps/homelocator/>
>Is that a joke? I see a blank screen and nothing else. I would be
less antagonistic to so called "rich" interfaces if they worked more
often.
Do you actually keep your flashplayer up-to-date ? If you don't have
current plugins update them !
Jul 18 '06 #50

115 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.