infoworld.com— Too many organizations unwittingly give their competitors a free kick by having Web sites that are low on usability and high on annoyance.
Jun 14, 2006View in Crawl 4
- Sites with annoying background background music that can't be turned off- Flash intro's, intro pages in general (most annoying one is a page with just a picture and the text 'click here to enter')- Pages with so many ads they take forever to load- Text links that change size when the cursor hovers over them, causing all text to move- Every link, internal ones too, open in a new window- Javascript welcome boxes- Background images that make the text almost impossible to read (many Myspace profiles have this)- Requiring registration just to read something- Asking too much information on registration (like CC number for a free service!)- Pages that are 'under construction' for months or even years
The article didn't say the flash prog itself was "bad." He said:"Users hate flash because it's a barrier to the site." And most of us do learn to hate constant bombardment by overpaid "web professionals" trying to prove they're worth the bucks by putting up "flashy" content.I agree that the poor use of a tool is not the same as a poor tool. But that distinction is an intellectual one. And that distinction gets blown away by the visceral experience, simply coming to hate what constantly annoys you.
It's great that the site the article is displayed on has many of the problems mentioned in the article.Invasive advertising: I didn't actually notice it until I used IE to browse the site since I use adblock in Firefox.War and Peace length: Considering how many times that page is broken up it could easily be three pages. Do they actually expect us to scroll down to view all that crap at the bottom? And I'm running at 1280x1024! I don't even want to attempt to look at that in 1024x768 or lower.Site Blindness: This is amusing because there are ads all the way down the page on the right and then content below that! Do they expect anyone to see that content?
This has been said so many times. People have always moaned about flash! But at the end of the day it completely depends on what the website is for. For example if you are a big corporate bank, you are going to want it quite basic and easy for the user to navigate. But then if a designer is having a portfolio website perhaps they are going to want to use flash and make it slightly crazy to show their creative mind and what they can do. So i don't think you can categorize the web down to saying "users don't want annoyance!" you cant stereotype the whole world like that. For one i love a well designed flash website as long as it doesn't take to long to load.
Saying Flash is bad, or Flash web sites suck is like saying HTML is bad or XML web sites suck. Flash is simply a tool. The reason it seems to draw loads of bad designers is because of how easy it is to make something glow, bounce, animate etc. Flash as a tool (including Flex, AS 3.0 etc) is bloody brilliant and a hugely powerful. I think we will see more of those Flash 'intro' sites go away and more usable ones spring up in the near future. But, please, be more accurate in your condemnation of Flash web sites. Remember, Flash doesn't suck, bad designers suck.
That article was way too full of sweeping generalizations. The author obviously does not know much about Flash, ActionScript (which is basically JavaScript since AS 3.0) and the difference between a tool and a user of that tool.Saying Flash is bad, or Flash web sites suck is like saying HTML is bad or XML web sites suck. Flash is simply a tool. The reason it seems to draw loads of bad designers is because of how easy it is to make something glow, bounce, animate etc. Flash as a tool (including Flex, AS 3.0 etc) is bloody brilliant and hugely powerful. I think we will see more of those Flash 'intro' sites go away and more usable ones spring up in the near future. But, please, be more accurate in your condemnation of Flash web sites. Remember, Flash doesn't suck, bad designers suck.
It really boggles me that two years after this post, flash hasnt changed. The only ones saying they like flash and no one should bash it, are the flash programmers themselves... Perhaps they do not get the hint.. if everyone is telling you flash sucks, then giving you 5, 6, 7 reasons why it sucks, there might be something too it.i hate flash, it sucks because:#1. pages take too long to load#2. excessive distracting animations#3. not searchable#4. cannot copy and paste#5. Not SEO#6. Browser buttons do not work#7. misclick on a flash page, you have to wait until the next page loads, then hope the next page has a link back#8. cannot open links in new windows#9. cannot copy links to open them in new windowsThe only time flash is acceptable on websites, is if its blackjack, solitaire, or linerider
superc00kieJun 15, 2006
- Sites with annoying background background music that can't be turned off- Flash intro's, intro pages in general (most annoying one is a page with just a picture and the text 'click here to enter')- Pages with so many ads they take forever to load- Text links that change size when the cursor hovers over them, causing all text to move- Every link, internal ones too, open in a new window- Javascript welcome boxes- Background images that make the text almost impossible to read (many Myspace profiles have this)- Requiring registration just to read something- Asking too much information on registration (like CC number for a free service!)- Pages that are 'under construction' for months or even years
fumanchuJun 15, 2006
The article didn't say the flash prog itself was "bad." He said:"Users hate flash because it's a barrier to the site." And most of us do learn to hate constant bombardment by overpaid "web professionals" trying to prove they're worth the bucks by putting up "flashy" content.I agree that the poor use of a tool is not the same as a poor tool. But that distinction is an intellectual one. And that distinction gets blown away by the visceral experience, simply coming to hate what constantly annoys you.
Closed AccountJun 15, 2006
Here's another one, when they resize my browser or go into full screen mode without my consent.
wankJun 15, 2006
It's great that the site the article is displayed on has many of the problems mentioned in the article.Invasive advertising: I didn't actually notice it until I used IE to browse the site since I use adblock in Firefox.War and Peace length: Considering how many times that page is broken up it could easily be three pages. Do they actually expect us to scroll down to view all that crap at the bottom? And I'm running at 1280x1024! I don't even want to attempt to look at that in 1024x768 or lower.Site Blindness: This is amusing because there are ads all the way down the page on the right and then content below that! Do they expect anyone to see that content?
tommyjamesJun 17, 2006
This has been said so many times. People have always moaned about flash! But at the end of the day it completely depends on what the website is for. For example if you are a big corporate bank, you are going to want it quite basic and easy for the user to navigate. But then if a designer is having a portfolio website perhaps they are going to want to use flash and make it slightly crazy to show their creative mind and what they can do. So i don't think you can categorize the web down to saying "users don't want annoyance!" you cant stereotype the whole world like that. For one i love a well designed flash website as long as it doesn't take to long to load.
shardexJul 6, 2006
Saying Flash is bad, or Flash web sites suck is like saying HTML is bad or XML web sites suck. Flash is simply a tool. The reason it seems to draw loads of bad designers is because of how easy it is to make something glow, bounce, animate etc. Flash as a tool (including Flex, AS 3.0 etc) is bloody brilliant and a hugely powerful. I think we will see more of those Flash 'intro' sites go away and more usable ones spring up in the near future. But, please, be more accurate in your condemnation of Flash web sites. Remember, Flash doesn't suck, bad designers suck.
shardexJul 6, 2006
That article was way too full of sweeping generalizations. The author obviously does not know much about Flash, ActionScript (which is basically JavaScript since AS 3.0) and the difference between a tool and a user of that tool.Saying Flash is bad, or Flash web sites suck is like saying HTML is bad or XML web sites suck. Flash is simply a tool. The reason it seems to draw loads of bad designers is because of how easy it is to make something glow, bounce, animate etc. Flash as a tool (including Flex, AS 3.0 etc) is bloody brilliant and hugely powerful. I think we will see more of those Flash 'intro' sites go away and more usable ones spring up in the near future. But, please, be more accurate in your condemnation of Flash web sites. Remember, Flash doesn't suck, bad designers suck.
drew00629Apr 14, 2008
It really boggles me that two years after this post, flash hasnt changed. The only ones saying they like flash and no one should bash it, are the flash programmers themselves... Perhaps they do not get the hint.. if everyone is telling you flash sucks, then giving you 5, 6, 7 reasons why it sucks, there might be something too it.i hate flash, it sucks because:#1. pages take too long to load#2. excessive distracting animations#3. not searchable#4. cannot copy and paste#5. Not SEO#6. Browser buttons do not work#7. misclick on a flash page, you have to wait until the next page loads, then hope the next page has a link back#8. cannot open links in new windows#9. cannot copy links to open them in new windowsThe only time flash is acceptable on websites, is if its blackjack, solitaire, or linerider