What do you think of Flash sites?

[TowerHost.com]

I'm developing a new site and want people's feedback on Flash hybrid sites similar to GearHost and HostRocket.

Where the header bar is in Flash and the rest of the page is HTML.

Do you prefer full Flash sites, hybrid sites or NO flash?
(Gonna make this a poll now :D)

Please explain your choice - likes and dislikes of them.

[TowerHost.com]

Personally I don't like full Flash sites - main reasons, no bookmark abilities, hard to update content and takes one LONG time to produce :D
(Although there are exceptions, a well designed Flash site with good navigation can have a greater impact than a static HTML version)

Flash Hybrid sites are excellent - (get my vote)
I like them because only part of the site has the Flash element = easy updates for the web master(s).
They add a little bit of zing without going overboard and don't kill you with load times - generally. You can also keep all your page designs in templates which is a great advantage.

Static sites are great as well and shouldn't be overlooked but don't have as high an impact as Flash or Hybrid versions. They should be available for low bandwidth users and still keep the look of the other versions. Best thing about these is that they're sweet to update - stick in templates and a CMS system and you're rockin' :D

Just sharing my general ideas about these - there's a time and place for all 3 versions but I was just looking for peoples thoughts on them.

[Operator]

Flash Hybrid sites only. Too much flash can be "flashy" :D

[Locke]

I love hybrid. Developing a site completely in flash is great if you're a company that wants to flaunt the work and capability you are knowledgable of. However, I don't see a point for a fully designed Flash site if you are not a company that does Flash. Flash for your site is something that spices it up a little by allowing some dynamics to your site, which is great.

[nameslave]

This is what I wrote a couple years ago but I guess it still stands:

http://www.meechlake.com/philosophy.html

[suppleSupport]

I'm with you all on the hybrid... that just looks HOT :)

[interactive]

Hybrid by far. Although I've never really been a big fan of flash.

[JeremyV]

Hybrid gets my vote as well. With a pure flash site you have much less content for search engines to pick up on, you have obvious browser/OS issues where the site may not work properly (if at all) and like others mentioned, its a PITA so update as easily. If done right though, there are some awesome things you can do... but for most types of sites it isn't really necessary or the best solution.

[wello]

Hybrid websites is better for many reasons:
1.loads fastter
2.easy edited
3.less expensive
4.detected by search engines

[Living Media]

(I'm going to assume that this is for a hosting site. To me, Flash is a tool, and it's got proper uses, improper uses, and everything in between. I think that Flash game sites, image galleries, and art display / museum sites can be really good uses of the tool.)

The way Flash has been used in even most Flash hybrid sites to date does not thrill me. It can make the site's download hang, and for me, unless the Flash is a part of the interactive menuing (Flash files can be less than Javascript, and they're sometimes easier to edit with more bang for the buck) then I personally don't see the point. If your main site content needs to be read, why have something that moves that will distract the users from the main content of the page - which could be your hosting plans, your TOS, or what have you? Basically, if I can tell that something's a Flash file, I am not really thrilled. On a few sites the Flash has been pretty seamless and indistinguishable from any other page element, and that's, IMHO, as it should be. The user shouldn't have to play guessing games to try and figure out how to use a site, or if something's supposed to play more or have more menu items or do something in addition to whatever it obviously does.

I suppose a good question would be, what is the purpose for making a header using Flash? If it's to be the site menu, and there are going to be dropdowns and so forth that would horribly **** up a page if the same effects were achieved with rollover images and DHTML, then go guns. If it's just to have something that moves and looks "cool", then if it isn't too distracting and it doesn't otherwise interfere with a viewer's absorption of the page content, then including it would pretty much be up to the webmaster.

(Then again, I am further toward the "goal oriented surfer" end of the spectrum than the "designer - visually oriented - scenic surfer". I think Jakob Nielsen took it a bit too far sometimes ;-> )

[Jan]

I personally dislike flash sites. If I come across one with a "loading" message, I skedaddle out of there quick smart. If I was directed there by someone wanting me to check something out, if they had a "skip intro" link, then I might just enter.

Mind you, in time I have come across a few very classy looking sites that load almost immediately and I am in awe of what they have done.

[Locke]

Well, guy I know over at Flashkit.com was telling me there are ways using some small scripting(I can't remember the language), you can detect if Flash is installed or the browser supports it, AND the speed, so if you set it to 56K and below going to a pure HTML, and ISDN/DSL/Cable/etc. or above heading to a flash site, that works out I'd suppose.

Our layout will be hybrid w/ flash. The only flash elements are small touch ups, and the menu. Hardly notable to make it become slow for any user.

The only downside is, many browsers don't support flash, Mozilla I know doesn't, and that's popular among a lot of users.

[shaunewing]

Originally posted by Locke:
The only downside is, many browsers don't support flash, Mozilla I know doesn't, and that's popular among a lot of users.

I beg to differ. Flash works fine in Mozilla as long as the plugin is installed.


I personally would rather sites with no flash, but if Flash can contribute to a site's usability and appeal than so be it.

As for sites totally in Flash - that's a definite no. Search engines won't index them, they're a pain to use and people with older computers can't use them.

--Shaun

[JeremyV]

Originally posted by shaunewing:

I beg to differ. Flash works fine in Mozilla as long as the plugin is installed.



That is part of the problem though. Not everyone does (or wants to) install the flash plugin. I know a lot of people who deliberately do not install flash plugins just because they are on a slow connection or whatever other reason.

I just think if a site uses flash it should have either a plain HTML option or a script to detect whether or not the person already has the plugin installed. I know when I had an integrated flash header on one of my sites I tested it on nearly every OS and browser I could, and a lot of them would not have the plugin by default, some macs would never display the flash period. So by adding a small snippet of javascript to detect what the user had, if they didn't have the plugin it displayed an alternate imagemap or other plain HTML features :)

[DarktidesNET]

I like only flash headers...

[vito]

I'd have to agree with most here about voting for the hybrid site. But even with just a Flash header, some designers get carried away and do too much. I prefer an understated dose of Flash.

Less is more...

Vito

[Phoenix]

Hybrid,

I like to be entertained a bit when I visit a site.

Content alone can do that but only to a certain degree and if I'm bored. I do like all flash sites too but just to kind of oooh and awww over and then quickly move on to something a bit more subtle. :banana:

[FindSP.com]

I like Flash for interactive tools only like - special tour or something, also flash in the header would be ok- but complete flash sites? I don't know - not my style..