I’m sure you were only commenting on the comments, but I just wanted to be clear that I wasn’t saying that flash was bad, just that it’s often overused or used in sub-optimal ways. Certainly, interactive flash interfaces and flash presentations can be extremely effective, but I’d still recommend developers run down this checklist before embarking on a flash project for a commercial Website.

That may be true to some extent, and admittedly I’d much rather be deaf than blind, but deaf people still miss out on a lot of the web (ie, low-res video lectures, etc).

Blind people cannot experience the web period, unless their screen reader tells them what’s there. Flash is a terrible thing for people without sight.

Blind people cannot experience the web period, unless their screen reader tells them what’s there. Flash is a terrible thing for people without sight.

Assuming that Flash can be made SEO friendly, I still think the basic question remains relevant: what persuasive elements will flash bring to the table that static pictures and text won’t? If you can answer that question,go for it. If not, I’d recommend against it, regardless of how searchable it may or may not be.

- Jeff

I agree that there are much better examples of Flash, especially from an SEO point of view.

Jeff and I discussed this a bit before we published this post, and his point to me — and this may have gotten lost in the edit — was that he thought the Sigma DP-1 site did a good job on a customer experience level. While I agree with that, I think it does a pretty mediocre job on a usability level, and it’s really not so great for SEO. But, still, I think his main points are valid.*

In my opinion, Jaguar (USA) does a pretty good job of merging customer experience, usability, and SEO (at least there’s text that accompanies the flash portions).

Also, the “carrot” thing is my fault. Not sure how I missed that, but I’m glad you pointed it out like Bugs Bunny. (Guess I shoulda taken dat left toin at Albuquerque.)

-Editor, GrokDotCom

*Correct me if I’m wrong, Jeff, but I believe you were looking at this site purely in terms of it providing a persuasive customer experience.**

**Okay, looks like like Jeff’s comment posted just before mine and it confirmed what I said. See, folks, we do actually talk about what we post!

I understand and agree with your points about the Sidma DP-1 micro site; it’s certainly far from perfect. And yet it has one redeeming characteristic: it’s persuasive in a way that copy and static pictures couldn’t be. Yes, it forces visitors to see the material in a specific order without providing any interactive options, but the designers had enough sense of theatre to dramatically engage the viewer. Most people I’ve shown the site to have been drawn into the presentation with many responding quite simply with, “How much does it cost?” Again, it’s not perfect, but it does build persuasive momentum in a way that regular copy probably wouldn’t be able to replicate.

In short, I wanted an example of both an interactive flash tool AND a flash presentation. Finding a perfect example of the latter wasn’t an option, so I went with the most persuasive example that I could find. If you’ve seen better examples out there, please feel free to post them here – I know I’d be thrilled to see them.

-Jeff

What will this allow me to convey that text and
static images wouldn’t?

And the 10 questions are a valuable weapon when convincing people when they are asking for inappropriate Flash.

The Leo Diamond example is a good choice.

But then you say:

“The micro-site for the Sigma DP-1 camera … is a good example of Flash done right.”

WHAT??? That’s a golden example of bad Flash. Big page load, all Flash. Search engines will see nothing. For visitors, they get a Flash intro they have to sit through, with nothing to click at all, save the teeny bypass link at the bottom (which we web types know to look for but ordinary people don’t). Entry portals were deprecated by smart Internet marketers in 1998.

I do take your point that for users with Flash, the messaging persuasively leads the visitor.

And not to get petty but: “diamond carrot size”

Carrot? What’s up, Doc?

It’s okay for us – we’re a design agency and our site is designed to catch the eye, and has – but we want our client’s sites to load super-quickly and get straight to the point.

Our work has become World renowned because of our designer’s use of Flash, but any site that’s serious about selling, should keep the Flash to a minimum – used very sparingly it can add to the process, but sparingly is the operative word here.

Flash gets abused, horribly, even now.

One item I’d add: “Can I get the same effect using something that degrades gracefully?”

I think the Flash websites, all mostly about the web designer saying look at how good I can make things look. I am a great web designer, aren’t I? Yes you can have little widgets and video to do certain things in Flash but designing an entire website in Flash is like having midi files load up and play music when you first go to a website. An old way of doing things, we have learned and move beyond that now.

Yes Flash may look pretty and cool, but I do not think it allows you to sell more products, good navigation, quick downloadable pages, simplicity to a point and good copy, will win out in my opinion.

I am in the process of redesigning my category pages right now because hopefully I am learning to do things better. My guess is we are all learning to do things better, and designing a website totally in flash, we have learned, there is a better way of doing it.