I love coming across a well-designed web page. One that hits that sweet spot
between functionality and pizzazz.
They are an endless source of inspiration and -- well, envy too.
What are your favourites, or ones that you hold up as a touchstone?
I'm not talking subject material, I'm talking ones that strike you as
impressive from a design aspect, regardless of the subject.
And tell us why you like it.
M
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "M"
writing in news:kEFai.10230$xq1.4494@pd7urf1no:
> What are your favourites, or ones that you hold up as a touchstone?
>
You first.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Perhaps I'm easily awed but I found the "El Pais Muva - museo virtual de
artes" (http://muva.elpais.com.uy/) both beautiful and impressive in its
options and ease of use.
But that's just me.
El
"M"
news:kEFai.10230$xq1.4494@pd7urf1no...
>I love coming across a well-designed web page. One that hits that sweet
>spot between functionality and pizzazz.
>
> They are an endless source of inspiration and -- well, envy too.
>
> What are your favourites, or ones that you hold up as a touchstone?
>
> I'm not talking subject material, I'm talking ones that strike you as
> impressive from a design aspect, regardless of the subject.
>
> And tell us why you like it.
>
> M
>
>
>
"Adrienne Boswell"
news:Xns994AB8D638A30arbpenyahoocom@69.28.186.121...
> You first.
What, are we like eight years old daring each other who's gonna jump into
the cold lake first? Sheesh. . .
I posted some of mine when I last visited here about six or seven months
ago.
http://www.5thwallstudio.com/ Uses a flash intro but it's not necessary to
wait for it. The flash animation though is nicely reflected in the photo
within the site providing for a continuation of theme. I also like the door
analogy and the simple art deco theme.
http://www.inspireddevices.com/ for the simplicity of the design which still
makes good use of graphics for a "desktop newsletter" look.
Both of these were designed by Krucible Solutions of Victoria. I like their
work and, no, I don't know them or have any connection to them. They came to
my attention when they designed a web site for a friend.
I found this site
http://www.moderndaybillboard.com/index.html and have been working my way
through them. Some very impressive ones here -- lots of imagination of the
sort I wish I had.
I like some of the sites at CSSZenGarden. The designers here have a strong
sense of colour and play that I envy:
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/178/178.css&page=2
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/177/177.css&page=3
And check out the clever trick with the diver here:
http://csszengarden.com/?cssfile=http://www.css-praxis.de/cs socean/zenocean.css
(Scroll down to the ocean bottom. . . Won't work in IE)
And, finally, for another perspective, there's this site:
http://www.e-creative.net/enter.asp
I don't know this group, but the sites that have won awards as determined by
this website suck hugely. Every one of them are fully Flash-powered. I'm on
high speed and I gave up on most of them because I couldn't be bothered
waiting.
M
In article
"M"
> And, finally, for another perspective, there's this site:
> http://www.e-creative.net/enter.asp
>
> I don't know this group, but the sites that have won awards as determined by
> this website suck hugely. Every one of them are fully Flash-powered. I'm on
> high speed and I gave up on most of them because I couldn't be bothered
> waiting.
http://www.e-creative.net/enter.asp itself is very bad indeed.
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> "M"
>
>> And, finally, for another perspective, there's this site:
>> http://www.e-creative.net/enter.asp
>>
>> I don't know this group, but the sites that have won awards as
>> determined by this website suck hugely. Every one of them are fully
>> Flash-powered. I'm on high speed and I gave up on most of them
>> because I couldn't be bothered waiting.
>
> http://www.e-creative.net/enter.asp itself is very bad indeed.
...and the rest aren't any better.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
> > "M"
> >
> >> And, finally, for another perspective, there's this site:
> >> http://www.e-creative.net/enter.asp
> >>
> >> I don't know this group, but the sites that have won awards as
> >> determined by this website suck hugely. Every one of them are fully
> >> Flash-powered. I'm on high speed and I gave up on most of them
> >> because I couldn't be bothered waiting.
> >
> > http://www.e-creative.net/enter.asp itself is very bad indeed.
>
> ..and the rest aren't any better.
>
Yeah, I could not agree more, mind you I did not bother looking at
most of them.
The DTP looking one I thaught was a pile of shit. Considering the
subject matter, the site did not even have a proper title tag, and
overall as any person with a clue knows, DTP layouts do not work on
the web, go to the site http://www.inspireddevices.com and wack the
font size up a few times. It will break quite easily.
The verdonna (or however the hell you spell it) font really is quite
bloody un-readable at larger font sizes.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
On 2007-06-10, El Kabong wrote:
>
> Perhaps I'm easily awed but I found the "El Pais Muva - museo virtual de
> artes" (http://muva.elpais.com.uy/) both beautiful and impressive in its
> options and ease of use.
On first glance, I thought it was nice to have the choice of HTML
or multimedia versions (a sensible use of an intro page). However,
when I clicked on it, nothing happened.
The multimedia version did go to the real page, but I don't
continue with all flash pages; I have yet to see one that is
more than minimally legible.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "M"
writing in news:C4Jai.11731$xq1.1759@pd7urf1no:
>> You first.
>
> What, are we like eight years old daring each other who's gonna jump
> into the cold lake first? Sheesh. . .
>
> I posted some of mine when I last visited here about six or seven
> months ago.
>
>
No, we're not like eight years old, we're like fifty. I've seen too many
posts similar to this that are basically just trolling. Hence, the
request.
I can't seriously remember a good site I've seen lately. I do a lot of
surfing, looking for interesting sites to include in our directory.
I see a lot of sites that look nice visually, but have no substance. I
see a lot of sites with a lot of content with tiny text (yes I know I can
resize). I came across a site the other day that even tried to give me a
virus (probably a graphic, since plain text wouldn't do it).
With that said, there are two sites I like that come to mind:
1. moRondeSign - http://www.morondesign.com
2. Joe Cartoon - http://www.joecartoon.com
I like these sites because they always give me a laugh.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
"Adrienne Boswell"
news:Xns994AB8D638A30arbpenyahoocom@69.28.186.121...
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "M"
> writing in news:kEFai.10230$xq1.4494@pd7urf1no:
>
>> What are your favourites, or ones that you hold up as a touchstone?
>>
>
> You first.
--
Richard.
Adrienne Boswell wrote:
> With that said, there are two sites I like that come to mind:
>
> 1. moRondeSign - http://www.morondesign.com
What the ****! I checked out both sites and since I am stuck on dialup
here I opened each in a tab and while loading went to get another cup of
coffee and came back to very loud "rock" music!!! This one seems to be
the offender and a prime example of why you *do not* put music on your
site. Damn thankful that I did not check it out late last night at
midnight, else that would cost me at least a dozen roses and box of fine
chocolates to get out of the doghouse.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Adrienne Boswell wrote:
> 1. moRondeSign - http://www.morondesign.com
Okay, okay it a joke, but U shut it down so fast to kill the techno (and
I like techno, just not when I am surfing) that I did not read the
pages, which I am not doing with my sound muted...
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Adrienne Boswell wrote:
> 1. moRondeSign - http://www.morondesign.com
Okay, okay it a joke, but U shut it down so fast to kill the techno (and
I like techno, just not when I am surfing) that I did not read the
pages, which I am now doing with my sound muted...
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2007-06-10, El Kabong wrote:
>> Perhaps I'm easily awed but I found the "El Pais Muva - museo virtual de
>> artes" (http://muva.elpais.com.uy/) both beautiful and impressive in its
>> options and ease of use.
>
> On first glance, I thought it was nice to have the choice of HTML
> or multimedia versions (a sensible use of an intro page). However,
> when I clicked on it, nothing happened.
That's because it opens in a pop-up and you probably have a pop-up
blocker on. There is strike on for the site. Then the site relies on
frames, strike two! And is one large image map, strike three! Dang and I
thought Myst was a bore, put it online with dialup and I really don't
care about the exhibits and I am an artist!
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> What the ****! I checked out both sites and since I am stuck on dialup
> here I opened each in a tab and while loading went to get another cup
> of coffee and came back to very loud "rock" music!!! This one seems to
> be the offender and a prime example of why you *do not* put music on
> your site. Damn thankful that I did not check it out late last night
> at midnight, else that would cost me at least a dozen roses and box of
> fine chocolates to get out of the doghouse.
1. That's what you get for having a computer in your dog house. They
don't really get much out of it and their claws are rough on the keys.
2. Based on most of their posts they're all Google Gropers.
3. Okay, some of them do email each other with mutt.
4. If they *must* be connected, introduce them to FidoNet.
5. Emphasis should be placed on #1, above; it's not like they're paying
for their own hardware.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
On Jun 9, 10:10 pm, "M"
> And, finally, for another perspective, there's this site:http://www.e-creative.net/enter.asp
> I don't know this group, but the sites that have won awards as determined by
> this website suck hugely. Every one of them are fully Flash-powered. I'm on
> high speed and I gave up on most of them because I couldn't be bothered
> waiting.
First, go to your provider and complain about your high speed
connection it's broke. Everything on this site came right up.
Second, While you and others may all think these sites suck, I tend to
enjoy many of them. (I especially liked this one: http://www.themartist.com)
I also like my meat cooked medium rare while others like it well
done. So it seems that website preferences, like meat, is it a matter
of personal preference.
My point is that while you may not like sites like these obviously
someone does or they would not exist in the numbers they do. As the
web continues to evolve, I believe you will be seeing even more
integration between multimedia and the web. Some will hate it, some
will love it. .
ymmv
On Jun 9, 9:56 pm, "El Kabong"
> Perhaps I'm easily awed but I found the "El Pais Muva - museo virtual de
> artes" (http://muva.elpais.com.uy/) both beautiful and impressive in its
> options and ease of use.
> But that's just me.
While it is nice, I was not as impressed as you. I believe that it
cold have been moreeffective if done with Flash.
On Jun 11, 8:01 am, Travis Newbury
> On Jun 9, 9:56 pm, "El Kabong"
>
> > Perhaps I'm easily awed but I found the "El Pais Muva - museo virtual de
> > artes" (http://muva.elpais.com.uy/) both beautiful and impressive in its
> > options and ease of use.
> > But that's just me.
>
> While it is nice, I was not as impressed as you. I believe that it
> cold have been moreeffective if done with Flash.
Ok, bad morning for the fingers and brain, I meant to say it could
have been done more effectively than is was done in Flash.
"Travis Newbury"
news:1181563432.080705.302740@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> While it is nice, I was not as impressed as you. I believe that it
>> cold have been moreeffective if done with Flash.
>
> Ok, bad morning for the fingers and brain, I meant to say it could
> have been done more effectively than is was done in Flash.
>
After a second look, I agree... somewhat. I think the atmosphere of the site
was what I liked at first glance.
But then, I like art sites that let me view the works without a lot of
analysis.
Here's another: http://bradtuckman.com/
or this camera ad: http://stunningnikon.com/d80/
Flash with a purpose.
El
"El Kabong"
news:Zdcbi.2493$yS4.164@trnddc04...
>
> "Travis Newbury"
> news:1181563432.080705.302740@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> While it is nice, I was not as impressed as you. I believe that it
>>> cold have been moreeffective if done with Flash.
>>
>> Ok, bad morning for the fingers and brain, I meant to say it could
>> have been done more effectively than is was done in Flash.
>>
Don't know how I forgot it but here's a great one, ideally suited for its
content, great use of Web tech, site map, ( didn't see any drop down menus
yet):
http://nymag.com/
Would you expect less from them?
El
"Travis Newbury"
news:1181563103.517612.291710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 9, 10:10 pm, "M"
> Second, While you and others may all think these sites suck I tend to
> enjoy many of them.(I especially liked this one:
> http://www.themartist.com)
This isn't bad. It loaded quickly (compared to the ones that I tried) and
the designer has a strong visual sense.
Another Flash-powered site that I liked was the Seinfeld and Superman site
that was home to the Amex 'webisodes' a few years back. It used the living
room-home movies analogy as a setting -- no word menus at all. Everything
was very intuitive.
A lot of Hollywood movie sites also use Flash to good effect.
My biggest issue is accessiblity. A friend's totally Flash-powered site for
her photography business had a menu system that I could barely read. No way
to change the font.
Another issue was time. Every one of her images had some transition special
effect so that it took way too much time to get through her portfolio. No
way to turn it off.
I run my rez at 1024 x 768 on my single monitor. The text in the upper left
corner of themartist.com is just large enough for me to read comfortably.
How would it look to someone with a higher rez?
I've seen sites that give you the option between html and Flash. I suppose
it wouldn't be much more difficult to offer more choices based on the end
user's screen real estate.
Another issue: How do Flash-powered sites measure up with respect to search
engines?
Anyway, thx for your feedback
M
M wrote:
>
> A lot of Hollywood movie sites also use Flash
Well, they're *entertainment* sites. Flash might have some value as an
application platform (or rumor has it, anyway) but entertainment is one
thing it is really good at.
> No way to change the font.
Lack of user controls in the flash player has been my biggest complaint
about flash from the beginning. It's an author-centric technology,
meaning the users are at the total mercy of the author, most of whom
don't seem to care whether the type is readable, or if non-stop
animations might actually be annoying.
At least with html, users can override author styles so there is a
chance a page can be made usable. There is nothing the user can do about
an unusable flash site, except go somewhere else.
--
Berg
"Bergamot"
news:5d5i44F3315t7U1@mid.individual.net...
>M wrote:
> At least with html, users can override author styles so there is a
> chance a page can be made usable. There is nothing the user can do about
> an unusable flash site, except go somewhere else.
Agree with all of your points. As I mentioned the only solution as I see it
would be a front-end that let's you choose among different pages, each set
up to accomodate different screen sizes.
Any Flash experts here? Is there some talk on the horizon of the ability for
the end-user to tweak the interface?
M
On Jun 11, 9:36 am, "El Kabong"
> > Ok, bad morning for the fingers and brain, I meant to say it could
> > have been done more effectively than is was done in Flash.
> After a second look, I agree... somewhat. I think the atmosphere of the site
> was what I liked at first glance.
> But then, I like art sites that let me view the works without a lot of
> analysis.
Flash is great IF used in the right place. If you are a regular here,
you will know that I am a huge Flash advocate (hell I make my living
with Flash and Flash video) But as great as I think Flash is, it is
also the worst thing that ever happened to the web.
Most flash developers are artists that discovered Flash. I come from
the software development side of the house and live by actionscript.
I am more concerned with functionality, size, and optimization. I HATE
crappy Flash. I LOVE Flash that was done right. (And as a side bar, I
generally HATE all Flash sites.)
On Jun 11, 1:09 pm, "M"
> A lot of Hollywood movie sites also use Flash to good effect.
Flash and Hollywood, are a marriage made in heaven...
> My biggest issue is accessiblity. A friend's totally Flash-powered site for
> her photography business had a menu system that I could barely read. No way
> to change the font.
I do not disagree with you. Flash being (for the most part) a visual
medium, it makes it harder for the developer to implement
accessibility features. But it is not impossible. That is where a
Flash developer with true application development background rather
than an artists background comes in handy. Flash CAN meet all the
accessibility concerns if a site IF the developer knows how to.
> Another issue was time. Every one of her images had some transition special
> effect so that it took way too much time to get through her portfolio. No
> way to turn it off.
Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing
> I run my rez at 1024 x 768 on my single monitor. The text in the upper left
> corner of themartist.com is just large enough for me to read comfortably.
> How would it look to someone with a higher rez?
Probably sucky
> I've seen sites that give you the option between html and Flash. I suppose
> it wouldn't be much more difficult to offer more choices based on the end
> user's screen real estate.
I actually don't like sites like that.
> Another issue: How do Flash-powered sites measure up with respect to search
> engines?
The major search engins now sear Flash. This is no longer an issue
(for a good Flash developer)
On Jun 11, 2:59 pm, "M"
> Any Flash experts here? Is there some talk on the horizon of the ability for
> the end-user to tweak the interface?
I can easily make a Flash interface that meets all the accessibility
standards. Most Flash developers are artists, they want it to look
and feel a specific way. They ignore everything but the art side of
the house.
These are the people that have given Flash a bad name...
"Travis Newbury"
news:1181642483.231794.96590@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Most flash developers are artists that discovered Flash. I come from
> the software development side of the house and live by actionscript.
> I am more concerned with functionality, size, and optimization. I HATE
> crappy Flash. I LOVE Flash that was done right. (And as a side bar, I
> generally HATE all Flash sites.)
>
It's not unusual for someone who's good at something to be irritated by the
misuse of that skill by others... a very understandable response.
About the only thing you can do about it is to lead by example, and gripe
when offered the opportunity.
Many of the rest of us will continue to lurk and learn, and give it a shot
when offered the opportunity.
El
Travis Newbury wrote:
>
> I can easily make a Flash interface that meets all the accessibility
> standards.
Does that include adjustable type size? I've read Flash accessibility
debates in the past that all skirt around this subject. Adjustable type
size is not specifically mentioned in the section 508 guidelines so it
seems to be a good excuse for authors to ignore the issue. :-\
BTW, if you expect the user to rely on Flash "zoom" to adjust type size,
that is a really terrible solution. The user has no choice over the zoom
area or degree of zoom so the result is often no better than before.
Often, it's worse, especially when you have to pan the area to read it.
That is a ghastly way to read anything.
> Most Flash developers are artists
>
> These are the people that have given Flash a bad name...
I would very much like to see an example of Flash done right, because,
until I see it with my own eyes, I don't believe it really exists.
Please prove it *can* be done, so that others may be shown the way.
--
Berg
M wrote:
> I run my rez at 1024 x 768 on my single monitor. The text in the upper left
> corner of themartist.com is just large enough for me to read comfortably.
> How would it look to someone with a higher rez?
>
On dialup, got *really* tired of watching the dog pant away as the
progress bar's progress was barely perceivable. I bailed! I am sure I am
not alone.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Travis Newbury wrote:
> Most flash developers are artists that discovered Flash. I come from
> the software development side of the house and live by actionscript.
> I am more concerned with functionality, size, and optimization. I HATE
> crappy Flash. I LOVE Flash that was done right. (And as a side bar, I
> generally HATE all Flash sites.)
>
How about a good Flash site Travis? Cannot say that I have ever come
across one, about as elusive as Big Foot, or Nessie.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Chaddy2222 wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> dorayme wrote:
>>
>>> "M"
>>>
>>>> And, finally, for another perspective, there's this site:
>>>> http://www.e-creative.net/enter.asp
>>>>
>>>> I don't know this group, but the sites that have won awards as
>>>> determined by this website suck hugely. Every one of them are fully
>>>> Flash-powered. I'm on high speed and I gave up on most of them
>>>> because I couldn't be bothered waiting.
>>> http://www.e-creative.net/enter.asp itself is very bad indeed.
>> ..and the rest aren't any better.
>>
> Yeah, I could not agree more, mind you I did not bother looking at
> most of them.
> The DTP looking one I thaught was a pile of shit. Considering the
> subject matter, the site did not even have a proper title tag, and
> overall as any person with a clue knows, DTP layouts do not work on
> the web, go to the site http://www.inspireddevices.com and wack the
> font size up a few times. It will break quite easily.
Does not breaks for me in firefox if I increase font two times. I think
that is fair enough. 99% will not increase the font since it is large
enough and 99.99% will not increase the font more than +2 times.
You should give a try before reviewing. And the site looks beautiful. I
haven't checked it on the html/css validator, so cannot comment much
about that.
> The verdonna (or however the hell you spell it) font really is quite
> bloody un-readable at larger font sizes.
> --
> Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
>
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Travis Newbury wrote:
>
>> I LOVE Flash that was done right.
>
> How about a good Flash site Travis?
It's disappointing that he hasn't responded to this. I've heard the
good-flash-bad-flash thing before, but still haven't seen good flash in
action. I don't believe it exists, except in theory. :(
--
Berg
Bergamot wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>>
>>> I LOVE Flash that was done right.
>> How about a good Flash site Travis?
>
> It's disappointing that he hasn't responded to this. I've heard the
> good-flash-bad-flash thing before, but still haven't seen good flash in
> action. I don't believe it exists, except in theory. :(
>
Yep, like the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, (sorry kids)
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
In article <5da5nhF3416emU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bergamot
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> > Travis Newbury wrote:
> >
> >> I LOVE Flash that was done right.
> >
> > How about a good Flash site Travis?
>
> It's disappointing that he hasn't responded to this. I've heard the
> good-flash-bad-flash thing before, but still haven't seen good flash in
> action. I don't believe it exists, except in theory. :(
Poor Travis, leave the guy alone! He is my favourite Republican.
I spring to his defence. Has it occurred to any of you guys that
the reason may not be because there aren't any good flash sites
but because he simply can't tell you them.
To understand this idea, you might need to see the 1962 Luis
Bunuel film, The Exterminating Angel.
Here is one quote from Michael Brooke, a reviewer:
"After a lavish dinner party, the guests find themselves
mysteriously unable to leave the room... and over the next few
days all the elaborate pretenses and facades that they've built
up by virtue of their position in society collapse completely as
they become reduced to living like animals..."
Realise this: Travis right at this minute is drinking heavily.
--
dorayme
"Bergamot"
news:5da5nhF3416emU1@mid.individual.net...
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>>
>>> I LOVE Flash that was done right.
>>
>> How about a good Flash site Travis?
>
> It's disappointing that he hasn't responded to this. I've heard the
> good-flash-bad-flash thing before, but still haven't seen good flash in
> action. I don't believe it exists, except in theory. :(
>
I like this one: http://www.miccosukee.com
Effective use of eye candy, it fits the subject of the site.
El
El Kabong wrote:
> "Bergamot"
> news:5da5nhF3416emU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> I've heard the
>> good-flash-bad-flash thing before, but still haven't seen good flash in
>> action. I don't believe it exists, except in theory. :(
>
> I like this one: http://www.miccosukee.com
>
> Effective use of eye candy,
We weren't discussing flash eye candy, but flash usability and
accessibility. Got an example of that?
BTW, I was immediately turned off by the rapid-fire animation at that
site. It's the main reason I keep flash disabled by default.
--
Berg
"Bergamot"
news:5dcpd1F31gij7U1@mid.individual.net...
> El Kabong wrote:
>> "Bergamot"
>> news:5da5nhF3416emU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> I've heard the
>>> good-flash-bad-flash thing before, but still haven't seen good flash in
>>> action. I don't believe it exists, except in theory. :(
>>
>> I like this one: http://www.miccosukee.com
>>
>> Effective use of eye candy,
>
> We weren't discussing flash eye candy, but flash usability and
> accessibility. Got an example of that?
>
> BTW, I was immediately turned off by the rapid-fire animation at that
> site. It's the main reason I keep flash disabled by default.
IMO, the deciding factor determining the use of any technology is purpose.
*In this case*, the use of Flash appears justified by the site's purpose,
thus making it "good flash".
But that's just my opinion. I'm entitled to be wrong if I want to. :-)
El
--
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
Galbraith's Law
El Kabong wrote:
> "Bergamot"
> news:5da5nhF3416emU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>>>
>>>> I LOVE Flash that was done right.
>>> How about a good Flash site Travis?
>> It's disappointing that he hasn't responded to this. I've heard the
>> good-flash-bad-flash thing before, but still haven't seen good flash in
>> action. I don't believe it exists, except in theory. :(
>>
>
> I like this one: http://www.miccosukee.com
>
> Effective use of eye candy, it fits the subject of the site.
Eye candy--maybe, but while waiting for the damn graphics to load I had
no idea what the links where for the menu!
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
In article
"El Kabong"
> IMO, the deciding factor determining the use of any technology is purpose.
> *In this case*, the use of Flash appears justified by the site's purpose,
> thus making it "good flash".
>
> But that's just my opinion. I'm entitled to be wrong if I want to. :-)
You mean that when a technology becomes available and someone
uses it, they use it for a purpose. So far, pretty deep. And if
it serves their purpose, it is a good use of the technology, yes?
Deeper still.
--
dorayme
"dorayme"
news:doraymeRidThis-13EA2F.08561915062007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article
> "El Kabong"
>
>> IMO, the deciding factor determining the use of any technology is
>> purpose.
>> *In this case*, the use of Flash appears justified by the site's purpose,
>> thus making it "good flash".
>>
>> But that's just my opinion. I'm entitled to be wrong if I want to. :-)
>
> You mean that when a technology becomes available and someone
> uses it, they use it for a purpose. So far, pretty deep. And if
> it serves their purpose, it is a good use of the technology, yes?
> Deeper still.
Do you design Web sites _without_ purpose? Perhaps you were one of the
genius designers of the insanity test at Cambridge U. or whatever college
the guys were from. Did You see it? Pure entertainment and many folks went
back dozens of times to hear a college kid imitate the sound of a Formula
One short stroke engine going through the gears. Even that site had a
purpose--to entertain.
A simple site for, say a church, with the purpose of informing the public
regarding their location, times of services, other activities, would have
little use for gimmicks and geegaws. A simple table or two displaying the
pertinent information in an understandable manner works great--it informs
the visitor as intended, fulfilling its purpose.
But the Miccosukee site is primarily for a casino and I perceived its main
purpose to be an enticement to gamblers to come and lose some money. This is
obviously not the only purpose of the site, as the tribal history is also
touched upon in a very brief manner... I suppose it gives some legitimacy to
the site.
No, I see the main goal of the site as attracting the folks who want to drop
some coins in the tribe's pockets.
Have you been to a casino? If you haven't, I can tell you that they are a
constant humming cacophony of bells, beeps, clanks, and sirens, with lights
flashing in almost every color you can imagine, phony animated cartoon
images, scrolling numbers and images on wheels. In other words, lots of
glitz and shimmering lights.
Perhaps if it didn't attract you, you are not the fish they were trying to
hook. I'll bet it grabs its share though, and that the tribal members are
more than pleased with its effects. If anything, the site is understated...
for its purpose.
El
El Kabong wrote:
> Have you been to a casino? If you haven't, I can tell you that they are a
> constant humming cacophony of bells, beeps, clanks, and sirens, with lights
> flashing in almost every color you can imagine, phony animated cartoon
> images, scrolling numbers and images on wheels. In other words, lots of
> glitz and shimmering lights.
That that's just the *bathrooms*. :)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html