More and more sites are going the way of flash as consumers begin to have access to high speed Internet and more advanced systems. But the majority of sites flocking to flash seem to be portfolios, especially photographers. The argument made for these sites using flash is the desire to create an immersive user experience for visitors through motion and sound, but what are the arguments against using flash?
Well, the first and foremost argument made is that flash lacks accessibility and doesn’t play well with search engines. Visitors are not able to link to specific items, utilize the default navigation in their browser such as the back button, and with search engines the trouble is in having little to no text for the spiders to collect. However there are various methods of solving these two issues, the majority of sites don’t bother.
Another issues, although small, is that you need to have the user install something to view your site. Flash does have a 90% install base in “mature markets” though, but despite the ubiquity of it flash is increasingly seen as an annoyance with the emergence of flash ads. There is even a plug in for Firefox called Flashblock that “Blocks Flash so it won’t get in your way”.
When I come across a flash site I tend to groan as I wait for it to load. Only after being subjected to an unnecessary and useless splash page. Load times in spite of the proliferation of high speed Internet still can be seen as a barrier to potential users and clients.
My personal and what I feel is the most important argument is that a lot of these site tend to look awful and function poorly. The majority of photographers are not designers, and the reverse can be said about designers (though I myself have done photography for the Canadian Government, Election Campaigns, and a few here and there for some podcasts). Thus most fall into the trap of buying a website off the shelf from template sites. Ignoring a process that should begin with developing a brand first and then a site consistent with that brand. Bliss Events new site is a prime example of this syndrom. Notice the inconsistancy in styles between the spash page and the acctual site. Not that I’m picking on them, it’s just a site I was pointed to today when I happend to be writing this article.
In the end most of these sites offer nothing that a “regular” site couldn’t do in a less obtrusive way, didn’t we agree music playing out of nowhere was a bad thing a few years ago? More focus is put on bells and whistles (read: distractions) when the focus should be on the photos. That’s not to say flash doesn’t have it’s place in the scheme of things, for instance video. Video is quickly becoming a staple in wedding photographers offerings. Using flash to display videos is almost as ubiquitous now as CSS thanks to youtube. Sites that have a unique and interactive nature also lend well to flash. I’m not talking about menu items that change colour and makes noise when clicked either, sites like the interactive Harry Potter site and Marriott’s experience site. Those are the kind of sites flash is destined for, not the same old static site with rollovers and music.
How do you feel about flash?
I have to admit, I'm not at all keen on the majority of Flash sites. I've only got to see the phrase 'skip intro' to skip the whole site altogether. My feeling is that if the intro is unnecessary enough to merit a 'skip' button, yet my time is still being wasted enough for me to be presented with it anyway, then just how pointless is the rest of the site going to be?
I agree that there are instances where Flash has a place though, and just like everything else on the web that has the right eyes looking in the right places, that's what it's all about really – relevancy.
I also kind of groan and wait for it to load. Granted… some very very awesome things can be done with flash, but it's used way to often un-awesomely. I think it works best for "experience" type websites, like a website for a horror movie or something.
I have been a photographer for 15 years or so and I have to say I am not a big fan of flash, never have been, but I am not actively trying to promote my images for a sale basis so maybe that makes a difference.
In the photography world, at least if you are an outdoor photographer, not a studio photographer, an actual flash is something you carry, but may never use, have in reserve just in case you need that little pop of light to illuminate a poorly lit subject. Perhaps that is why some use it
I also groan upon entering a flash site, but if used correctly they are great. Of course keeping load times fast is tricky. I only use flash for slide shows,but not the whole site.
the good thing about flash is that google will begin to index them in the search engines. i never thought i would live to see that day.
-Jack
It's not a good thing though, it only promotes the proliferation of bad UI.