ie & other browser

kchayka wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

kchayka wrote:

Entertainment sites are a different animal.

No. Aethetics and good design are global. This is always a big issue
with so-called "web designers" who are so caught up in the technical
aspects of what they are doing they totally forget the "design".


There is always a big issue with graphic designers who think the same
design techniques apply to a web page as to paper. Some do, many don't.
Form over function may be acceptable in certain circumstances, but it is
not a global rule by a long shot.

Of course it *does*. Design applies to *everything*. If you badly design
something, your may be functionality lost. You cannot simply "dump stuff
on a screen" and expect it to work.

This doesn't excuse BAD design. There is just as much bad design as
there is bug-ridden badly thought out fuctionality.

I think of the google groups redesign. At a site like this,
functionality is more important than aesthetics. It may have been
visually dull before the redesign, but it was functional. Then they
tried to make it kewl or something. Now when I go there, I have to make
sure both JavaScript and stylesheets are disabled, plus I have to
enforce a user stylesheet specific to google groups. Otherwise, it's
mostly intolerable.

Bad design, you see. But look at google.com itself. And example of
fantastic design. Simple, but creative. It carries a nice, recognisable
brand across the top, while giving excellant functionality.

However, we live in an increasingly rich-media world, and it begs the
questions "why not?". Why not ask for CSS? Why not ask for scripting or
flash? While you may be cutting out a percentage of your audience
(especially if you ignore accessibily), you provide a more "pleasing"
environment to those with "everything turned on". This whole global
media thing is a bit of a myth - you cannot expect everyone to be able
to view everything, and it IS NOT up to designers to make this happen
either. Do cable providers make their content available to everyone who
doesn't subribe/have one of their boxes? No. And that is just one other
form of media.

Media is converging. TV, entertainment, informational... everything is
blurring into one IP driven platform. Design is becoming more and more
important because of this.

In the OP's case, it looks more like gratuitous Flash than anything
else. If they were just trying to showcase some Flash skills, they could
have used it on something less harmful than site navigation.

Agreed.


I knew you weren't all bad.

Oh, I'm all bad, trust me.


--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

SpaceGirl wrote:

However, we live in an increasingly rich-media world, and it begs the
questions "why not?". Why not ask for CSS? Why not ask for scripting or
flash?

If you ask "why not" then you should also be asking "why". Without a
balanced question you cannot have a balanced answer.

Consequently, if you ask "why" and "why not" for everything, you're
essentially asking "what's the best tool for the job?" It is only with
this question that you can get the best result (something you're
expected/obliged to provide as a professional).

Only then will one acknowlege that text and hyperlinks are best served
as HTML, still graphics as JPEG and PNG, sound & motion as Flash and
styling as CSS. A screwdiver isn't the only tool in the box - use a
hammer if you need to hit a nail.

While you may be cutting out a percentage of your audience
(especially if you ignore accessibily), you provide a more "pleasing"
environment to those with "everything turned on".

Of course.

Don't assume however that users without Flash must miss anything more
than sound & motion (regardless as to whether there actually is anything
else).

This whole global media thing is a bit of a myth
- you cannot expect everyone to be able to view everything,

I can't say that I've heard of the "global media thing", and the only
authors I've come across that "expect everyone to be able to view
everything" are those still wet behind the ears.

and it IS NOT up to designers to make this happen either.

Certainly, but this is sidestepping/beside the issue somewhat.

Do cable providers make their content available to everyone who
doesn't subribe/have one of their boxes? No.

Questions don't translate well as analogies, since a different question
will often come with a different answer.

Cable providers /depend/ on subscriptions and so it's in their best
interest to prevent reception for those without. Certainly this would
apply if designing a subscription-based site but is otherwise irrelevant.


The bottom line is you cannot expect everyone to be able to view everything.

So what /can/ you expect? Logically, you can expect some people to be
able to view some things. With this in mind, it is up to the designer to
make the best of what the viewer sees.

TTFN,
--
Ben M.

SpaceGirl wrote:

Ben Measures wrote:
Ron Eggler wrote:

http://www.inetgate.ch/site/navigation.htm

Flash navigation should *always* have an HTML alternative.

Hmmm. I beg to differ. Flash has more application than just the web.

In the context of the OP, flash navigation should *always* have an HTML
alternative.

(And you know this, stop being difficult! :-) )

--
Ben M.

Ben Measures wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

However, we live in an increasingly rich-media world, and it begs the
questions "why not?". Why not ask for CSS? Why not ask for scripting or
flash?

Drifting OT here, and not actually entering into the meat of the discussion,
but SG should know that she is using 'begging the question' incorrectly
here. "Begging the question" is actually a term in informal logic meaning
arguing in a circle -- the conclusion being proved is already assumed by
one of the premises. It is also known as petitio principii.

SG is certainly not the only one doing this. I recently ran across the same
blunder in some Python docs.

A more correct substitute for her comments here might be "...suggests the
further question..."

It's easy to imagine how undergraduates who are already forgetting their
first course in logic might be susceptible to the mistake, spreading the
infection across the internet.
--
mbstevens http://www.mbstevens.com

tm wrote:

You still haven't fixed that glaring spelling error on your home page.

i? (Got it, thanks.)

Ben Measures wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

Ben Measures wrote:

Ron Eggler wrote:

http://www.inetgate.ch/site/navigation.htm


Flash navigation should *always* have an HTML alternative.


Hmmm. I beg to differ. Flash has more application than just the web.


In the context of the OP, flash navigation should *always* have an HTML
alternative.

(And you know this, stop being difficult! :-) )

ppppppp

Ben Measures wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:


However, we live in an increasingly rich-media world, and it begs the
questions "why not?". Why not ask for CSS? Why not ask for scripting
or flash?


If you ask "why not" then you should also be asking "why". Without a
balanced question you cannot have a balanced answer.

If you are able to provide a more enjoyable experience for some of your
users "why not" Perhaps even if it means some users wont be able to
see your content.

While it's nice to provide all content to everyone, it's becoming a less
realistic thing to try achieve every day. Rich Media doesn't scale back
very well.

Consequently, if you ask "why" and "why not" for everything, you're
essentially asking "what's the best tool for the job?" It is only with
this question that you can get the best result (something you're
expected/obliged to provide as a professional).

Yes, but the best tool for the job does not nessisarily mean the most
accessible, or the one installed on most people's machines. The
"Results" you're after may be as much "information" as more subtle
(hah!) things like brand.

Only then will one acknowlege that text and hyperlinks are best served
as HTML, still graphics as JPEG and PNG, sound & motion as Flash and
styling as CSS. A screwdiver isn't the only tool in the box - use a
hammer if you need to hit a nail.

This is simply not the case. Web based applications could be entirely
done in Flash (via Flex, for example). There is nothing wrong with that.
Right tool for the right job - HTML is just NOT the right tool for sites
like that, but the base technology is the same. Hyperlinks, interactive
content. But via Flash. There is also nothing to stop you doing motion
with DHTML. You can't box things up. Rich Media includes a wide range of
technologies - actually, it's less about the technology and more about
content and content design. "Pure" HTML has too many limits for todays
markets.

The bottom line is you cannot expect everyone to be able to view
everything.

So what /can/ you expect? Logically, you can expect some people to be
able to view some things. With this in mind, it is up to the designer to
make the best of what the viewer sees.

How about a "You must have Flash installed" message?

Don't take me too seriously, I'm just trying to make a point. I ALWAYS
provide alternatives for my users, but it's getting to the point where
SOME of the sites I'm involved in it is IMPOSSIBLE to provide
alternative content, as the content itself is rich media (interactive
video via the web etc).

SpaceGirl wrote:

Ben Measures wrote:
SpaceGirl wrote:

While it's nice to provide all content to everyone, it's becoming a less
realistic thing to try achieve every day.

As I wrote earlier, this isn't disputed - you cannot expect everyone to
be able to view everything. What you can expect however is some people
to be able to view some things.

Rich Media doesn't scale back very well.

"Why not?" ;-)

Rich media is simply media of many formats. If the user cannot view one
type of media why shouldn't the rest be viewable? Further, if the user
sees some of the many formats how does that not make it scaling?

Of course, the quality of scaling varies a great deal from site to site,
and from author to author, as does the quality of design. This simply
means that a conscious effort must be made to take advantage of
scalability, as with design. It's there - take advantage of it.

Consequently, if you ask "why" and "why not" for everything, you're
essentially asking "what's the best tool for the job?"

Yes, but the best tool for the job does not nessisarily mean the most
accessible, or the one installed on most people's machines.

Why shouldn't that be taken into account in deciding the best tool for
the job?

Judging by the rest of your post I think I should make clear that the
use of "job" here should be considered at the lowest level. It is not
something like "building a house" (since you probably shouldn't use one
tool) but "bending pipes" or "inserting nails".

The
"Results" you're after may be as much "information" as more subtle
(hah!) things like brand.

Granted results must be measurable to be achieved. Having said that,
branding can be measured by its effect, or impact on customers.
Similarly, much that is subtle can be observed by its often greater effect.

Only then will one acknowlege that text and hyperlinks are best served
as HTML, still graphics as JPEG and PNG, sound & motion as Flash and
styling as CSS.

This is simply not the case. Web based applications could be entirely
done in Flash (via Flex, for example). There is nothing wrong with that.
Right tool for the right job - HTML is just NOT the right tool for sites
like that, but the base technology is the same.

See above. Choosing one tool to build a house will often result in
something less than if tools were chosen for particular jobs.

In similar fashion, web developers must bring a toolbox, or their work
will suffer.

Hyperlinks, interactive content. But via Flash.

I would still argue that text and hyperlinks are best served as HTML. If
you further have sound and animation this would best be implemented in
Flash (and interactivity of sound and animation in ActionScript).

There is also nothing to stop you doing motion with DHTML.

This case is better considered if it is observed that DHTML is
Javascript, HTML and CSS combined. If the motion involves a change in
appearance of HTML elements, then DHTML is the best tool here.

The key is to observe the jobs at their most elemental.

You can't box things up. Rich Media includes a wide range of
technologies - actually, it's less about the technology and more about
content and content design. "Pure" HTML has too many limits for todays
markets.

Agreed and I too would argue against "pure HTML". One tool cannot fit
all jobs the best - many tools are needed for best results.

The bottom line is you cannot expect everyone to be able to view
everything.

So what /can/ you expect? Logically, you can expect some people to be
able to view some things. With this in mind, it is up to the designer
to make the best of what the viewer sees.

How about a "You must have Flash installed" message?

Surely they know this? Rather than tell a blind man he must have eyes to
see, I would suggest you try to provide a meaningful alternative. Of
course, it may be difficult to describe the glory of a Monet but you can
at least try.

Don't take me too seriously, I'm just trying to make a point.

Lol, I've not got the patience to take Usenet seriously anymore, so no
worries there. Tbh, if I wasn't so fond of you we wouldn't have got this
far ;-)

I ALWAYS
provide alternatives for my users, but it's getting to the point where
SOME of the sites I'm involved in it is IMPOSSIBLE to provide
alternative content, as the content itself is rich media (interactive
video via the web etc).

Hey, if there's no alternative then there really is no alternative - not
much you can do about that! Having said that, "no alternative" occurs
less than you might think. For example, a hyperlinked transcript could
well be a satisfactory alternative for an interactive video.


Thus far I think it has become apparent that we differ on surprisingly
little. Perhaps the only one I see is the advantage that can be taken of
the scalability of rich media - something I think is inherent,
particularly if many tools are used to build the rich media.

TTFN,
--
Ben M.