html vs. flash

[lunatic]

Hi all forum wanderers

I have tried to find an answer to this question but don't really know how to search.

I see a lot of comments bagging on websites that are created entirely in flash. I was wondering about the reasoning behind that. I mean, I know nothing about html, and I am learning flash (slowly, but surely). Why shouldn't I build a site entirely in flash? What is the problem with that? Why is it bad? Or maybe not "bad" but . . . not pc? Is it a space/size/loading issue? Is it the fact that one needs to download the flash player to view the site?

I'd appreciate hearing what others have to say about it!

:?)

[Laslett]

Flash is compiled html is a markup language.

HTML is open, you don't need a specialised editor to create HTML although things like dreamweaver may it easier. Flash on the other hand you really need a program that you can make your layout then compile.

So for Flash you need the source code to update a flash file with html the source code can be viewed by a browser.

The way Flash has gone it no longer is drag and drop as Dreamwever is to HTML. Flash now has an object orientate scripting language behind it

Flash due to its nature as an amiation tool provides greater user interactivity

I think I've captured most of the basics, I guess this may grow with more posts

[lunatic]

And that all makes wonderful sense but from the users point of view - who cares what program made the site? (with the exception of having to download the flash player). Do they need to see the source code? I guess I'm just trying to understand some of the animosity I read about all-flash sites.

What do others think? :D

[Marz]

Well... It all depends on what you want... Theoretically I can script you filters and animation in HTML and DHTML like Flash does.. It would be slightly harder but can be done... *shrugs*...

HTMl vs Flash.. It is tough to say... Form a users standpoint you'd see Flashpages as a cartoon or a highly dynamic looking page.. With cool animations thrown everywhere...
HTMl as a Data holder language to display a ****load amount of stuff for people to read... It just seems easier at the moment..
HTML is more useable though.. More people use

[sanman918]

in my opinion, it depends on who you want your user to be. Flash is very attractive but has trouble displaying the same amount of information as HTML. Flash always require the client to download flash X player which can prevent some users from viewing your site. Also if your not an expierence flash designer, you might build a site loaded entirely at once. This can cause problems for people with slower connections. Just learn how to upload things dynamically. As for the whole editing thing, first the user doesn't edit or have to see anything, its all up to the builder's preferences. Because in flash you can upload files dynamically through text files. That way all you have to do is edit the text files and save them and the site will update. I just made a site to do this: www.obsidian-hosting.com however I'm switching to Flash/HTML combiniation because I have high volumes of content to be displayed. But overall I think a flash site can be pretty sweet check out www.2advanced.com or www.pixelranger.com those give you some examples of the effects flash can add to your site.

[Laslett]

Flash tends to be more for the high impact stuff and Html for the information quantity.

Did they extend Macromedia contribute to Flash yet?

[lunatic]

Thanks everyone - I guess I have a better understanding now. Seems like flash is good for the eye candy and html good for the content, primarily text and links etc.

Sanman918 - that is a sweet looking site! I really dig the color and the button style and layout. If you don't mind me asking - what sort of things will be using html for?


:s:

[sanman918]

i'm going to be using HTML for the content display. Where all the information will go. I would have kept it all flash, but flash doesn't load text files dynamically with HTML imbedded very well. I should have the new one up tonight, got a new color sceme.

[muppet]

This is a good "discussion" as to the merits of HTML vs FLASH - http://www.netmag.co.uk/features/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=19301&subsectionid=511&subsubsectionid=219

[Laslett]

Originally posted by lunatic
Thanks everyone - I guess I have a better understanding now. Seems like flash is good for the eye candy and html good for the content, primarily text and links etc.

Sanman918 - that is a sweet looking site! I really dig the color and the button style and layout. If you don't mind me asking - what sort of things will be using html for?


:s:

Roxana & Kitiara are the eye candy

[lunatic]

;)







Muppet - great article, thanks.

[DDD]

hey I am eye candy too!!!.....j/k....nice article man/\.

[Ranoka]

Surely large, information driven sites are better suited to HTML.

And entertainment / leisure sites are better suited to Flash...

[DDD]

oh yeah another misconception is that HTML site suck and flash sites rock. The right tool in the right hand can always make somethin cool. But get a beginner and give him flash and you will more than likely have a monstrosity. My point? You have to know what tool for the job. An online magazine I would not have as a flash site. A video game company? I would have as a flash site. HTML sites can be very cool. ANd with DHTML and CSS you can have some advanced stuff going on.

[Laslett]

Originally posted by DDD
oh yeah another misconception is that HTML site suck and flash sites rock. The right tool in the right hand can always make somethin cool. But get a beginner and give him flash and you will more than likely have a monstrosity. My point? You have to know what tool for the job. An online magazine I would not have as a flash site. A video game company? I would have as a flash site. HTML sites can be very cool. ANd with DHTML and CSS you can have some advanced stuff going on.

Give someone HTML and you unlash a monster I've seen it happen it wasn't pretty, I was using rubber gloves for a month to clean up the mess