Flash only intro pages

[Blue Mountain]

Re: www.canadianmuseumforhumanrights.org

What is it with webmasters who make the introduction to their web pages flash only, without even an HTML link to take you to the main content?

I browse the web with Flash turned off; more accurately, I use the "Flash Click to Play" extension in the Mozilla Firefox browser. In my experience, 95% of Flash content is used to push adertising into my face, which I find annoying at best. 4% of Flash content is used for "eye candy": it looks neat, but in no way enhances the useablilty or navigability of a site. 1% is actually useful, providing content that either cannot be done using traditional HTML or animated GIFs, or could be done but at the expense of extreme complexity on the part of the HTML coding.

A site's home page should be coded to existing web standards, and I don't consider Flash to be a standard. The standard language for the web is HTML, as codified by the W3C and made freely and openly available for anyone to implement. This standard is implemented in whole or in part by every browser currently on the market.

Flash, on the other hand, is a proprietary product of Macromedia Corporation, now owned by Adobe. Remember them? They're the people who had a Russian programmer thrown in jail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov) when he embarrassed them over their inept attempt at copy protection.

Flash's internal workings are hidden from public view by a corporation that has its owners' and shareholders' interests at heart ahead of the public that wishes to use the Internet and the World Wide Web as a communications tool.

The World Wide Web got to where it is today because the standards on which it operates -- TCP/IP, HTTP, HTML, and CSS -- are open and their implementations are unobstructed by the machinations of corporations. A webmaster's decision to use Flash as the only way of getting into a site's is an affront to the free and open web and to the people who would use it to communicate.

[/RANT]

[DoubtingStephen]

I don't have a lot to say about people that design sites that blast an annoying Flash animation at unsuspecting visitors the instant they arrive whether they want it or not.

Just the old standard "Surely their blood shall be upon them."

[kevin]

their are only 2 things worse than web sites with a flash intro:
1) websites done totally in a single flash application
2) websites with sound

[Rat]

There are so many issues that make Flash a Bad Thing in 99% of cases.

Take accessibility. It's the law in a lot of places that certain websites (notably government ones) have to be accessible to all. I'd like to see (as it were) how the website quoted in the OP performs in a screen reader for the blind. Even the text that isn't in Flash is rendered as images.

How is a search engine meant to index content when none of the text is readable?

The whole site could have easily been done in html + css and been much more readable and accessible in the process. To have done it in Flash means either that they are lazy, and like a nice wysiwyg tool to drop images around, or that they honestly think that looks better.

I believe a lot of it comes down to the fact that sites are designed by people who are primarily designers and not web designers, and won't entertain the concept that the skills in designing for paper and those for designing for the web are simply different entirely. Certainly this is the case with our company website, and no amount of reasoning can change that. It has to look just so, and Flash is a way of enforcing that. Except it isn't, because of course many people have Flash turned off. If that's the way they want to present it, and don't want users to be able to alter it (static text sizes are another bugbear), they should print a paper brochure and accept that they aren't ready for the web yet.

Rather than adapting their skills for the web, they want to adapt the web to fit their skills.

Cheers,
Rat.

[Hawk one]

Rat: And of course the 1% where Flash -may- be justified is always within the entertainment category anyway (i.e. places like Homestar Runner). A museum web page... I don't know, it'd be like if the JREF's front page was all in Flash.

ETA: WHen I put in my vote, I've pretty much excluded this 1%, as I assume that is wasn't those kind of pages the OP meant.

[tkingdoll]

Apart from anything, it's plain rude. You should not expect anyone to have to download a plugin simply to view your site.

I expect to see it sometimes on entertainment sites, but when it's a corporate site, it simply staggers me. Why would you shut out even one potential customer?

It's a vanity, and bad netiquette.

[Anti_Hypeman]

People who use flash intros are the same ones that think disabiling right click with java script will keep people from copying their images.

[Johnny Pixels]

I hate intros to websites full stop. What's the point in having an intro page I have to click on to get to the part I'm interested in?

I don't mind flash as it can make some good websites, but it can also be a pain backtracking to a page you've alredy visited, as there's no history. Especially if all the links you click on have to falsh and make some noise and have a fancy animation to take you to that section. It just slows everything down.

[Blue Mountain]

ETA: When I put in my vote, I've pretty much excluded this 1%, as I assume that is wasn't those kind of pages the OP meant.
You're correct: homestarrunner.com is a unique site for which Flash is well suited. But for a site like the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, it makes no sense whatsoever to use as much Flash as they did. For sure it makes the site look cool, but I'm more interested in static content, not something that looks like a TV commercial.

Not to mention the fact you can't get to the rest of the site unless you have Flash installed and running. That's rude and insane (reminds me of the of the CTs posting in the Loose Change thread.)

[juryjone]

Couldn't vote. I don't have Flashblock, don't hate Flash, and I have it installed.

Doesn't mean I like those irritating intros, however.

[tkingdoll]

I also didn't vote, mainly because the options are not representative. For example, Flash intros are not "designed by marketing people". I am a marketing person, and I have such a good understanding of markets (hey, what a shocker!) that I realise Flash intros are exclusive rather than inclusive. Accessibility is as important as style.

In my experience, style-over-content websites are more likely to be from "web wizards" trying to show off or do something different.

And, I consider them 'very annoying' but not because I hate Flash. In fact, I love it and am proficient in it (I create cartoons), so that option was no good either.

And there was no Planet X option :P

[Blue Mountain]

I also didn't vote, mainly because the options are not representative.
And there was no Planet X option :P

Correct on both points; given the rant I posted, the poll is rather biased (note there are only two positive options and four negative ones.) Unfortunately, I don't think I can alter the poll.

Aside from the Planet X option, what option(s) should have been included? Remember, this poll is about web pages that have no HTML links on their intro page to take you to the main content -- only Flash. I have seen the odd site with a Flash intro and an HTML link for people who don't have Flash or are blocking it.

Future responders, if you can't vote, please let me know what option should have been there for you to select. Thanks!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

X) Discriminatory against people with text-online browsers, braille browsers, and text-to-audio browsers. To do it right, it should be like: http://www.hawking.org.uk/

[BlackCat]

I already voted, I just picked the closest option. But the option I really wanted was Very Annoying because it requires an extra click to skip, doesn't add to my experience, and doesn't show me anything interesting anyway. Also, I used to have a dial-up connection, and I really hated it when there was no skip button until the whole animation had loaded.

I guess by that logic, you could say I hate splash pages too. (I think that's what they're called.)

BlackCat

[Almo]

I'm indifferent. Poll needed that.

[kevin]

X) Discriminatory against people with text-online browsers, braille browsers, and text-to-audio browsers. To do it right, it should be like: http://www.hawking.org.uk/

actually I don't like the way that is done. Proper use of CSS and XHTML should allow you to create a site that is perfectly accessible by various browsers without the need for coding two sites.

[tkingdoll]

actually I don't like the way that is done. Proper use of CSS and XHTML should allow you to create a site that is perfectly accessible by various browsers without the need for coding two sites.

But then you wouldn't get to have the two-link page and score points.

That method is not visible enough, methinks.

[Wowbagger]

I voted "Very Annoying". But, I don't hate Flash. It has its legitimate uses.
But, sites that rely on Flash are still annoying: most just suck. And, they render the site less accessible.

[Meffy]

Another Very Annoying. I don't hate Flash entirely, just its inappropriate use -- particularly websites that depend on Flash to be usable. That kind of design is a slap in the face of potential site users IMO.

[Yelper]

Very annoying. Primarily because flash has a tendancy (on my computer at least) to bring everything else to a grinding halt.

Generally, if I come across a sight that uses flash (for just about anything), I'll close that tab, return to google and find a similar website / company that doesn't.

I did once get one site to stop using flash. Sent the webmaster a nice email, saying that flash didn't work for me, there were accessibility problems etc. Got an email back thanking me and that they'd been trying to remove flash for ages, but their manager wouldn't let them. A week later, another email saying the site was now flash free :)

[tkingdoll]

Very annoying. Primarily because flash has a tendancy (on my computer at least) to bring everything else to a grinding halt.

Generally, if I come across a sight that uses flash (for just about anything), I'll close that tab, return to google and find a similar website / company that doesn't.

I did once get one site to stop using flash. Sent the webmaster a nice email, saying that flash didn't work for me, there were accessibility problems etc. Got an email back thanking me and that they'd been trying to remove flash for ages, but their manager wouldn't let them. A week later, another email saying the site was now flash free :)
I had a similar experience a few years ago, I was working for a company with very rigid internet security, and no downloads were allowed at all. Hence, no Flash plugin installed on my machine.

I went to a company's website, only to find the entire site was Flash only AND they had a holding page which gave me ZERO information about them, just a snazzy logo and a click-here-to-enter (you will need Flash to view this site) prompt.

So, I was furious. I couldn't call or email the company as they hadn't provided any contact details on their index page. I send an email to webmaster@whateverthedomainwas.com in the hope it would reach them, telling them exactly how annoyed I was and how much potential business they had lost. I also included some stats on the numbers of business users who were restricted by security systems and therefore couldn't have plugins (for example local authorities, etc).

The really terrible thing? It was a web design company! :jaw-dropp

I got an apologetic email and a promise to create an HTML-only site but I never went back to check, and they certainly didn't get the £80,000 contract I had to offer.

[tsg]

Flash = webmasterbation

[Woody-]

I cant stand flash, its so overused in situations where its not needed. I almost always have it turned off, only turning it on if its apparent that I wont get anywhere on a page without it.