Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Just a little anecdotal evidence

Reply
Thread Tools

Just a little anecdotal evidence

 
 
Travis Newbury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-23-2008
Not to start another war, but....

My son has a small video production company in Atlanta that create
music videos, training videos and (to pay the bills) wedding videos.
His website was just like everyone else's. HTML, CSS, and a little
flash for the video portion. Accessible to most vidsitors.

I told him, let change the website to an all Flash website that
tightly integrates the site with the video. His customers loved it
(especially the wedding customers for some reason). The traffic
almost tripled in the course of a 2 months. His clients, who had
video hosted his site (mostly wedding videos) were all excited about
the new look and functionality of the site, they shared our link with
their friends who in turn also loved the look and feel of the site,
and many became new customers. Requests came in for both new video
work (mostly wedding and training), as well as requests for custom
Flash video players for their websites and myspace accounts (mostly
for wedding and music video clients).

Moral of the story? Changing to a full Flash based site with heavy
animation and video proved to be the ticket for getting new clients.
Why? Because that is what the customers wanted. In a site that
promotes video and more particularly Flash video on the web, the
people that wanted that stuff integrated tightly with their websites
wanted to see that functionality on his.

Now to even top this, I did the entire site in CS3 so a good portion
of the visitors to the site probably got the "you need to upgrade"
page when they arrived. There is no NON-Flash alternative. If you
don't have the newest Flash player the site is useless to you, and you
will probably take your business else ware.

I know this is anecdotal evidence, and could all be bullshit any way,
believe what you want, but there is a place on the web for all this
fancy crap. That is what some people are looking for and my son's
website seems to demonstrate that.

Your mileage may vary
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Harlan Messinger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-23-2008
Travis Newbury wrote:
> Not to start another war, but....
>
> My son has a small video production company in Atlanta that create
> music videos, training videos and (to pay the bills) wedding videos.
> His website was just like everyone else's. HTML, CSS, and a little
> flash for the video portion. Accessible to most vidsitors.
>
> I told him, let change the website to an all Flash website that
> tightly integrates the site with the video. His customers loved it
> (especially the wedding customers for some reason). The traffic
> almost tripled in the course of a 2 months. His clients, who had
> video hosted his site (mostly wedding videos) were all excited about
> the new look and functionality of the site, they shared our link with
> their friends who in turn also loved the look and feel of the site,
> and many became new customers. Requests came in for both new video
> work (mostly wedding and training), as well as requests for custom
> Flash video players for their websites and myspace accounts (mostly
> for wedding and music video clients).
>
> Moral of the story? Changing to a full Flash based site with heavy
> animation and video proved to be the ticket for getting new clients.
> Why? Because that is what the customers wanted. In a site that
> promotes video and more particularly Flash video on the web, the
> people that wanted that stuff integrated tightly with their websites
> wanted to see that functionality on his.


Makes perfectly good sense. It also doesn't tell us what would have
happened if your son's business instead was selling shirts.

> Now to even top this, I did the entire site in CS3 so a good portion
> of the visitors to the site probably got the "you need to upgrade"
> page when they arrived. There is no NON-Flash alternative. If you
> don't have the newest Flash player the site is useless to you, and you
> will probably take your business else ware.


You say that like it's a good thing. Why would you not want to go the
extra step?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Travis Newbury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-23-2008
On Jan 23, 9:07 am, Harlan Messinger
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Makes perfectly good sense. It also doesn't tell us what would have
> happened if your son's business instead was selling shirts.


Well actually I created an interactive T-shirt design application in
Flash for a t-shirt company that increased their online sales too
because it allowed their customers to visually design their shirts on
line and order them. Youth sports teams and (interestingly enough)
families ordering "reunion" t-shirts were the biggest increase seen.

But your point is completely valid. It worked for my son's site
because of what he was selling and the fact that his typical customer
was visually motivated. Doing the same thing for other sites may or
may not have the same results. MOST sites would probably have
negative results if they did the same thing. That's why we treat each
site as unique.

<mantra>
Know your client, and know their customers.
</mantra>

> > There is no NON-Flash alternative. If you
> > don't have the newest Flash player the site is useless to you, and you
> > will probably take your business else where.

> You say that like it's a good thing. Why would you not want to go the
> extra step?


It was useless extra work for an all Flash site. Everyone that uses
Flash is eventually going to have to upgrade (that is even stated on
his upgrade page). And generally people that enjoy Flash do not have
a problem upgrading to the new version. The clients he was aiming for
are the people that enjoy Flash. The cost/benefit was deemed to low
to create a non flash alternative (plus I had other things to do and
his site was a free-bee)



 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-23-2008
On 23 Jan, 13:46, Travis Newbury <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Not to start another war, but....


Yet again, you re-cycle the old fallacy that a website can't be
exciting _without_ Flash.

Maybe it can be with Flash, but that doesn't rule out making it
interesting by HTML & CSS means too.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Travis Newbury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-23-2008
On Jan 23, 10:27 am, Andy Dingley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Yet again, you re-cycle the old fallacy that a website can't be
> exciting _without_ Flash.


Damn, I missed where I said that...

> Maybe it can be with Flash, but that doesn't rule out making it
> interesting by HTML & CSS means too.


Nope it doesn't. And his old HTML/CSS/Flash site looked good, was
functional, and fun. But his new site is obviously more appealing to
his customers than the old one was... Go figure...

 
Reply With Quote
 
mrcakey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-23-2008
George W Bush wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Not to start another war, but....
>




.......

I think we all might be wasting a lot of keypresses and bandwidth on this
issue. Perhaps people have different agenda and we should just agree to
disagree.

My own two cents:

Letting the user's browser control so much of the layout is a nice goal -
user's font, user's screen size, maximum accessibility etc., but while it's
appropriate for some sites, people get paid an absolute fortune to work on
the aesthetics of a company's branding (aesthetics being distinct from
design). These people know what they're doing - there are combinations of
white space and visual elements that work and combinations that don't. It's
wrong to castigate these people for wanting a site laid out the way they
specify. The only way to ensure this is to use a rigid layout. If I have a
three column layout with divs floated left and right and the content in the
middle is relatively sparse, it's going to look absolutely abysmal in a
browser stretched out to 1400px plus isn't it?

+mrcakey


 
Reply With Quote
 
Harlan Messinger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-23-2008
mrcakey wrote:
>
> I think we all might be wasting a lot of keypresses and bandwidth on this
> issue. Perhaps people have different agenda and we should just agree to
> disagree.
>
> My own two cents:
>
> Letting the user's browser control so much of the layout is a nice goal -
> user's font, user's screen size, maximum accessibility etc., but while it's
> appropriate for some sites, people get paid an absolute fortune to work on
> the aesthetics of a company's branding (aesthetics being distinct from
> design). These people know what they're doing - there are combinations of
> white space and visual elements that work and combinations that don't. It's
> wrong to castigate these people for wanting a site laid out the way they
> specify.


People get paid an absolute fortune to work on the aesthetics of a
company's headquarters. These people know what they're doing - there are
combinations of texture and form that work and combinations that don't.
It's wrong to castigate these people for wanting a building to look the
way they specify--even if it can't be physically achieved using
real-world building materials, and even if it would result in a
structure that would be unsafe or unpleasant to occupy or inadequate for
the purpose for which it's intended or likely to deterioriate in a very
short period of time.

 
Reply With Quote
 
mrcakey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-23-2008
"Harlan Messinger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> mrcakey wrote:
>>
>> I think we all might be wasting a lot of keypresses and bandwidth on this
>> issue. Perhaps people have different agenda and we should just agree to
>> disagree.
>>
>> My own two cents:
>>
>> Letting the user's browser control so much of the layout is a nice goal -
>> user's font, user's screen size, maximum accessibility etc., but while
>> it's appropriate for some sites, people get paid an absolute fortune to
>> work on the aesthetics of a company's branding (aesthetics being distinct
>> from design). These people know what they're doing - there are
>> combinations of white space and visual elements that work and
>> combinations that don't. It's wrong to castigate these people for
>> wanting a site laid out the way they specify.

>
> People get paid an absolute fortune to work on the aesthetics of a
> company's headquarters. These people know what they're doing - there are
> combinations of texture and form that work and combinations that don't.
> It's wrong to castigate these people for wanting a building to look the
> way they specify--even if it can't be physically achieved using real-world
> building materials, and even if it would result in a structure that would
> be unsafe or unpleasant to occupy or inadequate for the purpose for which
> it's intended or likely to deterioriate in a very short period of time.


Really not the same thing is it?

+mrcakey


 
Reply With Quote
 
Harlan Messinger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-23-2008
mrcakey wrote:
> "Harlan Messinger" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> mrcakey wrote:
>>> I think we all might be wasting a lot of keypresses and bandwidth on this
>>> issue. Perhaps people have different agenda and we should just agree to
>>> disagree.
>>>
>>> My own two cents:
>>>
>>> Letting the user's browser control so much of the layout is a nice goal -
>>> user's font, user's screen size, maximum accessibility etc., but while
>>> it's appropriate for some sites, people get paid an absolute fortune to
>>> work on the aesthetics of a company's branding (aesthetics being distinct
>>> from design). These people know what they're doing - there are
>>> combinations of white space and visual elements that work and
>>> combinations that don't. It's wrong to castigate these people for
>>> wanting a site laid out the way they specify.

>> People get paid an absolute fortune to work on the aesthetics of a
>> company's headquarters. These people know what they're doing - there are
>> combinations of texture and form that work and combinations that don't.
>> It's wrong to castigate these people for wanting a building to look the
>> way they specify--even if it can't be physically achieved using real-world
>> building materials, and even if it would result in a structure that would
>> be unsafe or unpleasant to occupy or inadequate for the purpose for which
>> it's intended or likely to deterioriate in a very short period of time.

>
> Really not the same thing is it?


Why do people respond to analogies this way? Is the point of an analogy
beyond them? Or are they under the impression that an analogy isn't
really an analogy unless it's a useless one of the form "A is to B as A
is to B", as evidenced by their picking apart any difference they can
find between the items being compared, regardless of relevance to the
comparison? Yes, I understand that they aren't *exactly* the same, but
in ways *significant to the analogy*, they are the same: The designer is
NOT the all-consuming expert and authority, and in fact may be entirely
ignorant of extremely important considerations.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Travis Newbury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-23-2008
On Jan 23, 1:43 pm, Harlan Messinger
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > Really not the same thing is it?

> Why do people respond to analogies this way? Is the point of an analogy
> beyond them?


Well the analogy has to be relevant. I don't think it was really.

You were saying that people building buildings can't always follow the
design they want because of catastrophic issues that may result by
pushing the limits of the current technology. You were comparing that
to a fixed width site that may not work exaclty the same on a pda or
cell phone as it does in a browser on a computer. I do not believe
the two are comparable.

A fixed width site will work on everyone's system, including
cellphones and pdas, but it might not be as convenient. For example I
check my gmail or Fox News, or weather.com on my cell phone browser.
It is a ROYAL pain in the ass. But I can do it. If I have a computer
and my cell phone, then the computer wins every time.

Why do you think a website has to be equally functional on a cell
phone as on a computer browser to be successful. This has not been
proven true in real world usage.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1 little 2 little 3 little Kennedys dale Digital Photography 0 03-23-2008 01:03 PM
having a little problem with some code for a little game I am creating. ThaDoctor C++ 3 09-28-2007 03:28 PM
Evidence bug? Tod Johnson ASP .Net 0 01-20-2005 07:21 AM
little red X in little white box Puzzled Computer Support 8 12-13-2004 09:11 AM
Anecdotal reports on CD-R life for archiving data Phil Stripling Digital Photography 3 01-29-2004 07:47 PM



Advertisments