Enjay
ASK ME ABOUT FOOTBALL / STEAM / DEAD CELEBRITIES / THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT

Posts: 4813
Registered: 12-00 |
For me, the biggest problem with flash is still loading time. A "normal" site can be loaded and clickable in a very short space of time. On a slow connection, even if the whole page hasn't loaded, you may be able to start navigating a site that you already know as it loads. You don't need to see that gif file in the corner, or whatever, that you know is merely window dressing.
With flash, there will be a longer loading time, even on a decent connection, then you have to wait until the clickable bits appear (often after watching some dull animation) then when you do get to click to where you want to go, a second animation starts loading.
Seriously, if I arrive at a flash site, I am very likely to simply navigate away again almost immediately. If it's a site that I am more keen on visiting, I might wait. If loading is taking a long time, again, I will navigate away before it is done. Sometimes, if I really persevere, I will let the thing load and then sit through whatever comes next. If that is an unecessary animation, that's another potential navigate away point. Finally, if I eventually get to a point where I can then click something and it starts another loading cycle, it's good night Vienna and I'm outta there. I don't think that I have ever fully navigated a totally Flash driven site. Ever!
As for the YouTube comment... Yeah, fair point but also no. It's mainly not a flash site. What I mean by that is you can navigate around YouTube and not have to do it via Flash driven menus and so on. It's only when you decide to watch an actual video that you need the Flash component and, because that's the reason for visiting YouTube it is different. It's almost like going to a download site and navigating around it until you find the zip file that you want and then downloading it. The zip is the reason for being there, but not the way you use the site. Kind of. ;)
|