I'm designing a personal website for myself - a place to dump all my wares such as photos, audio and a blog.
I've got the design sorted out, but I really don't know whether to have it in Flash (which would look sleeker when loading and offer nifty transitions) or just do it in bog-standard HTML with segmented images from Photoshop.
Now, I've only ever used Flash a handful of times. I'm a complete novice, but I feel I must learn how to use it. A lot of websites nowadays use Flash one way or another.
What are your opinions of Flash generated websites? Do you prefer them to HTML? Do you hate sites that are completely Flash-based because you cannot copy/paste text or save images easily (you could with Print Screen, but that's time consuming and annoying).
So, HTML or Flash?
Flash or HTML?
Flash websites can look damn good, but are often annoying in both terms of time to load and how easy they are to use. In an ideal world, I'd suggest doing what the BBC has done for several of its programme mini-sites and offer a flash and non-flash version.
But I realise that's a lot of extra work.
But I realise that's a lot of extra work.
I'd be inclined to agree with Mark; HTML should make up your site, but you can use flash elements for certain parts - say, header and navigation. lots of people dislike flash only sites because the interface varies a lot between them, and because it inhibits browser navigation. and let's not forget, HTML is just easier!
-
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Sun 15 Feb, 2004 19.26
HTML. Flash is often used as a gimmick to hide shit-quality content,
-
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Sun 15 Feb, 2004 19.26
I knew you were going to mention that.StuartPlymouth wrote:You're a Flash person then obviously. I'm surprised they haven't sued you.James Martin wrote:HTML. Flash is often used as a gimmick to hide shit-quality content,
Mental.