> > Some of what he says still holds true, but the guy
> > hasn't move forward at all. He only recently
> > grudgingly accepted that Flash was useful and
> > good in site design when applied appropriately!
>
> Because only recently has Flash risen itself to
> the challenge of usability. Before that there was
> NO usability/accessibility features in Flash
> whatsoever.
I would disagree with this. First, it's important to differentiate usability
from accessibility - they're certainly not the same thing. An interface that
doesn't meet accessibility requirements can still be very usable by the
differently-abled.
Second, Flash interfaces have always provided lots of usability, when done
right. They're not suitable for everything, but they allow you to provide
usability that you simply can't match in HTML/DHTML. Ever built a
drag-and-drop interface in DHTML? Yecch.
The problem that isn't really being stated here, is that there are times
when Flash is appropriate and other times when it isn't. Flash is very
suitable for applications, unlike HTML. HTML is very suitable for text
content, unlike Flash. In my opinion, Mr. Nielsen doesn't do a very good job
of differentiating between the two.
> In what ways? I know a lot of folks that say
> "it doesn't look good" but very rarely do they
> have any usability comments. And that's the point:
> it wasn't designed to look good but to work well.
> Look at www.edwardtufte.com for the same kind of
> thing (another genius).
Why can't you have both? Usability and aesthetics needn't be opposed, and
there are plenty of sites which do both well. Like it or not, Mr. Nielsen
should realize that someone looking at useit.com may draw a negative
impression, just because of the lack of attention to aesthetic issues. That
directly interferes with the purpose of his site - people may be less
willing to accept the ideas he's trying to sell.
> Until somebody else actually starts doing the research
> required to back up some of the statements implied here
> ("Flash is ready for prime time", "the state of the
> network has changed", etc) then don't shoot the messengers.
>
> Neilson (and Norman) don't just "make this stuff up" and
> sit in the past: they are actively and continuously
> researching the curent states of affairs. In general
> they offer some of the best information you'll find.
I don't really know how much research is necessary to demonstrate that Flash
is more suitable for application user interfaces than HTML is. I would argue
that ANYTHING is more suitable for application user interfaces. In my
opinion, HTML application interfaces were a giant step backwards in
usability from what they replaced - client-server applications - and they
succeeded despite being lousy interfaces because of the ease of application
distribution. I don't need Jakob to tell me that.
I find Alan Cooper to be a much better guide in this area, since he's only
interested in application interfaces, and doesn't muddy the waters between
applications and content.
> Don't get me wrong... I'm not Jakob's bitch ...
Now that's a keeper. Thanks for that mental image.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
