> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 6:39 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: New Macromedia.com launched! - Give it a rest!
>
> > 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.
I'll agree that I misspoke - but I still feel that Flash didn't become
truly useful (or accessible) until ActionScript got into the picture.
And only just recently (the latest version) has it become truly
accessible.
When Flash was just a display technology there was very little to be
done. As ActionScript (and the ability to intelligently react to user
input) was added Flash became the application platform that it is (as
opposed to the prerendered animation platform it was).
Some of the issues just took time. For example a major problem with
Flash interfaces was that they always broke the standards for
experience manipulation: particularly the back button.
That was one of the things that they focused on with the Pet Market
application and the solution (which really works well) wasn't a new core
feature but rather a new way to model your Flash. Nothing that couldn't
have been done before.
> 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.
Often, perhaps. But he does and is often not given credit for it. I
agree with him that Flash is more often done badly than done well...
That doesn't mean that Flash is bad however and he's never said that.
> > 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.
You can have both, doubt - but that's not the question. Why can't you
have one? The two extremes are visual appeal with no usability and
usability with no visual appeal. We have LOTS of sites leaning towards
the former and Neilson and Tufte lean towards the latter.
Their sites are, by design, the extreme. At least in these cases they
know it's an extreme.
I do agree however that he needn't go THAT extreme - but the point
remains that the complaints levied are all visual. Changes would make
it prettier but not easier.
> > 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.
But that's my point: the studies show over and over that people are NOT
comfortable with the majority of flash applications out there. And
Neilson parrots your comments (this is from Nov 2002):
"The Internet is changing. Although people have primarily used it to
read email and Web pages, more functionality-oriented applications are
now emerging, with the goal of providing new features that do more for
users. Developers are creating many of these applications using
Macromedia Flash, because traditional Web pages are better suited to
what they were invented for -- reading articles -- than to the new goal
of manipulating data objects."
In fact I find very little that you and Neilson disagree on.
> 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.
And that's really the bottom line: Usability is a "soft" science. It's
nearly impossible to come up with any definitive statements or inviolate
rules. I respect the Neilson Norman group because they spent more
research time than anybody else. But it's always wrong to make
decisions based on a single source.
Cooper, Tufte, Krug and many, many others should be listened to as well
(hell, even Neilson and Norman don't always agree).
To ignore Neilson's research because you don't like what he's saying (or
because you don't like him... He is kind of an ass in person I'll
happily admit) is silly because his research really is sound and well
done. But to ONLY follow, dogmatically, whatever Neilson says - well,
that's even sillier.
Jim Davis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
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
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
