Flash or bog standard HTML

[Damien]

Personally, I prefer HTML becuase it's quicker, faster and dirtier.

I notice alot of website hostings, like MS, are bloat with all their Flash and pretty heavy images...

Do you prefer plain, well thought out Table/DIV layouts without the overlayed images or flash... or are you one of these that like the eye candy?

[Matthew]

I like website hostings to look pretty but I wouldn’t say I am excessive. Flash I am not fond of though. If I want bits to chance when hovered on I normally use JAVA and DHTML.

ATB M

[dodgerz]

Im a big no no in terms of using excessive flash on website hostings. I dont think flash orientated website hostings are good for actual useability, maybe for a selling point of view then yeah ...

Nick

[dukedave.com]

IMHO if it doesn't W3C validate then it shouldn't be on the web.

Flash / Shockwave etc. simply promote bad desgin; usually a result of lazy designers.

Just look at Google Mail or Maps.
A little bit of XHTML and AJAX and you have cross browser heaven!

[Richard]

If you wish to use Flash as an art form that's fine, but for normal web website hostings it's a big no-no. I have a dial-up connection and I'm not prepared to wait around while half a megabyte or more of swf downloads.

There was one firm I wanted to use who's website hosting was entirely constructed in flash. Even after downloading it I couldn't display anything (although I do have a flash plugin). That company is no longer trading.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Damien

Personally, I prefer HTML becuase it's quicker, faster and dirtier.

I actually prefer hand-crafted html because it's faster and cleaner! You don't get all the clag that's generated by wysiwyg html editors.

My main objective is to make sure that the website hosting is readable and navigable on all browsers and on all platforms. That includes special browsers for the visually and physically impaired.

See www. anybrowser.org/campaign

I also want to make the pages quick to download over slow lines so I use graphics judiciously and give fair warning of large images.

[Code]

Yeah, I agree with most of what's been said.

Of course, Flash can be nice to look at but with current download / computer speeds it still slows down things too much and usually flash heavy website hostings aren't as easy to navigate.

My girlfriend is a graphic designer and is all about it though...

[Eskew]

Originally Posted by Richard

If you wish to use Flash as an art form that's fine, but for normal web website hostings it's a big no-no. I have a dial-up connection and I'm not prepared to wait around while half a megabyte or more of swf downloads.

There was one firm I wanted to use who's website hosting was entirely constructed in flash. Even after downloading it I couldn't display anything (although I do have a flash plugin). That company is no longer trading.

You need to get into the future, Surfing with cable makes your internet experience alot more exciting than waiting for each page.

[Richard]

I agree with you, although there's a big cost difference as I'm on a BT light user tarriff at the moment. Also I still haven't got around to networking my Mac and RiscPC.

However even if I go broadband it doesn't mean that all other visitors to my web website hostings will be on broadband or cable.

I might well have been on cable but I got messed around by Cable Corp when I moved in so I told them what to do with their cable!

[Eskew]

Ooh I agree with you. I hate how some community website hostings (Powered by PHPNuke) take like 2 minutes to load and thats on broadband.

Very fustrating at times.

I also couldn't be bothered networking my house, so I just paid that extra money to get someone to do that for me. Alot easier, and no screw ups

[paul]

IMO a static HTML base version of the flash website hosting with well written content would be better choice. However CSS2 might be considered also a good approach. Most of the flash I see are just overloaded and losing its uniqueness and depth.