I did my first Flash MX nav system a few weeks back and it took about 12 hours (ouch). My second one (also from scratch) took about 6 hours, so my learning curve is getting shorter.
For a long time I have been put off by Flash MX's interface, but decided to delve into it because of market demand. It's a different way of thinking than using CFMX. I would hope / guess that Royale would make the whole process of using/integrating Flash a lot easier. Here's what really concerns me, though. We are all beginning to see the presence of flash popup marketing ads which take up a sizeable amount of screen real estate and block the content you came to the site for (you know the ones -- with exceedingly small [close] buttons). With JS popups, a market quickly grew for popup stoppers which kills not only the annoying popups, but also some legitimate popups used for data presentation. These JS popup stoppers are now installed at some large ISP's. I now am seeing software that will allow an end user to turn off Flash in the browser (they don't just turn off the popup, but all Flash). So, over time, more and more apps built in Flash will be crippled or rendered useless by "flash stoppers". As I have found with popup stoppers, end users complain about not being able to see legitimate data viewed in a popup window. It's always resolved by having the end user disable the popup stopper. Do a search at google for "Flash popup stoppers" This is yet another example of marketers ruining it for everyone. -- Thanks, Mark -----Original Message----- From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:11 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Is Flash really THAT good? There have been numerous scientific studies and papers on web site navigation and user experience, which suggest the user does expect a certain standard navigation. Vertical-Left, and Horizontal-Upper-Right are where most users expect the nav to be. I can't recall a "look" study offhand but it probably exists out there. Search on Google. boxesandarrows.com is a good place to look as well. -- jon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, June 20, 2003, 2:01:47 PM, you wrote: AWL> Blue, underlined text is hardly navigation. That's just a common AWL> identifier for a link, which in HTML is an action, not necessarily AWL> navigation. A link can do a number of things like execute a AWL> javascript function or dhtml. AWL> Google, since you mention how standard it is, does not use this for AWL> it's core navigation. Web, Images, Groups, Directory, and News (The AWL> four categories of google) are represented with blue text in a box. AWL> If selected the box is blue, if not it's gray. This is hardly a AWL> standard, but none the less is effective because users are familiar AWL> with tabular menus. AWL> Users however familiar with blue underline text (the majority of AWL> site on the internet apply different colors, so I'd say the AWL> universal sign of a link is just the underline), are also familiar AWL> with a drop down window. They are familiar with side bar menus and AWL> horizontal tabs. AWL> Every site, whether flash or html, navigate completely different. AWL> From how the menu is displayed, to how it's organized. This is what AWL> I mean by no such thing a standard navigation. AWL> However, I think the closest thing you could call standard AWL> navigation is underlined test links centered at the bottom of a AWL> page. It's an extremely common practice, but not very effective. AWL> Could you imagine having to scroll to the bottom of each page to AWL> navigate a site? AWL> Adam Wayne Lehman AWL> Web Systems Developer AWL> Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health AWL> Distance Education Division AWL> -----Original Message----- AWL> From: Lofback, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AWL> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:36 PM AWL> To: CF-Talk AWL> Subject: RE: Is Flash really THAT good? >> As for non-standard navigation, what make flash navigation >> non-standard >> in compared to HTML. What is standard navigation anyhow? Standard >> navigation doesn't exist. It's just a concept. AWL> I don't agree. Blue, underlined text is nearly universally AWL> understood as a clickable link, and the vast majority of users AWL> recognize a standard HTML button widget. These are instantly AWL> recognizable and usable. I'd argue that for all practical purposes AWL> this is as close to a standard as you can get. AWL> Using different link styles, custom buttons and clickable "hot AWL> spots" is nonstandard, and forces the user to learn how to use the AWL> app. Make the widgets different enough, and users just won't do AWL> it. Unless the site is the only place to get what they want, they AWL> will go find another site that is easier to use. And this is AWL> especially true of the non-techie "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"s who makes up a AWL> large portion of the user/customer pool. AWL> So why put a user through it? They want fast and easy to use. AWL> What's wrong with giving them what they want? And a simple way to AWL> do that is to stick as closely as possible to design "standards". AWL> I love the ease of use at Google and am thankful that they don't AWL> force me to endure their idea of an "experience" to get what I AWL> want. They use standard navigation links and buttons and my user AWL> experience is great. AWL> Chris AWL> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
