Mac Forums

Mac Forums (http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/)
-   Web Design and Hosting (http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/web-design-hosting/)
-   -   Sorry !!!! (http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/web-design-hosting/18057-sorry.html)

daveo 05-03-2005 08:41 AM

Sorry !!!!
 
hey i no you prob have had this question asked before BUT
ive produced webpages before using microsoft front page on a PC.. but what is a good program for a mac??
i want to incroperate some of my flash mx stuff aswell
thankyou foryour time!

meltbanana314 05-03-2005 10:18 AM

http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/..._dev_dw_082403

http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/..._dev_fl_082403

However, (I'll probably get negative points for saying this) you really should learn how to construct webpages yourself using XHTML, CSS, et. al instead of relying on an expensive piece of software to do it for you. Also, Flash is really annoying on webpages since it takes forever to load. I wouldn't recommend using it for anything.

design2 05-05-2005 04:38 AM

wtf? u dont like flash?
u saying its not useful at all?
if ur clever u can integrate flash into a html page,
in like navigation or something to add professionalism and still compress it so it does not take long to load. the only times flash is not used well is site intros that go over the top.

i would also suggest macromedia contribute or NVU (free) as a basic editing program if u dont want to learn code, if u are keen to learn try BBEdit or Dreamweaver for mac.

good luck.

meltbanana314 05-08-2005 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by design2
wtf? u dont like flash?
u saying its not useful at all?
if ur clever u can integrate flash into a html page,
in like navigation or something to add professionalism and still compress it so it does not take long to load. the only times flash is not used well is site intros that go over the top.

Flash tempts designers to prioritize using it over making an easy-to-use and useful website. In the hands of 95% of designers, Flash is used to create websites that would have been better made as XHTML and CSS, which if done right can be just as beautiful, more functional, and definitely faster.

Plus XHTML and CSS are bonafide standards on which you can judge websites on. Any idiot with $500 and a spare afternoon can create a bad Flash site and get a few thousand hits.

design2 05-08-2005 07:49 AM

i also agree some sites should have been made in xhtml/css and would have been faster
but flash gives internet sites another dimension of motion which adds professionalism and dynamics to websites. you shouldnt dismiss flash b'cos u prefer static xhtml sites, unfortunately or fortunately they are the future at the moment and more and more people are requesting flash built websites. so as a designer u have to follow the industry path, learning and adapting to provide for all types of clients and requests.

embries 05-08-2005 02:28 PM

I HATE flash websites. If I visit a company's website and they don't have a html/xml version, I generally quit going there. Why do I dislike flash sites?

1. They're harder to navigate and impossible to indexsearch.

2. Waste bandwidth downloading stupid animated crap when it would've been faster to just give me a link.

3. Fixed width sites. Many flash designers use fixed width sites, this means they fix the width to a resoloution lower than mine and I'm forced to browse their site in half my screen or less.

4. Hover menus. I hate hover menus. I don't want to hold my mouse over your menu to find what I'm looking for. Give me a standard sitemap or something that doesn't make me waste forever finding the info.

5. Nonstandard forums/input forms etc. Because you've gone with a flash site, either you're not using a standard forum software (like vB etc) or you've had to open a different window for the forum, which breaks the continuity of your site. It's a concession that shows that the designer sees that flash is not the most efficient way to provide information or encourage interactivity.

6. Open Source. Flash is not an open source development environment. Keeping the internet open source is what keeps the costs of ownership of websites to a minimum. By trending towards non-opensource software it'll be everyone that pays for it in the end.

7. I really don't want to install macromedia software on my computers. By using a flash site you require me to install that software. I think that's highly irresponsible of any site designer to require something beyond a web browser to view the site.

8. Portables. Phones, PalmOS Devices, etc. No flash for those guys, even if they could do flash, again, I don't want the flash slowing down this device. And the impact of having to load a plug-in or other on a portable device is fairly severe. Companies who don't realize that more and more people are going to handheld web devices are shooting themselves in the foot by making flash-only sites.

In short. I HATE flash.

rs2sensen 05-08-2005 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by embries
I HATE flash websites.
8. Portables. Phones, PalmOS Devices, etc. No flash for those guys, even if they could do flash, again, I don't want the flash slowing down this device. And the impact of having to load a plug-in or other on a portable device is fairly severe. Companies who don't realize that more and more people are going to handheld web devices are shooting themselves in the foot by making flash-only sites.

In short. I HATE flash.


I agree with everything, except #8 partially. I know PocketPCs have a flash version available.

design2 05-09-2005 08:31 AM

i understand your reasoning. however dont u believe that flash sites can bring much more interactivity with users? instead of having a standard site with text like a book or broshure a flash site can make you think, (maybe in the navigation), this brings greater communication between the company/product site and consumer/user.

in regard to having a xhtml alternative i believe most pro's do have this option.
as for the flash software being on your computer...you could say the same for sites that require shockwave, quicktime and windows media player.

i find the biggest problem designing websites is all the browsers/os systems
display css differently however in comparison flash is viewed the same no matter what as long as the standard flash player is installed which is very common.

design2 05-09-2005 08:33 AM

by the way i work for macromedia......

design2 05-09-2005 08:34 AM

........
.......
......
......
....
.
.
.
just kidding

rs2sensen 05-09-2005 04:37 PM

As for software, the new CS2 version of Adobe Golive blows Dreamweaver and the old GoLive out of the water, I suggest to all web designers to download the 30 day trial and try it out

sarahsboy18 05-10-2005 02:50 AM

I'll have to try CS2 Golive.... Cause the older versions of GL were terrible... I have always stuck with DW... which runs really bad on Mac compared to PC... (I know I'm playing with fire making a statement like that here *Grins*)

rs2sensen 05-10-2005 04:24 PM

Hmmm, I have found Dreamweaver runs perfectly on my Powerbook. It also runs perfectly on my pc. I really can't see a performance difference between them. It's the interface/features that I don't like. I hated GoLive CS, but CS2 is an amazing version. Once again, it blows the other programs away.

spong 05-18-2005 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by design2
i also agree some sites should have been made in xhtml/css and would have been faster
but flash gives internet sites another dimension of motion which adds professionalism and dynamics to websites. you shouldnt dismiss flash b'cos u prefer static xhtml sites, unfortunately or fortunately they are the future at the moment and more and more people are requesting flash built websites. so as a designer u have to follow the industry path, learning and adapting to provide for all types of clients and requests.

Hmm.

I don't see that. Flash seems to be less popular now than it was 3 or 4 years ago, probably for exactly the reasons listed. It only seems to be used for gags or adverts.

I suspect part of the problem may be that it is too good - the 'creative' possibilites with flash are way beyond those of simple HTML, but what you end up with is a 1680kb flash page doing functionally the same as a 7k HTML page, albeit with some spiffy things going on.

But for me, that novelty wore off a long time ago. I never wait for Flash sites to load. If there's no skip intro button, I go elsewhere.

Nothing personal, but it just removes the advantage of client side processing for me.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.