Re: Flash in the pan

From: Scott Knowles <sknowle1_at_erols.com>
Date: Wed 10 May 2000 22:19:14 -0500

KEITH GILLESPIE WROTE:
> I disagree completely with what Scott says here, given
> its context of Flash/Shockwave being what livens up the
> Web for the general population (gamers of course pretty
> much live for these technologies).
>
> First, "stodgy" and "corporate" have never been in, so
> I sort of have a problem with the basic premise that
> they're now out.

Sure, no corporation wants to call themselves "stodgy"
or "corporate" but you'd have to agree that while some
say they are hip and with it that they are really old
sticks in the mud. No one _wants_ to be corporate, but
if I had a dime for every corporate brochureware sites
that are out there, I could throw away my 10 Big Game
tickets. (and I'm going to win, I promise)

> Second, Flash can be as stodgy and corporate as a JPEG,
> a GIF, or, heck--even a noun, verb or hackneyed phrase.
>
> That's because all these visual and verbal devices are
> merely what human beings use to express ideas. Stodgy,
> corporate idea = stodgy, corporate expression of that
> idea, whatever technology you use to express it.

True. But I think excluding certain
technologies/communications (whether flash, jpeg or
Java) because they are too "flashy" (no pun intended, I
swear) and not basic enough (i.e. plain) is a poor
argument - not that you're making that argument. If
it's what your audience wants to see and it helps their
experience on a site, go for it. The whole idea is to
be more human - converse, not talk _to_ your markets,
but with.

> I'm in the camp that a whirling, spinning,
> soundtrack-backed appearance of a logo is stodgy,
> corporate and clueless. Why? Because it says, "Hey! Our
> time's more important than yours! Our logo is the most
> important thing we could be showing you right now!
> We've got the time and money to develop something that
> says nothing that couldn't be said much faster another
> way!"
>
> Imagine meeting someone in a social or business
> situation, and the first thing he did was tap dance,
> make wide-eyed facial expressions and flailing arm
> gestures, rip open his shirt, revealing a t-shirt
> underneath with his name on it, and shout "Huzzahh!
> It's me!" Then get back to me on Flash-logo welcome
> pages.

I'd hire that fool in a second! Seriously, the last
thing any smart corporation would want to do is come
off egotistical - but I'm not sure how out that is.
And I agree, no one wants to see a dancing logo that
will take 5 minutes for the user to get to the content
they are seeking. But if the flash communicates
information the user is seeking, then it's well worth
using it.

> Now, go to
> http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/reactiontime.html.
> Do you _really_ know what it's like to try to hit a
> 90-mile-per-hour fastball? You can't really experience
> it watching TV, reading about it, or any other way
> short of standing at the plate in front of Randy
> Johnson. But you _can_ experience the reaction time
> required online, thanks to Shockwave--and an excellent
> use of technology to bring an idea...showing how
> quickly you need to react to hit a pro fastball

Couldn't find the site, but if I get what you're saying,
I agree. Using technology to convey information the user
is seeking.

> Useful content...the simplest technology to
> deliver the content meaningfully. That's what is "in"
> on the Web, and always has been.
>
> Your average human being on the Web could give a spit
> about technology. If all they cared about was motion,
> they'd be watching TV, which expresses motion much
> better.

Right on.

Scott K.




Received on Wed May 10 2000 - 22:19:14 CDT