RE: Talking about Bandwidth-Some People Are Missing The REAL ISSUE

[Wayne Townsend]

Good Points, but...


Some would consider it our mission as designers to *lead* the audience, and

the clients as well.


That means taking a stand, and introducing them to new technology that will

highten their experience, even if it means a little arm twisting.


Key:

The challenge for designers is to create enough of an interest in the

website in other channels so that the audience will make the small effort

in order to see it.  After all, we're only talking about a download the

size of a couple of large graphics here.  The payoff for doing so is the

best there is on the web.


If they want to see the good stuff - and I believe they do - then they have

to make the small trip.  Fortunately enough people do.  Let's not forget

that you are doing the audience a favor by enticing them to be

Flash-enabled.


Clearly we have passed the milestone where Flash has become well known and

accepted by the audience.  We can point to the big names like Disney,

United Media, etc., etc., for helping make Flash a standard.  If it's a

good idea for them, then it's a good idea for your client.


When you think about what's best for *you* as a web designer, there are

only so many projects you can work on. You build your image and reputation

(=income) by what you do.  So why not work exclusively in the high-end, and

let the clients who don't get it move-on to the average webpage writer.

The clients who *do* get it pay better anyway.  This is how you create a

really valuable portfolio.


Clients can be like small children sometimes; they want and need to be led.

Take a stand and insist and convince them to let you develop the site the

way you think is best.  That judgement is  what they're really paying you

for, and they'll thank you for it later.


>For most clients we use current site logs to determine the type of browsers

>they are using to justify or not justify to the client the degree of bells

>and whistles to be included in the site.


Then you're covered, because Flash works on most browsers in use, going

back quite a way.  Downloading it is a non-issue, or you could at least

take that position.  Set it up to play under Java if you can't convince

your client that it's not such a big deal.  Remember, as a designer, it

souldn't be so important to you that the site satisfies *every* surfer out

there in web-land.  What should be most important is that whatever feedback

the client gets is overwhelmingly positive and excited.  That will make him

happier than a few more *hits*, which is IMHO, a meaningless rating of the

value of a website.


>First and foremost must be the content and the company's message.


Some would argue that the company's overall *image* is foremost.  Clients

will judge their site (and you) primarily by the input they get when their

friends see it.  Doing it in Flash can make the difference between the

client hearing "Nice website"...  or "Man! Kick-ass website!  It loaded so

fast!  How did you do that?  Who's your web development company?"


>The clients audience must be served before the glitz can be added.


Clearly, the audience gets bored quickly.  You have to keep up with new

technique or the site will be forgotten in a short time.  That's why this

is a never-ending job.  ;)


>We have one client which wanted Flash, but also wanted visitors without

>Flash to be able to see all the content without them having to install

>Flash, so we built an entrance with a path to a Flash site and a non-Flash

>site.


That's a workable technique.  But the Flash version should come first.

It's always best for the client to invest his money first in the latest

technology - for staying power.  Then comes the plain html version, and

then maybe a text-only version, if you still want to support the last 3% of

the audience.


>Most of our clients are getting more knowledgable and when you

>propose something new to them the insist, (I would too) I knowing how many

>of the visitors can see these new innovations with no effort on the

>visitors part.


When this happens, instead of dwelling on it (there is no possible positive

response you can give), let your client know that you are building

worldwide company image, not a freeway for every old car to travel on.  A

plain Jane site will make the company look plain Jane, and it sure won't

make you look any better, or add to your portfolio.


If the audience can't form an excellent impression of the company

(advanced), then it's best that they form *none at all*.  Let's face it;

well done Flash websites make html websites look lame and slow.  What's

going to happen when your client sees a really good one, then forgets about

the download issue, and thinks "Why didn't you do something this good for

me?".


Points to make:

* Flash is probably the most popular browser-enhancing download in history,

with something like 40 million.

* It's distributed all over the place and on system CDs.

* It'll run under Java if they don't have the plug-n.

* The big boys are using it.

* Some of the audience may consider the site boring and slow if you don't

use it.

...just a few...


Good post George.  HTH.


/wayne


Wayne Townsend

WebStaffing.Net

Dallas, Texas

US-  972.713.8705

wayneTTopher [dot] Net (mailto:wayneTTopher [dot] Net)

wayneWebStaffing [dot] Net (mailto:wayneWebStaffing [dot] Net)

gscOnRamp [dot] Net

 <-- old




------------------------------------------------------------------------

To UNSUBSCRIBE send: unsubscribe flasher in the body of an

email to

list-managershocker [dot] com

.  Problems to:

ownershocker [dot] com

N.B. Email address must be the same as the one you used to subscribe.

For info on digest mode send: info flasher to

list-managershocker [dot] com