Flasher Archive

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject:	*Re: FLASH: OT: Kid Rock's strictly Flash4-only* site**
From:	Randy Kato
Date:	Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:32:06 +0100

As a developer I'm always inclined to 'push' a good solid new technology, and
with Flash's widespread base of installed plugins it gives us more power to do
just that. But JGL's point is exactly right, it depends on the project. For
example, if your site is offering products/services to corporate customers,
Flash only is a bad way to go since many of those people are behind firewalls
and plugin installation is not allowed by individual users -- even if they want
it, some can't get it.

Now if it's just a personal site it's no big deal. I recently did one that
required Flash 4 and QuickTime (and that didn't work in Mac IE4.5) and sent the
URL to all my friends and family. I forced everyone who wanted to see my stuff
to get two plugins and in some cases scrap a crappy browser. I feel like I did
many of them a favor, but I was able to do this because there's no business
riding on it...and it did come with major headaches trying to get my Mom with
the program but I digress...

-Randy

JGL wrote:

> >Brian Matthews said:
> >I told him the Flash plug-in is harmless and that
> >any respectable websurfer would have it installed.
>
> >Commentary?
>
> Joe/Jane average surfer uses what they use to browse the Internet because
> that's what was/is on their computer . . . and many don't even bother to
> upgrade browsers or download plug-ins due to fear, lack of knowledge, and/or
> obstinacy.
>
> The only large system on the net that makes all that stuff a nearly passive
> issue is AOL.
>
> When AOL wants to update/change your net viewing software, they just do it .
> . and don't even ask.
>
> In answer to your question, I believe it depends on the sites purpose. If
> the goal is to sell product and you feel that the only way to sell it is
> through a FLASH Interface, you will lose business. You'll lose it in two
> ways.
>
> 1)Some people can't upgrade to Flash4 plugin
> 2)When you send someone to MM page for download, they might not come back .
>
>
> When someone is at your web site, and you really want to capture their
> attention as best you can so you can create a customer out of them, don't
> send them away from your site . . . (Internet Basics 101)
>
> A good example is:
> I made this one site and was tracking those with 'no flash/need upgrade'
> surfers and sent them to the MM download page after informing them they
> needed to download or upgrade the flash player. Out of that group, almost
> 100% went to the download page . . .
>
> You know what though? A large enough percentage didn't come back to our site
> to merit concern. Needless to say, we quit doing that and send them direct
> to the html site.
>
> IMO, the MM download page is not a very passive experience. Too much going
> on when you have to go to MM site and download the plug in. It even
> *instructs* the surfer to goto shockwave.com
>
> jgl

--
'''''' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Randy Kato - Web Master
Braincraft

627 Broadway, Suite 504, NYC 10012
T 212.539.1680 F 212.539.1741
http://www.braincraft.com
...... . . . . . . . . .

flasher is generously supported by...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
flashforward2000 and the Flash(tm) Film Festival
July 24-26, 2000, NEW YORK CITY, Hammerstein Ballroom
www.flashforward2000.com
Produced by United Digital Artists and lynda.com
Sponsored by Macromedia, Adobe Systems, Fusion, Inc, AtomFilms,
shockwave.com and Electric Rain.
1.877.4.FLASH.4 or (1.805.640.6679 outside the US and Canada)
Register before June 30 and save $200!!-- www.flashforward2000.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to
http://www.chinwag.com/flasher or email help