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

Subject: Re: UKNM: plug-in take up/stats
From: Ray Taylor
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:57:17 +0100

The answer to your question, Andy, is that the whole debate is pointless.
Why stick to one format? Why not have Flash for people who like Flash and
non-Flash for people who don't? If someone asks me to fax details about my
company's services, I don't say "bog off, we only use email".

Why not have html-only sites if what you are doing is appropriate to
html-only? For instance if you want to provide large quantities of indexable
text-based information, the best format to provide it in is text. If you
want to get any decent traffic from the major search engines then you MUST
produce at least some of your site in NO FRAMES, NO JAVA, NO FLASH, etc etc.

Just to clarify, I am NOT saying Flash is better than html. I am NOT saying
that html is better than Flash. What I do say is this:

ONE: "Concern yourself with your customers' prejudices more than your
computer programmers' (or web designer, or online marketing guru, etc.,

TWO: "If you think form is more important than function you are no less of a
Philistine than someone who thinks function is more important than form."

THREE: "History has demonstrated that new technologies are only adopted when
they solve more problems than they create."

Ray Taylor tayloratnmcadplan [dot] com
NMC/Adplan - Online Media Planning and Buying
+44 181 639 0015

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Proyer <andyatnetvision [dot] co [dot] uk>
To: uk-netmarketingatchinwag [dot] com <uk-netmarketingatchinwag [dot] com>
Date: 26 April 1999 13:51
Subject: RE: UKNM: plug-in take up/stats

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owneratchinwag [dot] com [owneratchinwag [dot] com]On">mailto:owneratchinwag [dot] com]On Behalf Of Ray
>> Taylor
>> Sent: 23 April 1999 17:14
>Why state (quite correctly, in my opinion):
>> I just cannot understand the daft argument that says that "html is better
>> than flash" or "flash is better than html" or "Netscape is better than
>> "Macs are better than PCs" etc etc. The customer makes a choice. If you
>> can't keep in line with customers having choices go get a job in the
>> service (but realise that gov agencies are coming on board with the
>> of customer service too).
>But preface it with the ridiculous:
>> Of course there is nothing wrong with plain old html either (sans frames
>> preferably).
>If you're going to create good customer-focused web sites, then frames are
>huge advantage to navigation if the customer's browser supports them. And
>the customer's browser doesn't support them, then they will view the
>of your pages that you have designed for the non-frames brigade.
>It might be trendy amongst geeky programmers to slag off frames, but
>remember before you join them that it is also trendy amongst geeky
>programmers to masturbate over pictures of Patrick Stewart.
>Take care

UKNM is sponsored by Excite UK, visit us at http://www.excite.co.uk.
Email Khalil Ibrahimi khalilatexcitecorp [dot] com (mailto:khalilatexcitecorp [dot] com) to advertise on Excite.
Change your UKNM subscription use http://www.chinwag.com/uknm.html

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