Drawar

No websites I constantly return to make use of flash (except YouTube). That might not convince them, but it's something.

Maybe ask what they want(in Flash) and then try and show how it can be done with js and dhtml (maybe some Ajax) without using Flash.

I can;t stand whole flash websites. It makes finding them hard as the text isn't searchable from places like Google, and linking to a specific page in them is also a nightmare, since you can't do it!

Flash is aggravating, bad for accessibility, a pain to load, and impossible to link to. The only good thing I see for it is the most popular use: videos on Youtube, Google Video, etc.

Just explain to them the advantages of standards based CSS design, and show some examples of what it can do (CssZengarden type stuff).

I recently learned how to use a "lightbox" effect (when you have a page, you click on a link, and you see the link opened and the rest of the page, in background, "covered in shadows"), and this is helping, but i still find people that thinks that "if my web site is made with flash, people would believe is more professional" :S

Why do people arguing against Flash always sound like they're reading from a script?

"Yeah, Flash sucks, Google won't index text, no page linking, blah blah. Hate."

How about some personal experiences of why flash is so shit instead of just recycling the same tired arguments over and over? It's not convincing when all you can say is is "Flash isn't accessible. Fuck flash."

How about some personal experiences of why flash is so shit

People said it's hard/sometimes impossible to link to specific "pages" if the site is done in flash, they don't like the load time, etc. General rules apply to personal experiences, too.

Be easy, it ain't that serious.

I'm cool with flash as long as it's used in moderation, like Disco's site. But if I see a page that's completely done in flash, I'm never going to visit again, no matter how much I liked the content.

If you're looking to convince them flash is bad, maybe you should create a demo page showing how irritating Flash really is. And if that doesn't work, call them a n00b and tell them they suck at life. :-)

I've just banged out a quick article on the topic: Flash isn't flashy.

Includes some counter-arguments to use against clients when they say they want everything done in Flash.

At work i experience web surfing at a low speed... The connection isn't fast, so opening a flash web site becomes a problem, it takes long time, and sometimes is not possible at all... And sometimes i find difficult, as a "designer", to adapt flash content to my sites, and most of times what customers ask in flash can be done either way, but they want flash because "that's professional", "thas's cool"...
I think that's a wrong idea, then we all know every designer have is favourite technique, so maybe i don't like using flash, another one likes to, and so on...
But why some customers thinks that's something you can't give up, you can't have a web site without a flash intro... Why?!?!?!

Doing everything in Flash has its problems, but what about a header done in Flash, or a part of the site. The best example of a site that does just this is the content provider Akamai.com. I love that site.

Flash's runtime engine executes ActionScript *much* faster than a browser executes JavaScript, so for data visualization algorithms and animations, Flash is the obvious choice.

I recently wrote an article about this topic on my (Dutch) weblog because my study searches every solution in Flash. This is one of the reasons I might even quit my study. Every project is all about Flash and I try to convince them to look further and expand our horizons.

I can work with flash, but I hate the program. This, of course, is just a personal argument. I also find myself much more creative when not creating all these flashy flash things. But my main reason for not using flash is I think it’s overrated and although it’s an amazing program which is capable of creating amazing animations, I think that using it too much flash on the web will make it just too much.

I think that when Flash first came around, and when all the cool bands and designers started making their sites in flash it became a little bit overrated. That’s why people who don't know a lot about all of this, like people who hire you, want you to make them a flash application.

The problem with headers being in flash is they take too damned long that first load. The more graphics, the longer it takes... At least with HTML+CSS you can stagger to loading slightly better so things show a degraded version and upgrade that as things download.

And yes there's no problem when you use flash for something that needs some form of rich UI programming like some data visualisation or video playback. The problem is there are a lot of things that some people might feel are "in the middle" and use flash for them without thinking about the people that cannot use it.

But when you're displaying data that's essentially relevant to your content, you have to provide a version that doesn't rely on JavaScript or flash and as I've said before, it's easier (and quicker) to have a degrading JavaScript application than a Flash one.

I am with the idea of using flash elements. I often find the 'flash all' request can easily be dealt with using other js effects or the banner approach. The core thing is when it comes down to it to educate the client in a non-bashing over heady with anti-flash flag way. Far too often designers can sound like broken records chanting die flash die. I've been blown away by some flash sites but these are ones that use flash in the way it's intended. No site is going to be 'more professional' or 'more successful' without any design element being thought out well.

The "education of the client" is the difficult thing... We all can have different opinions about using flash, but none of us would say that a web site can be done "all in flash" i would say.. Some customers just don't get it, and so it's hard to make them understand how important is to have a simple web site sometimes, rather than a super complex one that can be maybe "shocking" at a first sight, but totally not usefull to their customers. I had to do this when i worked on my first web site, the first i did for a "customer". It was really hard, but i think at the end he was quite happy with the final result.

I'm definitely an advocate for using Flash elements on sites but not for the whole site. I have to say though that just because a site is made completely from Flash doesn't necessarily mean it will be slow loading, it all depends on how they have been created. All too often Flash sites haven't been made very well in regards to streamlining the download process.

Accessibility is obviously an issue, it's not strictly true that flash sites can't be accessible as there has been a feature within the last couple of versions of flash that allows you to make hooks into the navigation and content for assistive screen reader software. So again it's not true to say all Flash sites are inaccessible.

I think the use of Flash has to be really thought through well, does it work for the target market? Will the end users be likely to have visual impairments? A lot of questions need to be asked.

If a site is dynamically driven using PHP, ColdFusion etc then it may be possible to drive both a slick Flash version and an XHTML / CSS version, obviously there's a lot more development time and costs involved but if the client really wants it then it can be done.

A case in point is the MTV.com website, it uses a Full Flash interface but also has an XHTML / CSS alternate version, and not just a plain simple text version but a richly designed version. It was created by Dan Cederholm of SimpleBits.com, he's got a page about it and screenshots at Simplebit.com/work/mtv/.

Too bad it's almost impossible to see the XHTML/CSS version of the new MTV site if you have Flash installed and running. Such a shame.

Well, flash has really been making moves towards the desktop in the past year or so, with stuff like Flex and improved actionscript speed.

As for the web, with tools like SWFObject, flash can be made much less obtrusive (http://blog.deconcept.com/swfobject/). So I say use it, but sparingly.

"In my opinion those things just make the web site complex, not really accessible, "heavy", i don't like it..."

Why not have them point out some flash sites they like, and then have them "use" those sites as a client or customer would? I suspect this will make the point.

Alternatively, find a way to make flash NOT complex, more accessible and less "heavy"?

I am not a fan of flash as I've seen it implemented, but dismissing it out of hand because of bad implementation might point to a herd mentality against it.

Better to look at it as an opportunity?

I am very surprised with the amount of designers bashing Flash. I would have expected the opposite, especially when arguing to use it sparingly, and 'responsibly'. Any good client side developer knows that DHTML and Flash both have there uses, and should be used whenever possible. Using these makes for a more 'interactive' feeling website, something less static.

People... please use XHTML and DHTML correctly, I read a few cases where the acronyms were used improperly. Sorry, just had to throw that out there.

I'd like to argue that yes Flash sites 'can' be heavy, long loading time, and generally annoying, but those are poorly designed and developed sites. So my response to those who say this, is that I can find an exponentially larger number of sites without Flash that look and load far worse than that of Flash sites.

To those of you who argue, 'don't use Flash, Google doesn't index it'. I'd like to respond by saying first, that is not entirely true, you should read up on that, and second, why not think creatively, and try the following.

Build the site you would normally with html, and div's (please lord tell me nobody uses tables still), and your content. This way you keep Google bots happy. Then in your CSS, hide the content, and load your Flash movie, and interface your html content to your Flash movie.

I know what you are going to argue next, 'but what about linking to certain pages, paragraphs, etc..'. Well lets look a good example of this... www.2advanced.com or better yet, www.fantasyinteractive.com . Both complete Flash sites, using dynamic paging. What you have in the address bar can easily be translated to your Flash movie. Most are too lasy to figure out how to code it. I'm doing it all over the place at Gotuit.

The moral here is, do not discount a technology if you know little about it. Try learning more about it before bashing it.

People don't want to bash flash and say to use is moderately and sparingly where needed, etc, etc. The problem may be that the client wants something heavy. I assumed that was the problem the original note was talking about...

Chris, you got it... All of you said great things, and i had to change my mind on some aspects, but what happens when a customer want something made in flash, you show him an alternative made with, i don't know, javascript, and he still wants flash?
My note wasn't really about the choise "using flash or not using flash", it was about the "customer's mentality", which is not into those things (technical issues), and have "wrong" ideas about what we use for creating a web site (differences between languages etc.)... Some customers just don't understand, and they pay you, so you have to do what they ask.
If you are a professional web designer, you are in a position where you can chose, and say "i don't want a bad site in my portfolio", but when you're starting, you don't have any credibility to explain your choises (in cases when flash is not the right solution), and you need to work, to gain this credibility (and money also).
So you maybe have to decline works just because the customer think he can do your job, and is not doing it because maybe you'll be faster... This always happen to me talking about flash (when i say flash i mean when the customer wants to use it in a way which is not the bast for this king of programming language - because if i see actionscript can be the right option, even though i don't like it, i take my books and start working anyway - ).

I apologize if I came off sounding targeting or opinionated towards the comments posted here, that was not my intention. It was more a call to people who might be reading this.

But as a non-freelancer I should be more careful when reading article titles, it does say 'customers'.

In that case, most everyone brings up a good point. I would think at this point though, if the customer is not convinced by your argument, you give them what they want, and try not to say 'i told you so' later when they come back.

"and try not to say 'i told you so' later when they come back" :D
Really hard thing to do, but it's of course the best thing to do