What are you working on? v2 - Developers

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;23336684]Further proof that you are clueless if you think flash = long load times: [URL]http://www.thefwa.com/[/URL] [/QUOTE] I know you were using this site as an example of how flash doesn't lead to long load times, however it's a really bad example of 'flash done right' * When I mouse over the top menu it all expands horizontally, leaving my mouse in totally the wrong place to click on one of the menu options I was interested in. Expected behavior would be for a drop down list to appear allowing a simple one dimensional move of the mouse cursor to select the desired menu item. This isn't specifically a flash issue as such a design mistake could have just as easily been intruduced had the manu utilised JS to achieve the same result. It's still bad design all the same though. * There's no way to middle click/ctrl click to open multiple links in different tabs. This one is definitely a flash issue and wouldn't be a problem had the links been regular hyperlinks. * I don't have a suitable browser so I've no idea how accessible the site would be to someone with a screen reader. Presumably there's text only fallback. If there isn't that's another major design failure. Flash isn't an instant no-go and it does have its uses, however 90% of the time it adds a little flare at the cost of usability to the site's users. Site usability and ease of navigation should be the number one concern, with aesthetics second. Not the other way round.

[QUOTE=DEADBEEF;23346172]I know you were using this site as an example of how flash doesn't lead to long load times, however it's a really bad example of 'flash done right' * When I mouse over the top menu it all expands horizontally, leaving my mouse in totally the wrong place to click on one of the menu options I was interested in. Expected behavior would be for a drop down list to appear allowing a simple one dimensional move of the mouse cursor to select the desired menu item. This isn't specifically a flash issue as such a design mistake could have just as easily been intruduced had the manu utilised JS to achieve the same result. It's still bad design all the same though. * There's no way to middle click/ctrl click to open multiple links in different tabs. This one is definitely a flash issue and wouldn't be a problem had the links been regular hyperlinks. * I don't have a suitable browser so I've no idea how accessible the site would be to someone with a screen reader. Presumably there's text only fallback. If there isn't that's another major design failure.[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm not fond of the menu either, previous iterations of that site were done better, and there's tons of examples of flash done right listed on that site too which is part of the reason I use it as an example. Ctrl click/middle click issue is something you could fix in flash fairly easily I bet. (separate event handler for middle mouse, and check for ctrl being held down on the regular click event handler and then change the link target to _blank) You can check for a text fallback by simply right clicking and viewing source, they're using swfobject to replace the fallback content if and only if flash is available, so it's just as accessible as any HTML only site (to be honest though, what is someone who needs a screen reader going to be doing on a flash design gallery in the first place? haha) [QUOTE=DEADBEEF;23346172]Flash isn't an instant no-go and it does have its uses, however 90% of the time it adds a little flare at the cost of usability to the site's users.[/QUOTE] That's incredibly ironic to hear from you after seeing you instantly say no as soon as I mentioned using flash? Hah. [QUOTE=DEADBEEF;23346172]Site usability and ease of navigation should be the number one concern, with aesthetics second. Not the other way round.[/QUOTE] You're preaching to the choir. I'm constantly advocating proper user experience design and interaction design coming before visual design on here, and I'm not sure where you got the idea that my thoughts were the other way around? I [I]do[/I] do this for a living if you weren't aware :P

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;23336684] Further proof that you are clueless if you think flash = long load times: [url]http://www.thefwa.com/[/url] [/QUOTE] That was a long load time. And all of the effects done with flash on that site can be done with jquery.

[QUOTE=Maccabee;23347694]That was a long load time.[/QUOTE] No, not really. I've seen FP load slower than that on numerous occasions. [QUOTE=Maccabee;23347694]And all of the effects done with flash on that site can be done with jquery.[/QUOTE] I didn't say they couldn't be done in javascript, and I also never said that was an example of a good decision to use flash (although seeing as this is a gallery for showcasing flash websites it kind of makes sense). I said it was a good example of a flash website that doesn't have a massive load time.

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;23346508]That's incredibly ironic to hear from you after seeing you instantly say no as soon as I mentioned using flash? Hah.[/QUOTE] What's ironic is stating that flash when done right enhances user experience then posting a link to a site which does the complete opposite. [QUOTE=KmartSqrl;23346508]You're preaching to the choir. I'm constantly advocating proper user experience design and interaction design coming before visual design on here, and I'm not sure where you got the idea that my thoughts were the other way around?[/QUOTE] ...see above. PS. I meant flash has its uses insofar as displaying web video is concerned. HTML5 will be a long while before it's able to compete, despite what HTML5 proponents might think. Until it can, flash is the only viable alternative. That's about it's only legitimate I can think of, anything else just it's just for show, annoying ads, or worse: degrading the user experience with crappy flash menus. Of course, you're more than welcome to disagree. PPS. Flash games are also an Ok use I guess.

[QUOTE=DEADBEEF;23349546]What's ironic is stating that flash when done right enhances user experience then posting a link to a site which does the complete opposite.[/QUOTE] As I said I was using that as an example of flash load times done right, just because they got the load times right doesn't mean they got the UX right. We're both agreed on that so I don't see what your point is here? [QUOTE=DEADBEEF;23349546]PS. I meant flash has its uses insofar as displaying web video is concerned. HTML5 will be a long while before it's able to compete, despite what HTML5 proponents might think. Until it can, flash is the only viable alternative.[/QUOTE] Agreed, HTML5 doesn't give nearly enough control over video to really be useful on a large scale yet. [QUOTE=DEADBEEF;23349546]That's about it's only legitimate I can think of, anything else just it's just for show, annoying ads, or worse: degrading the user experience with crappy flash menus.[/QUOTE] Just for show is the whole point. Flash is something that should be considered after the UX is done (unless you're doing video obviously). I also think you may have misunderstood how I'm planning on using it if you think it's going to interfere with UX at all. When I said I'm planning on doing a bit of interactive with the logo I literally meant [I]just[/I] the logo and the space around it. The nav is going to remain untouched, because I agree that websites using flash for navigation is idiotic unless the rest of the site is also in flash. But like I said, just for show is the point, you could theoretically make the same argument about the majority of the fancy shit on the web. The thing is, if you want to stand out in the sea of samey web 2.0 websites, the just for show can go a loooong way. Especially on something like a portfolio website where the entire purpose of the website is to show what you are capable of. [QUOTE=DEADBEEF;23349546]Of course, you're more than welcome to disagree.[/QUOTE] We're actually on pretty much the same page. I think you'll see where I'm coming from when I actually get a chance to finish this up (which likely won't be for a while) I'd explain what I'm actually wanting to do a bit better but the idea isn't really solid in my head yet and I've got a number of different things I want to try floating around.

[QUOTE=jaybuz;23325706]That navigation reminds me a bit of [URL="http://chrispederick.com/"]chris pederick's site[/URL]. Like the explanation of what the link does. I like it but the whole design seems plain, if you know what I mean. Content should probably fix that though.[/QUOTE] A lot of sites nowadays are implementing speaking block navigation, it's not so much one specific site that the design is similar to - see [url="http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/02/26/navigation-menus-trends-and-examples/"]here[/url]. I think the current design hits a nice sweet spot between decoration and communication. Designing isn't about decoration - there's subtle textures and a great colour scheme; it looks simple and elegant. [b]<rant>[/b] [Quote=Everyone]Backlash at Flash[/quote] I'm pretty surprised by the backlash from the mention of flash. I'm not sure if the majority of the web development board are Mac users (actually, I'm pretty sure it's not the case), but I was still a bit surprised at the overwhelmingly negative response. I'm not sure why some designers and developers are heralding the death of flash due to Apple snubbing the platform. Perhaps because designers have been taking web design cues from Apple for years, it just seems natural to also inform their opinion of web technologies based on what the Cupertino giant prefers and snubs. I also find it ironic that Steve and co. try to take the high moral ground, celebrating open source platforms like HTML5, but they have one of the most closed ecosystems - but that's another issue, and I digress before getting this thread offtopic (again). But no matter how people come to the conclusion that flash is bad, I can't help but wonder how much they've looked into the issue. Don't get me wrong, I champion accessibility and firmly believe in developing websites in a semantic, accessible method. Yeah, HTML5, CSS3 and Javascript should be used when possible, but that's not to say flash doesn't have a place in the web industry. [QUOTE=arienh4;23340124]That site doesn't load fast for me while I'm downloading games for example.[/QUOTE] This is a pretty redundant thing to say, that has more to do with using up your network traffic than flash. There's no question flash may add a bit of load time to a site, but a well developed flash website will progressively load, and shouldn't be too much slower than many typical, graphically intensive html websites. [QUOTE=Maccabee;23340862]Also, on the note of flash. Don't use flash. It's just dumb. If you haven't noticed everyone is trying to move away from it jquery, html5 and css3 can do so much of what flash was used for.[/QUOTE] This position is dumb. I do believe that certain things in websites - such as animated navigation menus - should be achieved by jquery, html5 and css3, but to rule out the flash platform in its entirety is hopelessly ignorant. Personally, I hate flash, I don't use it often, and I certainly don't advocate websites be designed entirely in it (unless the designer is an excellent designer that has the experience and skills to pull off a decent site). But I still respect that it has its place. Sure, javascript libraries and HTML5/CSS3 are removing the necessity to boot up flash just to animate a menu, but that doesn't mean to [b]stop using it altogether[/b]. I also find your argument 'everyone is [doing xyz, so you should too]' quite funny. That's kind of like people saying 'Don't use PCs to design websites. Everyone is uses Macs to design websites'. Oh wait. [QUOTE=arienh4;23341349]I'm just saying, don't assume high bandwidth. The only real argument against mine I've seen is that 'it loads fast' which you can't just assume for everyone.[/QUOTE] The same could be said for typical modern websites laden with 24bit alpha channel .png images. One of the connections in my house is dialup, and trust me, trying to load a regular, non-flash website in 2010 is hopelessly slow. Both flash sites and regular html sites can be optimised for a faster loading time. It's just that not a lot of designers optimise the former. [b]</rant>[/b] There is a bad stigma associated with Flash. And for good reason. Like animated .gifs from the 90's of web design, bad flash websites that ignore design conventions with long load times, bad animations and redundant flash intros, Flash encapsulates some of the worst on the web in terms of design. Sites made with flash often have weak design; maybe because flash sort of gives you a lot of freedom and control over positioning, whilst the html structure almost encourages/forces you to line up elements (if you're doing it right). Despite this, and as much of a problem as it can present, it still does have a place. Flash is better for more advanced animation, it performs better in benchmarks, and has certain functionality not yet available through the HTML 5 spec. I think [url="http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/05/18/html5-and-flash-why-its-not-a-war-and-why-flash-wont-die/"]this article[/url] is well worth a read, although I don't fully agree with it - I think flash still has a place in multimedia heavy websites, and plainly, [url="http://apiblog.youtube.com/2010/06/flash-and-html5-tag.html"]Google agree, what with Youtube discussing the limitations of HTML5 - features that Flash does have[/url]. I also want to quote the post that started this heated debate. [QUOTE=KmartSqrl;23325119]I'm also planning on doing some fun flash stuff on the logo to bring in a bit more interaction (maybe the character will be up there too).[/QUOTE] I think there's nothing unreasonable with this. I think most of the negative reactions were knee-jerk reactions to the utterance of 'flash'. Character animation and logo interaction with flash is entirely reasonable - nothing hinges on the user having the ability to be able to use that; it's a bonus for the 90-odd percentage of people who can, and degrades gracefully for people that don't. I really hope nobody would actually suggest character animation with CSS3. Sure, [url="http://www.optimum7.com/css3-man/"]it can be done[/url], but its much quicker and easier to achieve in flash. Ironically enough, the CSS3 animation only works in chrome and safari as of right now, leaving IE, Firefox and Opera users out. Number of Flash Users > Number of Safari/Chrome users.

Almost finished reading my HTML/CSS book, would like to move on and learn another language, I was thinking Javascript maybe? Whats a good language to move onto next and if possible could you guys reccomend me some good books to read?

Depends on whether or not you want to focus more on front end development or back end development.

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;23351095]Depends on whether or not you want to focus more on front end development or back end development.[/QUOTE] Back end sounds more interesting, would this be things like building databases, forums etc? I would like to learn both as I have learnt a tiny bit of javascript in the HTML book, just basic things like making your own animated banner ads and stuff. Are they both similar in difficulty to learn? I know they will be much harder than HTML, but would like to keep learning :)

[QUOTE=ThePunisher1;23351032]Almost finished reading my HTML/CSS book, would like to move on and learn another language, I was thinking Javascript maybe? Whats a good language to move onto next and if possible could you guys reccomend me some good books to read?[/QUOTE] You have several options for back end development. Whatever you do, don't go into PHP. It's the easiest of them all to start off in, but it's really not a very nice and expressive language to use at all. You'll gain so much more by taking the time to familiarize yourself with other languages/environments. At the moment, all the cool kids are using [url=http://rubyonrails.org/]Ruby on Rails[/url]. It's apparently very cool. I've never used it, but this is a great option to pick if you're going to be deploying on Linux servers. Alternatively, there's another Ruby framework called [url=http://www.sinatrarb.com/]Sinatra[/url] which is pretty damn cool. I've developed a couple of small little apps with this and it's really nice to use. If you're going to be working with Microsoft technologies, another good thing to have a go at is C# on the [url=http://asp.net]ASP.NET[/url] framework. You can get the [url=http://microsoft.com/express]Express editions[/url] of Visual Studio for free. There's a cool new technology called [url=http://www.microsoft.com/web/webmatrix/]WebMatrix[/url]. It's basically PHP style ASP.NET and it's pretty awesome looking. Check it out. There's tonnes of web frameworks, and although I've only covered 3 here, I suggest you go and have a look at others including [url=http://www.djangoproject.com/]Django[/url] (Python), [url=http://www.masonhq.com/]Mason[/url] (Perl), [url=http://struts.apache.org/]Struts[/url] (Java), [url=http://keplerproject.org/]Kepler[/url] (Lua) and [url=http://nodejs.org/]node.js[/url] (Javascript).

Know what? I'd like to jump ship from PHP, but most shared and free hosts out there are about PHP, and I'm living a student-with-basically-no-money-to-use-online life right now. I am thinking about other languages such as RoR, but I probably wouldn't continue thinking, [b]unless[/b] in my future I joined the ranks of those brilliant minds out there creating amazing webapps for thousands to use, hosted only by the creators and noone else. As for .NET, using System.Whatever.Whatever.WhateverLongName.WhateverLongName; textBox1.HowMuchDoIHaveToFuckingType += Whatever.Damnit GodDamnHowFuckingLongIsThisToo; has left a very bad taste in my mouth

[QUOTE=a2h;23351739]Know what? I'd like to jump ship from PHP, but most shared and free hosts out there are about PHP, and I'm living a student-with-basically-no-money-to-use-online life right now. I am thinking about other languages such as RoR, but I probably wouldn't continue thinking, [b]unless[/b] in my future I joined the ranks of those brilliant minds out there creating amazing webapps for thousands to use, hosted only by the creators and noone else. As for .NET, using System.Whatever.Whatever.WhateverLongName.WhateverLongName; textBox1.HowMuchDoIHaveToFuckingType += Whatever.Damnit GodDamnHowFuckingLongIsThisToo; has left a very bad taste in my mouth[/QUOTE] Using AnyIDE; bool thatIssue = false;

[QUOTE=a2h;23351739]Know what? I'd like to jump ship from PHP, but most shared and free hosts out there are about PHP, and I'm living a student-with-basically-no-money-to-use-online life right now.[/quote] I'll host you for free, hit me up on steam. [quote]As for .NET, using System.Whatever.Whatever.WhateverLongName.WhateverLongName; textBox1.HowMuchDoIHaveToFuckingType += Whatever.Damnit GodDamnHowFuckingLongIsThisToo; has left a very bad taste in my mouth[/QUOTE] [code] using System.Whatever.Whatever; Whatever.LongName; [/code] Names are not this long: 'DamnitGodDamnHowFuckingLongIsThisToo'. That's so over exaggerated it's not even funny.

[QUOTE=arienh4;23351822]Using AnyIDE; bool thatIssue = false;[/QUOTE] Visual Studio 2008/2010. Sure, autocompletion, but I despise seeing gigantic names in code. [editline]09:30PM[/editline] Yes I know I was exaggerating but my point still stands

[QUOTE=a2h;23351952]Sure, autocompletion, but I despise seeing gigantic names in code.[/QUOTE] There are very few gigantic names in my code.

rip thread.

This was a nice thread. :saddowns:

Went a bit downwards toward the end, mostly due to me. :frown: [editline]02:18PM[/editline] [QUOTE=a2h;23351952]Visual Studio 2008/2010. Sure, autocompletion, but I despise seeing gigantic names in code. [editline]09:30PM[/editline] Yes I know I was exaggerating but my point still stands[/QUOTE] They'll only be in code if you put them there. And I didn't just mean VS, there's also IDEs like MonoDevelop.