March 24, 2007, 5:43 pm
I've been looking through a great resource to see new web work, and through this, new print, design and even some video works. thebestdesigns.com contains a near-daily update with fresh websites, utilizing a multitude of design practices and web technologies.
The site can essentially be broken down into two types of sites: Flash and HTML. Although there are many combinations and a variety of backends to these sites that I've neglected in this distinction, I wanted to keep these categories as direct oppositions. Now, I may be limiting my view of the web and with this often-used, yet less-often understood term of web 2.0, blurring the lines even more, I'm trying to understand my own feelings about web design; what it is, what it should be, what it may become.
WHAT IS IT?
The web started as text and grew to images and then moving images and then databases and then flash and now a culmination of all those things. The web is old enough and is a distinct enough of a medium to require its own presentation practices, which of course it has. Now, this is where my narrow-mindedness comes in to play a bit... Websites should be presented as pages that can, but do not have to, exist on their own, without the rest of the site as a frame of reference. Pages should be independent entities and exist without the constraints of overbearing animations, movement, sounds or the like. That is, Flash is an interesting tool, but sites that are completely run within the runtime Flash player on the web is (for the time being) crippling our access to information. Google may be getting better at crawling through Flash movies to collect some content and links, using Flash as a design medium all alone should really be avoided. Although Flash can aid in creating fresh designs, and creative presentation of information and data, what use is all of that, when the page/site is dependent on the end-user's connection speed and a lack of recognition of the importance of sharing information for the world?
WHAT IT SHOULD BE.
Of course, this is just my opinion, and it is admittedly skewed due to my lack of understanding and enjoyment of Flash as a website building machine. Flash just seems to be sort of weak in so many areas, it still feels clunky, both when designing and when viewing. Flying through 3D elements or photographs to access different "pages" within a Flash website creates a new organization to this information, which is certainly good for pushing design limits, but furthers a world with standards-less design and non-democratic access to information. People with older computers, slow access speeds, or impatience will never be able to get access to information on these sites... and perhaps that's okay, those folks may not be the target audience. It just seems ridiculous to build a site with a proprietary program/language and run a site as a large interactive movieclip, when running a standards-compliant xhmtl, css, xml, php and mysql site is so much more open (and cheap). Working creatively within these mediums help to foster democratic access to all information, sites that work cross-platform, on any access speed, on nearly all browsers and work faster. Of course, the argument is - why worry about standards compliance when Flash lets you build whatever you want and will look the same on everyone's computer? I don't think a Flash-based website helps sell more products, helps anyone view your content or helps to improve the web and access to information. A portfolio site can look really slick, but I don't understand the need to work exclusively in Flash and possibly put up barriers to so many people.
WHAT IT MAY BECOME
Flash will either grow into a technology that will be utilized for sparser and more intensive purposes; that is, there are something Flash just does better than AJAX ever could, or it will fizzle out into just being a mediaplayer, ala YouTube. The possibilities for interactive artwork delivered via the web are fairly crippled by Flash and its large overhead, and I just can't imagine a world where the html page is dead and gone. If Flash continues to grow and is adopted by more and more sites and connection speeds get faster and faster and computers are upgraded and maintained at a faster rate, then it could entirely overtake the traditional website design practice. I just don't think this will happen though. Books are a collection of pages - the attempt to format books into digital versions, or even movies or tv shows for that matter, has failed, or at least hasn't really surpassed those original pages. Websites will be the same; democratic, standards-compliant, database-driven. You can change the cover of the book, even the size of its pages, the type of paper used, the font it's printed in, but moving the written word into a new theatre (the digital realm, the television screen) never really matches its original source.
So, nearly every page on the above-mentioned, thebestdesigns.com, has integrated Flash and many of those sites are slick, but I can't help but feel a tackiness, or at least a lack-of-timelessness, when viewing these sites. flash is slick, but xhtml is forever.
By Justin | 1 COMMENT | POSTED IN: text
»COMMENTS
Justin says,
Almost a year later and I still believe that flash is overrated. I find it interesting that Apple is willing to leave it off of the iPhone, and I think it's just as well. I'm of course even more biased now, I haven't worked with flash in a long time.
Comment posted on : March 11, 2008, 9:02 pm | By: Justin
