Too Much Flash on the Brain

Pam Pfiffner

5

The last time I touched pixel to paper I mentioned attending a talk by Web doyenne Lynda Weinman during the HOW Design Conference in San Francisco. I’d guess anybody the least bit interested in learning about Web design or production has a book by Weinman in his or her library. Furthermore, I’d argue that Lynda is one of the people who made the Web cool by explaining that the limitations imposed by this new medium weren’t really limitations per se. No, it was just a new art form that required us to learn new color palettes, new programs, and new conventions. And once those new tools and techniques were mastered, designing for the Web was pretty groovy.

But as we’ve become more comfortable with the tools and as we’ve explored the outer reaches of available technology, I wonder if we’ve forgotten the basics. Have some designers become so enamored with showing how groovy this all is that they’ve forgotten the fundamentals? As with all things… it depends.

What’s Wrong with These Web Sites?
At the HOW Conference, the theme of Lynda’s talk was Web Aesthetics. She offered up a number of really good rules of thumb (or is it thumbs?) about what makes a site successful. Even though I’ve heard these principles before, I still find these concepts useful and worth repeating. Your site should have a purpose, so ask your client what it wants to say and what the site will be used for. The site should be simple and obvious to use, so don’t overlook stuff like consistent labeling, search boxes, and buttons that look like buttons. A successful Web site involves its audience, so build community by publishing what your readers have to say. The site must be accessible to everyone, so be aware of color contrast, type size, readily available software, and even legislation regarding equal access to people with disabilities. (To read more of Lynda’s ideas about the Web, check out her Web site.)

To illustrate her points, Lynda walked through a slew of Web sites — both good and bad. I wrote down most of her examples. Many of these are clicks-and-mortar-type sites. Some of them are brand-builders. Some of them are fascinating, some are annoying, some just plain aesthetically pleasing. Many of them use Flash (not surprising since Weinman’s company co-sponsors Flash conferences).

I won’t tell you what Weinman said about each of them. Take a gander and see if you can figure out what works and what doesn’t. Post your responses in the Vox Box to the left of this column. Pencils ready? Then let’s begin.

• Amazon.com
• Target.com
• BlueLight.com (Kmart’s site — there’s a hint)
• Abercrombie.com
• Furniture.com
• Arhaus.com
• MillsPride.com
• PotteryBarn.com
• DesktopImage.com
• PabloFerro.com
• Beringer.com
• Tiffanys.com

I wouldn’t be surprised if your response to some of these sites is completely the opposite of what your colleagues have to say. I didn’t agree completely with Lynda myself, but that’s what makes this kind of exercise stimulating.

What’s New with These Web Sites?
It’s always fun to hear a luminary shed new light on existing problems, but what I found really interesting is Lynda’s up-periscope on new trends spotted on the Web horizon.

• Aliased Type. We’re accustomed to using anti-aliasing — which fills in the jagged edges of shapes with color — to make type look good onscreen, but anti-aliasing can render graphic text fuzzy. Aliased type gets around the problem and adds character to the text. By using aliased graphic type, designers can get away from the need to use boring HTML when they need legible type at smaller sizes. ioResearch.com has good examples of anti-aliased type.
• Elastic Type. This technique uses Flash to expand typographic forms when text is rolled over. In the example of Deepend, mousing over the block of small text brings up larger type. A somewhat Flashier version (pardon the pun) can be found at Barneys.com, in which the type takes on a loopy psychedelic aspect when touched by the cursor (go to the Women’s department, select the second floor, then mouse over the designers’ names — whoa!).
• Switching Views. As befits a trend-setting department store, the Barney’s site scores on another front. Almost like one of its legendary store windows, the images on Barneys.com slide in and out of a set window frame, which means lots of information can appear in minimal real estate. You don’t have to navigate elsewhere — the site does the work for you. Another example is Relevare.com: When you click on a hot spot, new material moves into the place of previous information.

Thus far these new trends intrigue me. They’re kind of cool, although the elastic type exercise seems a little superfluous. But the next trend Lynda identified is just the kind of thing that ruffles my feathers. I think it does hers, too.

• Runaway Navigation. I have nothing against Flash-enhanced navigation — except when it prevents me from actually getting anywhere. You may not have seen this in action: Moused-over horizontal navigation bars scurry away like cockroaches when a kitchen light pops on. Weinman described it as “Can you chase the button?” I can’t point you to one of the examples she mentioned because, well, I can’t read my handwriting, which says something like “yorgup.com” or “yongip.com.”

[https://yugop.com/ver2/]

Not to worry, I’ve got an even better example…

Flash in the Pants
The best (or is it worst) example of runaway navigation bars comes from a site I actually like quite a lot: TheBeatles.com.

As a devoted Beatlesphile, I can’t get enough of the content on TheBeatles.com. Designed to complement the greatest hits CD “1,” the site is chock-full of information about each of its 27 songs, including publicity ephemera and recording notes. It’s also riddled with Flash, such as an arcade-style game of “Yellow Submarine” in which you shoot posies at the Blue Meanies, and a re-creation of the famous rooftop concert from “Let It Be” in which you can click around to see the concert from various angles — from the street, from the rooftop next door, for example.

But the Flash-y navigation scheme makes me want to cry “Help!” The homepage navigation is a rotating three-dimensional orb defined by song names. Your mouse controls the sphere’s rotation, its direction, and speed. Errant mouse clicks send it spinning out of control and before you know it you’ve opened “Lady Madonna” instead of “Eleanor Rigby.” I’d seen this circular-logic Flash navigation years ago in experimental sites that were recommended to me by people obsessed with being ahead of the curve.

But when Weinman talks about runaway navigation bars she need look no further than TheBeatles.com’s interior navigation for a textbook example. A horizontal bar of song titles lines up across the top of the page. But clicking to select a song is as rewarding as shooting ducks in a carnival game: You pull the trigger and miss. It’s extremely difficult to slow the scroll down and the more you try, the faster it goes. I don’t think my coordination is particularly impaired, but I felt like George Jetson trapped on the automatic dog-walking belt, frantically trying to keep up. “Jane, stop this crazy thing!”

Sites like this do nothing to stave off the bad rap Flash has been getting in recent months as bored Web designers resort to more elaborate technical tricks to keep themselves amused. I like Flash. I think it’s cool and useful and all that good stuff. But I do pause when I see it used excessively (that pause may be caused by waiting for a page to load).

But even Lynda, who makes a living from loving Flash, feels the need to distinguish the technology from those who abuse it. Flash itself isn’t what makes a Web site good or bad, she says. It offers more freedom and it’s visually exciting, but if you don’t apply the basic principles outlined earlier in this article then — Flash or no Flash — you’re bound to fail.

Burned
Sort of a postscript: Around the time I was playing around in the studio with the Lads from Liverpool (we were rehearsing “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” with George Martin at the controls) I started frequenting the U2 site (this must say something about my musical tastes). Through the site I got dibs on primo seats for a show that, when offered to the general public, sold out in an hour or so.

Others weren’t so lucky. The reason? Too damn much Flash, at least that’s the undercurrent of the posting on U2.com the day tickets for the band’s European shows went on pre-sale. The upshot was that the site took too darn long to load and fans with slower connections got shut out. The next day, U2.com launched an HTML version with a needlessly complicated explanatory note. Too bad you missed it, guys, the show was great.

So, in parting let me add one more rule to Lynda’s list of Web Asethetics: Losing customers to excess Web design isn’t pretty. Simple often beats Flash-y, in both user satisfaction and development effort and cost.