Visual Communication with Flash (without overdoing it)...

[Dcrux]

Suppose you sell home theatre equipment. Here's an article Most Viewers Don't Know What They're Missing ...it's long and confusing because it is trying to do in text what should be done with a visual. Yet many busines sites make the very same mistake. And what's worse, Flash designers make this mistake too.

Now look at a Flash visual explaining what you're missing.

This is what is going to increase sales, because it is about Flash content not flashy decoration. This is state of the art, because it uses the web as a communications medium.

...this flash demo of a dynamap plays to the strength of visual communication.

...this jewel case design is a great example of visual communication using flash. How awful if the designer had made some animated logo and neglected the inherent need to explain how this product is different from competitors.

...this interactive box model demo uses flash well.

...this site explains how great the product is -- not how great flash is.

When people comment about the flash, you're building Macromedia's brand, not the client brand. Just as text was suboptimal for explaining the widescreen concept, using Flash as an HTML substitute is suboptimal.

[DrTandem1]

I looked at both versions. I had absolutely no trouble understanding either. Rather than a Flash presentation, a (one) simple graphic added to the first text version would have been more than sufficient:


You know, I was just thinking about this subject, animation/video instead of text, this morning as I was visiting both CNN and Fox News sites. I really dislike the video versions of the stories. I was noticing that more and more of these were appearing.

I was wondering what the attraction is and then it dawned on me: fewer and fewer people have adequate reading skills. Not just the ability to read, but the ability to comprehend what they have read.

This may have started due to the video game education on which the last generation was raised. If it isn't displayed as a cartoon or movie, they can't grasp it. It really is sad. By the way, you may want to visit Macromedia's site and notice the lack of Flash used.

[espectations]

I think the use of visuals have to do with specific industries.

For example: Travel and tourism industry.

I found that people really want to see what a place looks like as well as the offering before they book. Same with the real estate industry.

We made some movie clips in 2000 for some sites and actually got bookings directly from it. It was a bit of an experiment back then but the clients enquired starting with "We watched your video clip and are really interested...."

The costs involved with production of such clips are however still high (including bandwidth usages etc) and even though the client got return on investment more than once, they did not do more video clips as complacency set in that what they had was good enough.....

The customers that I deal with in South Africa all want fancy graphics vs sites that work for them. They just do not grasp the concept that heavy graphics slow down the download time of sites and besides that, Search engines do not read graphics but read text.

I know of 1 case where an Estate agent paid $ 6,000+ (aprox.) for a Flash web site developed to sell a new development. As far as we know, no sales resulted from this web site which has been on the internet now for over 6 months. Besides that, they developed the site and did no online marketing - the site is not even optimized.....so what is the point of that? Developers giving wrong message to clients?

I agree with Dr. Tandem - people are too lazy to read - want graphics to explain to them what to do.

Well written text with an explanatory graphic will capture the audience's attention just as much as a visual flash designed demo.

Good post though and something to think about....maybe the next generation web users would expect web sites to be like television - especially with iTV which is now available in many countries.

I think Flash which allows for interactive elements might come into its own in cases where web and television converge. Will be interesting to see where things lead in the future.

[Faglork]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

I was wondering what the attraction is and then it dawned on me: fewer and fewer people have adequate reading skills. Not just the ability to read, but the ability to comprehend what they have read.

Couldn't agree more. BTW, a key feature of "accessible" sites is to use text which is easy to comprehend even for people with cognitive disabilities. Maybe that is the target group we should design for ...

Apart from that, I believe that a good animation can make complex issues easier to understand: If you have, say, a collapsible bicycle or something like that, then an animation or video could actually show the ease of use of this product. In this case, this would clearly be a benefit (as long as there is a text version for those who cant see the animation). The "triggerbox" jewelcase which DCrux mentioned as example is such a case IMO.

But, as espectations hinted at, *good* animations are expensive, and I hardly know a client who is willing to shell out the bucks.


faglork

[Dcrux]

(one) simple graphic added to the first text version

I would consider one more photo, but the point is the article used none. The article could have eliminated several paragraphs of text.

The point is also not about replicating TV on the web. Other media forms can successfully use images and text, where the two refer to each other.

On the web illustrations and photos are decoration, not part of text. However, conventional wisdom has it that part of the audience relies on visual communication to understand concepts. Text can explain the concept, the photo illustrates the concept.

The point remains that the web is fairly primitive at visual communication. Yes, we can 'stream' forms developed for other media. But no, the web does not do well integrating something a simple as a picture, caption, and main content text.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by DCrux

I would consider one more photo, but the point is the article used none. The article could have eliminated several paragraphs of text.

The point is also not about replicating TV on the web. Other media forms can successfully use images and text, where the two refer to each other.

On the web illustrations and photos are decoration, not part of text. However, conventional wisdom has it that part of the audience relies on visual communication to understand concepts. Text can explain the concept, the photo illustrates the concept.

The point remains that the web is fairly primitive at visual communication. Yes, we can 'stream' forms developed for other media. But no, the web does not do well integrating something a simple as a picture, caption, and main content text.

While I agree that the article should have used an image, I think it was more of the venue. The original article may or may not have come from that site. I write many articles that appear on my site. I will use an image now and then. When the article is copied by another site, often they omit the graphic.

Also, I think you may be forgetting that there are visually impaired people. Why they would be interested in a story regarding movies edited for TV I don't know. However, beyond that specific topic, images should simply be spice that add to the content, not solely the content for someone seeking information. By "information," I am delineating entertainment from this point. Obviously, some content may be based in imagery such as porn and cartoons.

So, those seeking information often want detailed descriptions over sound/visual bites. Some may not be able to perceive visually and therefore need the textual version as complete as possible.

While I agree with the basic adage that a picture is worth a thousand words, I think that it has been overdone.

[Dcrux]

Also, I think you may be forgetting that there are visually impaired people.

Again, other media can accomodate both. For the web to earn one tenth of its general self-satisfaction with its meager accomplishments, it can do much better. Visuals, and Flash are being used, and visuals are a kind of content. Catalogs and a variety of instruction -- like computer installation -- effectively use visuals. (not on the web, though)

Not to forget there are several examples listed. I seem to recall a post (somewhere) about someone not fully understanding the box model until seeing this diagram. While an article can explain in one way, a supporting visual can be a way to explain an idea a different way. The visual can also underscore some critical part of an article.

To not try to improve on visual communication merely insures it will remain as badly done as it is.

[DrTandem1]

I believe that your original premise was that using more visuals would increase sales. I think that is not only not true, but the improper use of visuals can dramatically cause a loss in sales.

Again, please look to macromedia.com, the creators of Flash, for an example. They have used Flash more as a decoration in their header and the actual content is textual in nature.

If your content is cartoons, dead or naked bodies, etc., then, yes, imagery of all sorts is content. If you are providing information, the text will give the details needed and the images will punctuate them.

[JKomp]

Flash coming up in a content discussion forum = controversial! As flash has long been an big NO for content devoted developers, for the simple reason that the SEs just dont seem to give flash content the credit and recognition it deserves. Has anyone got any ideas as to how well the SEs are getting on with recognising flash content?

[Dcrux]

Keeping in mind you do not have to create sites in 100% Flash, I did find this.

he chief hazard is a site written entirely in Flash. Cox said Google will treat that site as a single file. As a result, the site will lose out in important Google indexing metrics, like the ratio certain keywords make up within a page. On a 100 percent Flash site, Google will calculate that ratio based on the total word count of the site.

Moreover, when Google and other search engines fail to index separate pages within a site, merchants and other Web site operators lose out on opportunities to land specific pages high in the search results for specific queries.
--Flash authors ponder Google pitfalls

(btw ...check out News.com's Flash "Big Picture" feature on the right hand side of the page)


Compared to a basically unreadable (unparsable) image file format, the flash object is readable by the bot. Which doesn't matter if there is no or little text to parse. Just as you wouldn't create pages as 100% image files, flash objects are viable objects within the page.

This in no way lets the Flash developer off the hook. Frequently Flash files are text content light, which brings me back to the topic -- not overdoing it. Graphic designers are often text averse, and they shouldn't be. Even were an object not to show it to the viewer, text can be added and still be parsable.

The problem isn't the Flash file format, it's what visuals are being used for: Decoration rather than information. Even image only animations often have zero to do with text content. This skews the reaction to flash content as worthless when it does not have to be that way.

[Scott Adie]

I didn't design our site www.standoffsystems.com but I do have a problem (several) with it. I feel that a web presence is essential to any mainstream business these days and gets more important with each passing day. Unfortunately, that's almost all our site does for us is give us a presence. Take a look and make suggestions for how we can improve it.
My real frustration with the site is that all you can do there is view some of our products and not much more. There is very little code for SE's to crawl and almost no 'real world' application information. But, a rebuild is in the schedule. We could use your input before we undertake it. Got some ideas you want to share?

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by Scott Adie

I didn't design our site www.standoffsystems.com but I do have a problem (several) with it. I feel that a web presence is essential to any mainstream business these days and gets more important with each passing day. Unfortunately, that's almost all our site does for us is give us a presence. Take a look and make suggestions for how we can improve it.
My real frustration with the site is that all you can do there is view some of our products and not much more. There is very little code for SE's to crawl and almost no 'real world' application information. But, a rebuild is in the schedule. We could use your input before we undertake it. Got some ideas you want to share?

Well, the first thing I noticed is that those squares in the center column aren't links, except for the bottom one. Then the smaller squares on the bottom-left of the page have a link to the "Main Website." Somehow, when I go to yourdomain.com, I would think that I was at the main web site.

So, I click on it and it's not the web site. It's a Flash presentation. Mercifully, there's a skip intro button. That gets me to the same "page," but with some interactivity. That's it. Your site is two (2) pages. Well, four (4), if we count the contact and order pages that have no expandability.

Probably the most annoying issue is when the visitor uses their browser's Back button. It doesn't revert to the previous Flash screen, it takes you to the dot com landing page,

Here's what I would do to fix it. Get rid of the first page. Get rid of the intro. Then, copy the Flash "pages" (there's only one) into separate HTML pages and expand the contact and order pages into full-sized pages. Get rid of the Flash imagery. Everything can be done more efficiently with standard static images

[Dcrux]

Presence is ususally code for making the graphic artist's porfolio look good. What's good for the graphic artist isn't meeting customer goals.

Start with site purpose. For example a short statement might be: "To expand outside our regional market by targeting interior decorators and media centers for corporations."

Right now the focus is too narrowly on the product ...not use ...and not target user concerns. For the example purpose above, organize around application, not production. Have the catalog as more a typical parts layout, but have the case histories about application. Dump the flash only interface, and use standared layout techniques -- and more copy.

I'd really try to get the one or two target applications and user segments, then work from there. You may find the primary use after ordering is checking up on order status. Fulfillment -- having 99.8% of orders shipping within two working days -- is just as important as looks to the target user. Project-based plans may include parts lists, rather than letting the user guess how much wire, standoffs, and other hardware is needed.

Nowhere are terms like constrained layer dampening explained, which was the point of my first post in the thread. It is possible something like this might form the basis for a Unique Selling Proposition, but only when explained clearly and with user benefits in mind.

Finally navigation is nonstandard, and based around product not user application. The scrollboxes reveal so little text at one time as to present readability problems. The designer has a 'thing' about text cluttering up their layout, apparently.

While I agree flash is wasted here -- it needn't be. Accoustics and other principles and how parts work together can be explained well with annimation, as can ease of assmbly. However currently the strengths of animation are not being applied to communicate well.

The site looks okay, but decoration is covering up a multitude of content and usability sins. If you sat a user down and tasked them with completely outfitting a media center, they're probably be lost. As for getting them to request a catalog ...first, it might just be as confusing to use as the site (hence not worth requesting). ...second, it sounds like users are completely on their own trying to figure out how to use the components making up the product line.

[Scott Adie]

DCrux & DrTandem1 posts will prove very helpful when our next marketing meeting occurs in supporting and amending my proposal to make our site functional. I get no argument from the staff here that it's not doing much for the company and this gives me some outside input to draw from in building my case for doing some of the things I feel are necessary. Thanks!
While you're at it, why not take a look at my own site, www.osgfx.com and give me some feedback on it. It's an incomplete rush job that I haven't had time to work on for over a year. The only homepage link that is active is 'event photos' from there, you can hit a couple other pages, contact, about, etc.
Thanks again!

[Scott Adie]

I took your comments, embellished by my own of course, to our marketing meeting. Remember that I'm a sport fishing nut so my embellishment skills are pretty good.

Anyway, this is generally the response I got when I 'suggested' that our site wasn't providing much more than a web presence for the business: "No, no, our site works really well, it generates a lot of questions so people call up to ask questions and learn more about our products". At which point I gracefully replied: "Really, you'll have to tell me how that works, I'd really like to understand it".

I know what some of my answers to that would have been but I decided to drop it before too many at the table felt I was challenging their expertise and it turned into a debate. What would your answer be to their 'No, no, our site works' response?

[espectations]

Hello Scott,

Well all of us consultants sit with the same problem.

See, a real good site contains real good contact details which include a telephone number.

Unless you could convince your company to get a dedicated number for the web site, with a PABX system that monitors all incoming calls, there is no real way to measure it.

Remember as a web and online marketing person your job is to get the eyeballs to the web site and to my clients I say that I measure response by email enquiries.

Phone calls I have no control over - that they need to monitor.

It is one of the biggest frustrations in this industry as consultants are treated just like that - consultants.

My clients do however tell me of sales that takes place via the phone - one client got a call at the office at 6 pm one evening and the next day the product was delivered.

People tend to tell you "Hi, I am looking at your web site and want to know...."

It does however not help us at all when we want to determine ROI for a client. So you basically need to be a marketing manager at a company to have that sort of influence on management. They just do not see it....and nobody seems to really case about ROI from their web site.

[Scott Adie]

Thanks for some excellent input that will help me sell our web site improvements. A dedicated web line combined with an e-mail direct contact method would be cheap and really help us quantify web response. No matter that there's already a significant client base that has and uses our existing phone number. Once it is removed and replaced with a web-only number, we can get much better marketing data from our site. Thanks again!