WSA Winner
Wednesday August 4th, 2004
This site has that hip, new Flash designer feel to it. And indeed, it is virtually an exact mirror of the Flash site available from the root URL; but it's quite interesting to compare the two side by side.
Apart from sound (which I generally abhor while I'm browsing) and the obligatory Flash transitions, the two versions of the site are almost identical -- feel, layout, imagery, etc. Except the usability and accessibility of the XHTML version far exceeds its cousin: bookmarkable pages, quicker load times and more searchable code. Which one is "better" all depends where you place your priorities I suppose.
Reviewed by Cameron Adams
#1
This should be shown in schools to illustrate the perfect example of unnecessary Flash.
Great choice and great winner!
Posted by Neko :: August 4th, 2004 at 05:16 PM
#2
Wow, this is a nice site. And as one can see - it loads a lot faster than its "richmedia" version ;-) Yes, this is a great winner!
Posted by Frank Kath :: August 4th, 2004 at 06:25 PM
#3
"This should be shown in schools to illustrate the perfect example of unnecessary Flash."
Yeah, I totally agree with this. I used to be all into the Flash craze, but have found out that it is better to use Flash for websites that REQUIRE animation.
This website is extremely well done and definitely a good choice.
Posted by Stephen Hallgren :: August 4th, 2004 at 07:04 PM
#4
Wow! Thanks for the comments and recognition. It feels great to get this one.
In respect to the comment of "example of unnecessary Flash", I would have to disagree in this case. Would there be other applications where Flash would work better? Yes, probably. The main emphasis in this site is to express to potential clients is that you can easily go a number of ways.
A. For the clients that insist on using Flash it illustrates that a great looking site can be developed with xhtml/css and no flash.
B. The site also showcases the ability to work with Flash for the projects that really excel in an all Flash situation.
C. Web applications can be built that will feed the content layer to presentation in both Flash and HTML.
I never want to discredit any technology that can be used to inform, tell a story, entertain, perform a function, etc. Each has its strengths and weaknesses for each individual project. And hopefully in this case both versions will appeal to two different types of potential clients.
Again I am absolutely honored!
Posted by Jonathan Moore :: August 4th, 2004 at 08:43 PM
#5
I think your rationale for Flash is excellent. What I meant by unnecessary Flash does not apply to your site.
Design Company websites should showcase their Flash skills. Clients want to know your skills and see what you can do.
But, you showed us all, in a superb way, that an amazing site can be created without using Flash.
I don't know if you've experienced this but most of the time clients want an expensive looking design, with the price tag of a cheap website. Flash bloats that price tag drastically (harder to update, more time-consuming, a bigger pain in the rear for server-side programming). That's why I have stayed away from flash unless it is necessary.
Posted by Stephen Hallgren :: August 4th, 2004 at 09:13 PM
#6
Amazing! Great choice here.
I'm glad to see the bar is finaly being raised again. The last couple of sites were _ok_ but not anywhere near where this one places imo.
Good work.
Posted by Damon Haidary :: August 14th, 2004 at 09:40 AM
#7
Beautiful work Jonathan, congratulations.
- and even though we're in competition for the WSA site for August, I'd probably vote for you ;)
Posted by Andrew Krespanis :: August 16th, 2004 at 02:54 AM
#8
Congratulations Jonathan, I knew you could take it this far and more. Great Job.
Posted by Rodrigo :: September 4th, 2004 at 07:50 PM
Comments on: New Ezra