Many people have made some excellent points on this post. I will make a few defending arguments of Flash, although I personally try to avoid creating all Flash. If you create an all Flash site, it is also wise to create a HTML only site for exactly the aforementioned accessibility comments.

However, Flash can be useful for certain things and sites and can add some extra dynamism and visual appeal to the site. Also, your comment about direct linking to a page on flash is not true. Most people who whip together a site will not include this feature, although I can tell you it is entirely possible. It does use a newer bit of code, so a lot of older sites do not use it.

However, with this new javascript piece SWF Address that is put on top of the SWF Object javascript file (SWF Object was created primarily to make Flash sites automatically interactive on IE due to a lawsuit with Microsoft. Since the creation of Flash CS3, Flash automatically creates the necessary javascript and html code to make it usable in IE (albeit a bit ugly in the source code, and the SWF Object makes it significantly cleaner).

So as far as newer technology using Flash is considered, it is moving in the right direction. You can directly link to pages, use the Back, Forward, Refresh Buttons and History. Also, SWF Address includes an example of a very compatible SEO piece that will make Flash sites much more compatible.

Of course, this still does not answer the question of users with screen readers. That is why Flash sites can make sense for different types of groups and not others. News sites, I would not recommend to be created in Flash, however, design studios often use Flash because in all honesty, we don't really have a blind customer in mind of our services usually and Flash is better for creation of graphics and showing off these types of services. Magicians are kind of in a difficult situation because we don't really perform for too many blind people, but at the same time it really isn't that necessary to use Flash for AN ENTIRE SITE. That being said, there are certainly times where Flash elements may be nice to add in, such as adding a Flash Video Player, or a slideshow of performing.

Also, with Flash, there are a few other tricks and techniques that developers and programmers will use to make Flash more Search Engine Compatible, of course this uses tricks inside of the HTML and CSS.

In many situations, a pure XHTML site is the way to go. However, adding Flash elements can be a wise idea, and in some cases a pure Flash site may be the way to go. Usually though, with a pure Flash site, it is often recommended to include a full XHTML site.

Also, there is a big hype with the whole DHTML scene and the new Javascript elements that can add a lot more dynamic elements to a site, and could definitely revolutionize the web world.

Be careful of companies that advertise SEO services. Most companies can only do so much to increase Google Page Rank. As previously mentioned, the best way to improve page rank is to be linked to from trusted, popular or active sites. A lot of SEO companies will do things that are actually not allowed by Google and your site will be deleted from Google completely. You also should be wary of getting linked to from shady link portals that just link to your site to improve your ranking. I made that mistake a number of years ago with a website and although it hasn't caused me too many problems because I didn't use too many sites, I am sure it hasn't improved me in the eyes of Google's Search Engines.

Hope this helps some of you.

I wasn't aware of this Javascript object addition to Flash.

Sounds a little like a Frankenstein website, with Flash's limitations (that I've mentioned above) being augmented with Javascript, HTML and CSS.

Making Flash compatible with search engines with tricks using HTML and CSS, as you mention, begs the question, why not use HTML and CSS as a primary code and add Flash for the sizzle? It would be cleaner, more streamlined, more effective with search engines, and save bandwidth.

Anyway, I'm glad you agree, though, that Flash can be nice, to add a little 'sizzle' to a site. However, an all Flash site would not be the wisest choice.

Scott

Scott, I would definitely agree with you on adding the Flash for the sizzle, but in some situations Flash sites are better for overall sites. I would still recommend an HTMl accompanying site.

That being said, the Javascript object addition is just two javascript files you link too, then there is some minor HTML work as well as Actionscript work.

Some of the other tricks are just to embed text tags. There are reasons you would not create an entire site in HTML and CSS and these would primarily because, the tricks are really just including span classes with the text that is included, that you don't display (Not using illegal SEO spamming methods however). In any creation of a site, there are sacrafices and decisions you make. There are benefits and disadvantages to a Flash site, just as there are for XHTML.

It comes down to making decisions on who your audience is, what you are trying to show off, etc, etc. I am a big fan of Flash and XHTML hybrid sites, as they work with multiple advantages. Flash fluctuates in popularity, we will see where the world takes us.

As you and I have said, if you are making an all Flash site it is usually ideal to include an option of a HTML site. A combination of load times, as well as compatibility with disabled users gives these sites advantages. When creating a site all in Flash these days, I think you should really try to use the SWF Address Javascript file. It greatly improves the SEO, and usability of the site. The old SWF Object JS file, it was possible to do similar things, but it was much more difficult.

Cheers,
Emerson

The fact that you must do CSS tricks just shows that a Flash site cannot do what an HTML/CSS site can.


Just for the record, I did NOT said that. I would not suggest to anyone to build a Flash site. I am strongly AGAINST using Flash for a website for several reasons that I have stated here and on other threads.

I said it is nice here an there to add a little sizzle, not to replace the steak. Just like you wouldn't make a website using animated gifs.

I don't believe I will convince you otherwise, so suggest we stop using up Café bandwidth.

Scott

Just an observation on a Sunday morning...

I find it fascinating that so many people seem to talk about design (in this case Web design) in terms of the tools and techniques, instead of in terms of the message and the best way to deliver it. In my field, theatrical design, it's very common to listen to newer designers talk about platforms, ramps, step units, flats, drops, and so forth instead of about the physical environment required by the action and how the director wants to present the themes in the show. I found the same thing during almost fifteen years in the architecture field.

It's not quite "putting the cart before the horse," but I do wonder how often the tools available end up influencing the final product. Do we start designing a sub trunk by deciding whether a fixed-base router, or a plunge router, or a D-handle router, is better? Or whether we want to use a regular bit, a carbide bit, or an inti-kickback carbide bit?

Okay, okay, I know I'm pushing it...

When I'm looking for stuff on the Web (which, unfortunately, is almost daily nowadays), and I see heavy use of Flash, my first reaction is usually to question how the Flash adds to the content I'm looking for, especially if I have to sit there and wait for a file to load. More often than not, even in design-oriented sites, the Flash is just an animation that has nothing to do with the subject matter. I've seen Flash stuff that would look okay on a TV commercial, to add a bit of "stay there, dude, don't go the fridge yet," but, honestly, just annoyed me on the computer.

Time for another coffee...