Sick of only flash being considered "cool"

I dont have my bookmarks on this browser.

IMO the most of those are just kinda blah, the art is nice but the designs are so standard, white background with top nav/leftnav/toplogo/etc. Media doesn't matter much to me (HTML Flash or whatever), I just wish some of it looked different...

Chris

well fig, every flash site I see looks 'kind of blah' to me. I just wish they were more creative. I mean, they have this excellent tool at their disposal and 90% of the flash artists make crap sites. I really love those flash sites with static content.

To me that says "we dont have anything important to say, but we say it with flashy, moving stuff".

90% of the designers on the web make "crap sites" How many just awful HTML sites are there out there? A whole lot more than Flash sites, just because HTML is more widely used than Flash. You may remember bad Flash sites more becuase it's "moving crap" as opposed to "static crap", but it all smells the same

I could care less what's used if the site is just good. The more dynamic and talented designers on the web IMO are often using Flash. Show me some awesomely designed static sites and I'll tell you those are great too.

Some "non-blah" sites, some Flash, some not:
http://www.fasthuman.com/
http://www.juxtinteractive.com/
http://www.origindesign.com/ (where I work)
http://www.one9ine.com/
http://www.fourm.com/
http://www.digital-day.com/

Chris

well if the nav bar isn't on the top or the side, as you say "etc"
where do you suggest it go? in the middle? with the content going around the perimeter of the page?

i don't think that would work out very well heh

and plus...logos are usually at the top because it's the beginning of the page, you don't people to go to the page, and think "WOAH! this is a good page, but there is no logo staring at me, i don't know who this is, and what they are trying to communicate."

and flash sites are usually the same, except the logos start off in the middle, and spin around the page up to the top, and same for the links...
unless it's one of those layouts-on-crack flash site, and links and buttons come out of no where, every where. haha

wow fig, you and i posted at the same time!

that's incredible!
heh

fig, those sites...
none of them were static.

and being "i have flash" and "I don't have flash" doesn't constitute as a static site, it's like saying
a site with frames, actually doesn't have frames, because if you go to each page individually, it's alot of pages.

that doesn't make sense

and i don't know where i'm going with this topic

i'm rambling

for no apparent purpose

>ZAP!<

*paff* *cloud of smoke*

No, that didn't make any sense I'm using "static" in the sense of a non-Flash, straight HTML page. With the exception of a tiny bit of Flash or DHTML both the Origin and Digital Day sites are static. But you're right, not completely. So change my mind. Show me some REALLY well designed straight HTML sites. One of the strongest sites I've seen period (and one of my personal faves) is Gnomist. Another cool just HTML site is the portfolio work of P2 (tho they do use a lot of Flash in their work). Both very non-standard with regards to navigation and layout but very strong and cool in their design...

So like I said, change my mind...

Chris

I really liked that fourm one. Now that is some cool ass Flash.

it's nice to see people saying good things about flash as well as bad things about flash. i think flash bashing is really becoming a popular thing these days.

personally, i think flash has helped usher in an era of bad design for lazy people.

on a side note, it always makes me laugh when i see an ultra-cool, ultra-trendy, ultra-hip designer's site and their portfolio is made up of sites like Grandma Opal's Hand-Made Quilts, East Appleton Garden Supply, and Bert Jamison's Glamour Shots of Houston.