[WEB4LIB] Re: flash image on our home page

[Blake Carver]

That's true, but sometimes it doesn't hurt to add a little "flash", in this
case "flash" doesn't necessarily mean Flash, but any number of nice
graphical elements, or just a nice design. It creates a good impression on
users (students, librarians, administrators, people who control your budget,
etc...).
Why look like a boring old library, if you don't have to, just don't over do
it.
It's all about balance, and knowing your users.
What you think users need (W3C compliant, accessible, quick) Vs. What will
keep people coming back (a nice looking and usable site).

For example, I know all my users just LOVE the bright orange that burns
their retinas when they visit LISNews.
Which reminds me, I really need to change that one of these days...
---------------------
Blake Carver
LISNews.com
http://www.lisnews.com
Librarian and Information Science News


----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas M G Bennett" <bennetttm at appstate.edu>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <web4lib at webjunction.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 7:17 AM
Subject: [WEB4LIB] Re: flash image on our home page


> Karen makes a good point, who is your target audience and what are their
> modes of access?  And keeping with the lowest common denominator, a static
> W3C compliant page should be a default page for clients to connect to with
> links going to optional WEB pages, IMHO.
>
> Thomas
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>   Use The Help Desk at http://linux.library.appstate.edu/help
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>                       Rock and Rule
>              Zope Rocks -- http://www.zope.org
>            Python Rules  -- http://www.python.org
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Thomas McMillan Grant Bennett      Appalachian State University
> Computer Consultant III            University Library
> Voice:  828 262 6587            FAX:    828 262 2797
>
> Windows 95 is a 32-bit extension to a 16-bit patch for an 8-bit
> operating system that was originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor.
>  - Chris Dunphy     Boot Magazine
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib at webjunction.org
> [mailto:web4lib at webjunction.org]On Behalf Of Karen Harker
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 8:41 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: [WEB4LIB] Re: flash image on our home page
>
>
> I think that the primary reason given for rejecting such technology is
load
> time.  This is a problem for all Web development - balancing technology
that
> is available to developers with the technology that is available to users.
> When the latter is unknown or quite varied, then the problem is even
harder
> to solve.
>
> The simplest solution, yet least palatable to developers, is to develop to
> the lowest common denominator. The more complex solutions require
gathering
> user information (via surveys, user logs,
> etc.) and developing dynamic systems that can adapt to the technology
> available to the user.  The Flash/Non-Flash router of Jim's page is a good
> example, yet this is obviously not enough if most of these users are
> accessing the page remotely using 56K modems.
>
> The developer can also enrich the site by using server-sided systems as
much
> as possible.
>
> When the technology available to the user is known and similar to the
> technology available to the developer, then the door can be opened much
> wider to i
> ntegrate such technology to enrich the system.
>
> Things we consider before integrating higher-technologies into our site
> include:
> 1) The technological standards of the *users of the system we are
> designing*.  This user group may or may not be the same as the users of
our
> main site.
>
> 2) The advantages and disadvantages of including the high-technology,
> including how it can and cannot enrich and enhance the site.
>
> 3) Alternative solutions, include parallel systems (low-tech/high-tech),
> server-sided syst
> ems, etc.
>
> Most developers understand that the use of new technologies needs to
> examined carefully with an eye on the end-user's actual (not perceived)
> experience.
>
>
>
> Karen R. Harker, MLS
> UT Southwestern Medical Library
> 5323 Harry Hines Blvd.
> Dallas, TX  75390-9049
> 214-648-1698
> http://www.swmed.edu/library/
>
> >>> "Drew, Bill" <drewwe at MORRISVILLE.EDU> 7/5/01 8:15:32 AM >>>
> "Flash is good for games, situations where animation is mandatory, and
> presentations to small children, but should be exor
> cised from
> situations where textual methods are adequate. This means libraries
> (except maybe for children's libraries)."
>
> I am disturbed by the broad condemnation of any technology as the quote
> above from Tony Barry suggests.  Flash works very well in instruction and
> other situations.  It has been at least two decades since libraries (all
> types) have been places "where textual methods are adequate."  We have to
> reach out to the MTV generation.  I would bet that many librarians out
there
> are part
> of the MTV generation.  I believe it is entirely appropriate to use
> flash and other animation methods on web pages as long as alternatives are
> provided.  The flash on our library page serves a decorative and marketing
> function.  It does not provide anything in terms of content. I see nothing
> wrong with that.
>
> Bill Drew
> drewwe at morrisville.edu
>
>
>
> *********************************************************************
> Due to deletion of content types excluded from this list by policy,
> this multipart
>  message was reduced to a single part, and from there
> to a plain text message.
> *********************************************************************
>
>