One of the great debates in interactive design is “HTML vs. Flash.” Purists hate Flash because of it’s lack of usability and universality. Flashers think HTML is too rigid and creatively limiting. This article discusses both sides of the debate and the dangers of thinking in absolutes.
The truth here, like in most polarized issues, is that both have their strengths and weaknesses. It is part of job as designers to know our tools, and to find the best tool for the job.
HTML
Hypertext Markup Language is the general language of the internet as read by all web browsers. No plug-ins are needed, so it is truly the universal language of the worldwide web. While generated by any number of server-side technologies, nearly every page you visit online (even Flash sites) will be one form or another of HTML.
HTML consists generally of text and images. As such it is great for displaying content that is heavy on text and images: Google, Wikipedia, blogs, etc. HTML also degrades nicely. If you are browsing on a text-only browser or using a screen reader, the text will still be there, even if the images aren’t.
Flash
Flash is a proprietary language. It can be thought of as an add-on to HTML. What makes it special is that it is one of the few add-ons capable of presenting the most of the same kinds of content as HTML. As such, it is the one and only proprietary language (for now*) that can be used as a substitute for hypertext.
Flash is highly malleable, and with some ingenuity, can be configured into just about anything at all. A tool this flexible is very powerful, and as such, it is often misused. Excessive visual and aural stimulation - or Flashturbation, as it is sometimes called - will always be tempting as connection speeds increase to push the limits of technology. These are the growing pains of a quickly advancing technology, and while good for Design in the long term, makes for some bad designs. Three minute video intros with blaring music are quickly becoming a thing of the past, and as designers and developers continue to innovate with the technology, it is becoming a powerful tool for the conveyance of information.
The major downsides of flash include lack of readability by search engines and lack of browser integration (back button, bookmarking). These are important points, and while there are workarounds**, it’s important to consider these limitations when choosing a platform for design and development.
Some upsides that are often overlooked are consistency and user engagement. Consistency means a flash site will look the same on any browser that supports flash content. User engagement means drawing a user in with the structure and behavior of the site in addition to the content. Animation can serve a usability function, subconsciously mapping relationships between content in users’ minds, but it can also simply make users happy and interested in clicking around.
Which is Better?
When deciding what kind of structure to build a site around, we should consider a few questions:
What is the weight of the engaging power flash as compared to the usability downfalls? Who is the audience, and what do they expect?
Design, at it’s core, is about the organization of information. It’s an art form, but also a science. The final question we must ask ourselves is always this: What it the best way to get the message across?
*Microsoft’s Silverlight is in its final stages, and hopes to crack the market that Flash now dominates for this kind of presentation.
** SWF Address is great for building some better browser functionality. SWF Object is the standard for alternate content and replacement.
