Introduction

Adobe Flash, while it appears to be buggier on Linux, is a neat thing. I can watch animations and play games right through my web browser. Now, I would prefer that Adobe Flash not be put to the use of making entire websites, or even major parts of websites, such as a navigation menu.

Flash usability hasn’t had major improvements in eight years, as evident by Jakob Nielsen’s similar article on Flash and usability.

Why too much Flash is bad

1) The user interface is nonstandard.

Flash websites have a tendency to make their own (shinier) scroll bars to help me navigate large amounts of text.

A web designer creating his or her own scrollbar, and then refusing to let me use the browser’s scrollbar is like the web designer poking holes in my car’s tires and replacing the tires with cardboard boxes. Well, perhaps I’m being a bit dramatic with the metaphor.

Interaction with the user interface also totally gives the user unexpected surprises. Most Flash websites do not allow me to right-click*, middle-click, or use my web browser’s scroll bar.

*Whenever I say, “no right-click”, I mean that the user cannot access a context menu from right-clicking.

2) Flash websites often take longer to load.

Oftentimes, I want good ol’ fashioned text coming down the pipeline to my screen. I do not want:

• text animations.
• animations of somewhat related images.
• sound.
• a screen that tells me that the above three are loading.

3) Ctrl+F doesn’t work on Flash websites.

I cannot use text manipulation tools to edit or search the webpage. I cannot type Ctrl+F and then search the text of the page. Greasemonkey would not work well in all-Flash websites. Neither would bookmarklets or Firefox extensions that allow me to manipulate the page.

4) OS-specific Flash Player bugs

I recently visited a website that had a bug with an embedded Flash slideshow. The bug was only visible when using the Linux Flash Player. On Windows, even on Firefox, the Flash slideshow worked perfectly.

The bug was that the Javascript drop down navigation was being hidden under the Flash slideshow on Linux, which made most of the menu inaccessible.

Designers shouldn’t have to test on multiple operating systems, because the vast majority of designers probably do not have the time or resources to do so.

5) Redundancy

Plenty of website designers will provide a plain HTML version of the content on the website for users that do not have Adobe Flash. I just don’t understand why there needs two versions of a webpage, with one being flashier than the other.

The main usability issue here is that any text or link pointing to the HTML version is often in very small text and sometimes only visible to users that do not use Flash. Users that do have Flash and want to use the text version might have a hard time finding the text version.

6) Redundancy

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Conclusion

I would rather visit an ugly webpage full of HTML hacks that were inserted by a poorly coded WYSIWYG editor than an impressive looking (but completely unusable) Flash website.

Why?

Because in an HTML website, the defaults are more usable because defaults in HTML pages are what most users are used to. In an HTML page, developers would have to go out of their way to create some of the annoyances that are common on Flash websites.

The vast majority of people that create HTML pages don’t have an impulse to disable right-clicking in the browser, or to make their own scrollbar when the browser has a scrollbar that works just fine.

So, please. I beg you to start an HTML page with a DOCTYPE tag, end it with </html>, and make sure that the only uses of Flash in between are not for displaying text and images.