# HTML with Flash alternative or straight up HTML only?



## brucelines (Jul 14, 2006)

I'm pretty new here and I'm definitely new to the t-shirt business.

I launched a site last month which was Flash only. Although a lot of people say Flash isn't that great for a retail site, we wanted to give the customer an experience while shopping/browsing.

Now, some people didn't get the navigation (I thought it was obvious) so I've made an HTML alternative. The HTML version is pretty much identical to the Flash version but without some animations and small compromises in layout too.

So my question is, would there be any point to keep the Flash version?


----------



## badalou (Mar 19, 2006)

Because you get to watch flash on your computer you can not assume that everyone can.. so you limit your viewers. Not all computers have flash viewers. Older computer you have to add programs to view it. It is also not index friendly for Yahoo and google. Remember that a lot of the search engines view content. if that content is all in flash it will not be seen. all the top web authorities recommend not to use flash. If you do keep it to a few of the components of your page. Like maybe pictures doing a slide show or wording zooming in and out..


----------



## dub3325 (Jun 7, 2006)

Offering flash is great for certain markets (i.e. gaming, portfolios, Design Firms....etc). But it is definitely a nono in the retail industry...as you already know. What about a hybrid of the two, with a sniffer that detects flash if its available...if not, then it just shows a static image.

If your site is 100% flash, then I would just scrap it, unless you are appealing to a certain market where you know for a fact that they all have it. Offering an HTML version is nice as well, but are you drawing both sites from the same database? If not, then it could be tedious updating both when it is only necessary to have one.

My Vote, straight HTML.

-Edit- 
BTW, love your design and idea, what type of printing are you using?


----------



## TeeShirtSamurai (Feb 8, 2006)

Weng,

I agree with the above two, just go with HTML.


----------



## Rodney (Nov 3, 2004)

I think the HTML version of the site is great, and is pretty easy to navigate. 

that's all the experience a t-shirt shopper needs


----------



## Adam (Mar 21, 2005)

Awesome t-shirts! Totally my style.. might have to purchase one at the end of month. 

The HTML version rocks. The flash navigation is pretty sucky, it's so much easier to see all the t-shirts at once on the html version so it becomes a better selling tool. Although the flash version is pretty wow I personally would direct your customers straight to the html version and lose the splash page. Maybe have a toggle button at the bottom of the page for your flash version so all your hard efforts don't go to waste.


----------



## identityburn (Feb 24, 2006)

Both sites are cool, but I'd have to say the HTML version is much faster to navigate. With the flash site you have to wait for each page to load which could get annoying with someone wanting to quickly browse through it.


----------



## kentphoto (Jan 16, 2006)

I would stick to as simple as possible. Flash to me is a waste of time. Especially when you want to sell shirts. Is the point to give the viewer an "experience" or is it to sell them a shirt? Make it as easy for them to do this as possible. You can have a simple, fast. clean site, and still make it a nice place to click to.


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

I'm a flash-hater, so I didn't check that version. Agree with all the comments that have already been made though; the html version is good.


----------



## brucelines (Jul 14, 2006)

Sorry for the delayed response, couldn't access this site for some reason.

Thanks for all your comments about the site. Didn't actually think you'll go and visit it considering I didn't have a link in my post!!

We wanted to explain our ideas to our customers so they would understand them and could then explain the meaning (if there was one) to other people who were interested in the design. With that in mind, we wanted our shirt pages to look different than your typical retail page.

When I browse both versions of the site, I don't get the feel that it's a _shop_. And I get the feeling that it's just a portfolio website or something.

To those who looked at both versions of the site, which one was better, in terms of actually _selling_ the product?

dub3325 - They're screened at the moment, but we're looking to maybe get some by T-Jet because we'll be using more colours in the future.


----------



## dub3325 (Jun 7, 2006)

Weng,

I agree that both look like a portfolio site at the moment. More so the flash version than the html. Flash version is cool though, dont get me wrong...but you might find that less people are navigating to it. And the ones that do are just in it to see some cool effects.

The html version is awesome, but when you first click on it, I don't know what you're all about in the first couple seconds of visiting the site. It is a minor issue really since your theme is there. But I think it would be cool to see something that has to do with a tee shirt in the imagery.


----------



## honeyflip (Nov 1, 2005)

I vote for the html version. I'm on a fast computer with good dsl, but my philosophy is that flash is a time-waster.


----------



## Rodney (Nov 3, 2004)

I think if you move the thumbnails of the t-shirt designs to the main page, it definitely make the HTML version of the site more "selly"


----------



## Tshirtcrib (Jul 21, 2006)

Personally I am a huge fan of flash, however when selling items; you do not want your customers to be more enthralled with the graphic manipulations and cool tricks of flash as opposed to the t-shirts that you are trying to sell. The t-shirts are what should receive the most amount of attention, not the tricks that can be done with flash.


----------



## brucelines (Jul 14, 2006)

I guess the best thing for me to do is go back to the drawing board and whip up an html site with a little bit of Flash to add to the experience. Seems a bit obvious, why didn't I think of it before...


----------

