Does any one know how to use flash MX

  Phildo 22:33 08 Dec 2003

i am using flash mx i know the basics but i really want to know if any one knows how to make a sit using flash mx cus i dont can some one please help me

  soy 00:03 09 Dec 2003

I think creating a website in Flash, is the same process you useto create animation. You create your basic page and on them you create Buttons and links that, when clicked upon will activate another animation. So basically, the whole website is a large interative animation which requires the user to click various links in order to see more.

You then export the flash movie into a web editor (dreamweaver, Net objects fusion etc)and embed it onto a blank page. You can then upload the webpage with the flash movie onto the web.

I'm not sure what I've said is accurate but I have used flash before for animation purposes and this is the way I think flash websites are made.

  Phildo 01:11 09 Dec 2003

ok cool thank but it will be a bit of a chalenge

  Taran 09:57 09 Dec 2003

I was under the impression from your other thread that you knew Flash already.

I'd advise against a Flash website. The whole thing would rely entirely on your site visitors having the necesary plugin to see the site, and while most people do have this installed, some do not.

The worst thing about Flash sites though, is the time it takes to load them. All Flash output is graphics based and requires downloading to the web browser to view. Text can become blurred slightly in Flash unless you know your oats and your visitors will have to sit and wait, even on broadband, for the page elements to load up before they can start navigating your site.

I'd suggest you'd be better served by creating a standard site using plain vanilla HTML. You can either learn the language or use a WYSIWYG editor to do so. You could always include a couple of small Flash animations in your site, but creating a Flash only site is no small undertaking and its output is impractical for real world use.



  Phildo 15:56 09 Dec 2003

well thanks for the advice and i think i will take it thank you very much



  s3mt3x 16:30 15 Dec 2003

IE 6 and Netscape 6+ all ship with the flash 6 plugin installed as default. That means anyone with windows XP has the flash plugin installed etc. Most people who have on older version would have downloaded it by now anyway. Flash is an important part of the internet and you should not be pushed away from using it by the paranoid, "static - no images" dinosaurs amongst us. The flash 6 plugin only 250k to download (one min or so on 56K)!

Another piece of food for thought - a recent Macromedia white paer stated that around 95% of web-users can view flash content!

  s3mt3x 16:36 15 Dec 2003

Oh yeh - and if you actually learn to use it, as opposed to knocking things up - the swf files it produces can be extremely small. In fact in many cases, a swf file will be smaller than the size of a javascript file used to sreate some fancy DHTML! Comments please!

  PurplePenny 17:14 15 Dec 2003

An awful lot of us are in broadband limbo and too much Flash on a site is just plain annoying when you have to wait an age for something that often isn't worth it. A Flash intro (without a skip option) just about guarantees that I don't look at the site - life's too short.


For Phildo, you'll find some excellent tutorials click here and some inspiration click here .

personally I'm a big fan of Flash as an entertainment medium and quite happily wait a good while (33Kb connection up here beyond the north) for a page to load to see what some people have created with it. BUT it all depends what the purpose of your site is, if your site is there to provide information then a large intro will put people off and you should avoid it, the same goes for any online shop. on my own site ( click here ) I use just one small flash animation on home page that has a smaller file size than a gif image would do.

basically its all a question of balance and purpose but dont give up on the flash as its a great tool. ( I just wish I could afford a copy).

  Forum Editor 18:59 15 Dec 2003

changes to your site (and you should, if you want to stimulate a decent traffic flow) you'll find an all Flash site an absolute nightmare.

All the text will become graphics, and it will impossible to make those rapid, small tweaks that are so important if your site is to look alive. A large chunk of potential audience will be lost immediately - they just won't wait for your loading cycle to complete - and those that do come will not return more than a couple of times unless you keep changing things.

Flash is an invaluable tool, used in the right way, and in the right context, but all-Flash sites are a pain in the neck unless you are specifically designing the site to be a showcase for the software, or as a demonstrator for your design/Flash skills.

  Taran 19:16 15 Dec 2003

""static - no images" dinosaurs"

That raised a smile if nothing else.

Perhaps that should be reworded to the "practical, realistic and experienced" among us (but I won't disagree with the dinosaur bit - at least not in my case)


Try creating any Flash heavy site and deliver it to the predominantly narrowband web users out there and see how many people get to the second or third page of a site without giving up and going elsewhere.

If you want to see Flash tied into PHP or ASP, used as a front end for dynamic, data driven sites or any one of a number of multimedia products I've set up using it I'm happy to talk further and feel free to get in touch.

Until the world and his wife is on broadband, Flash has to be confined to limited use or your web will never get viewers other than a niche, patient and/or broadband minority.

That's just how it is and we don't have to like it. For the record, and in case you misunderstood my sentiments and those of others, I like Flash and what it can do. It is just not practically deliverable over narrowband for anything but very limited use and that is the crucial point here.

This thread was a question on creating a site in Flash - not some elements of a site, but the entire site. Anyone who can give me a good argument in favour of that is welcome to try and anyone who can do so and produce output of a smaller file size than a site done in alternative languages is working magic that Paul Daniels would envy.

When broadband is the norm, I'll be Flashing (excuse the term) with the best of them. Until then bandwidth restrictions alone dictate what you can and can't deliver, no matter what age you are, which period of history you come from or how paranoid you may or may not be.

"95% of web-users can view flash content"

So what ?

Will 95% of web viewers wait and watch your loading screen for the Flash animation to load up ?

No, and that is the crucial difference. Quoted figures are for Flash enabled browsers, not for patient web visitors willing to spend several minutes for animations to load.

I can produce hand coded JavaScript and/or CSS 3D drop down, dynamic, rollover buttons and menus using smaller files than I ever could with Flash.

I'll stick with using it for presentations over known bandwidth or from CD ROM and as a front end interface for data driven projects.

If I'm getting it wrong I seem to get a lot of business coming my way and satisfied clients for being so incorrect and out of touch with the times.

So says this dinosaur anyway.



This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Moto G6 Play Review: First Look

iPad 9.7in (2018) review

Comment utiliser Live Photos ?