|
7 Dec 2002, 04:43
|
#1
|
Born Sinful
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Loughborough, UK
Posts: 4,059
|
Flash sites with style
Flash can be annoying - especially when it's just used for some intro screen which takes ages to download, is utterly pointless, and has no skip button.
However, there are some sites out there which really show what flash can do if only you put some effort in.
My personal favourite is www.2advanced.com.
Just wondering if anyone else has any?
__________________
Worth dying for. Worth killing for. Worth going to hell for. Amen.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 04:51
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
There isnt a single good flash site on the entire internet.
I dont want flashy lights when I click a link. I dont want to watch my screen spasm and arrange graphics in a pretty way. I just want a screen to come up and give me the information that I requested, preferably without making me download a 100kb file in the process. That site, while it looks very pretty, is absolutely horrible to use and the same applies to every flash site Ive ever seen.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 14:17
|
#3
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nodrog
There isnt a single good flash site on the entire internet.
|
There was one, but it is no longer online (afaik). It was a masterpiece, and was quick to load even on a modem.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 15:07
|
#4
|
Rawr rawr
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Upside down
Posts: 5,300
|
2advanced.com LOOKS quite nice IMO. Only the sound is shiet (well, not shiet, only annoying) and should STOP as soon as it has loaded.
I guess the looks could also have been accomplished with ordinary HTML/CSS tho. Only the intro would have been as tad diffilcult.
Personally I'd be pro-flash if it was used more professionally and not in a way that would make you freak out. The advantage of HTML is that everyone is used to the layout and knows how to use it, whereas with Flash the user has to addapt to the designers choice of display.
I'm completely against only using HTML because every single person should be able to view it. You often hear that one shouldn't use certain tags/media because it isn't supported in browsers from the stone age. Personally I feel that people with such equipment shouldn't be using the internet anyway (luckilly this becomes rarer every day ). The designer certainly should have the ability to have some freedom in his design.
Flash is in that a good step in the right direction, just not used in a more generic way to be more appealing to more users.
[/mytwocents]
__________________
"Yay"
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 16:43
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: :noitacoL
Posts: 1,200
|
There are pretty and good looking sites, but i've never seen a site that rates highly enough to consider a good use for flash. Either loading is slow, navigation is awful or the content lacks.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 17:39
|
#6
|
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 421
|
ill give you this for now
i completely disagree, it is very possible to find flash sites with content, which normally is artistic instead of textual information
im still searching for this site i saw a couple months ago which had some 30+ pages each with interactive content, and not more than 50kb per page
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 18:16
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: :noitacoL
Posts: 1,200
|
Flavious the loading time was a bitch for what it did load. I'd still rather view those images as a directory bulletpoint list albeit a visually stunning flash site :-)
Last edited by mbushell; 28 Dec 2002 at 19:39.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 18:22
|
#8
|
Rawr rawr
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Upside down
Posts: 5,300
|
Flav, it looks ace and it creates a great atmosphere. Yet it took me a while to figure out the interface, which is a big nono for 1st time visitors not directly interrested in the content.
__________________
"Yay"
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 18:40
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Flavius
ill give you this for now
i completely disagree, it is very possible to find flash sites with content, which normally is artistic instead of textual information
im still searching for this site i saw a couple months ago which had some 30+ pages each with interactive content, and not more than 50kb per page
|
The cleverness of having the links in popup windows is matched only by the ingenuity of a trailing mouse pointer, and the decision to not bother labelling any links.
The pictures themselves are nice though, and the thing that comes up when you move your mouse over the links is very nicely drawn. but its a website damnit. You wouldnt want pages of a book youre reading to randomly popup, and nor would you want sound to come out when you turn the page. You wouldnt buy a newspaper that was printed on 'colourful' yellow paper and had 'artistic' designs covering 90% of every single page. You wouldnt want your toaster to have wing mirrors attached, and you wouldnt want your car to have a chimney. Its a webpage. Theres absolutely no need to have 12121234214 gigaterabytes of pseudo-art-student ejaculate spewing out over every single page completely destroying the navigation, just so that some redneck with his new computer can marvel at 'all the purdy colours'. Its a website. Design for the medium, dont try and adapt the medium to suit your 'wacky' straight-out-of-college designs, that you think will somehow get your web site in the Tate modern gallery of the internet. Its not big, and its not clever. You are designing a website. Function defines form, not viceversa and asdfdsifjnsaldgjasdaslikhsliakglksdjkfdsnkngdljhioehlknsadfl
Anyway.
The pictures were nice.
Last edited by Nodrog; 7 Dec 2002 at 18:51.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 19:13
|
#10
|
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 421
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nodrog
The cleverness of having the links in popup windows is matched only by the ingenuity of a trailing mouse pointer, and the decision to not bother labelling any links.
The pictures themselves are nice though, and the thing that comes up when you move your mouse over the links is very nicely drawn. but its a website damnit. You wouldnt want pages of a book youre reading to randomly popup, and nor would you want sound to come out when you turn the page. You wouldnt buy a newspaper that was printed on 'colourful' yellow paper and had 'artistic' designs covering 90% of every single page. You wouldnt want your toaster to have wing mirrors attached, and you wouldnt want your car to have a chimney. Its a webpage. Theres absolutely no need to have 12121234214 gigaterabytes of pseudo-art-student ejaculate spewing out over every single page completely destroying the navigation, just so that some redneck with his new computer can marvel at 'all the purdy colours'. Its a website. Design for the medium, dont try and adapt the medium to suit your 'wacky' straight-out-of-college designs, that you think will somehow get your web site in the Tate modern gallery of the internet. Its not big, and its not clever. You are designing a website. Function defines form, not viceversa and asdfdsifjnsaldgjasdaslikhsliakglksdjkfdsnkngdljhioehlknsadfl
Anyway.
The pictures were nice.
|
since when are you a conservativist ?
the whole speech going around 'its a xxx, it shouldnt have yyy' is completely useless here, if your looking for a book, buy a book. Websites arent supposed to have the same feeling as books or newspapers, u want those then u should buy those. The next thing u mentioned was audience, i am most sure this site wasnt aimed at the grand audience, and thus, fulfills its purpose. Just think of this as an art/portfolio book, and not a newspaper
certain sites fulfill certain needs, and the same happens with books
i dont see anything wrong with trying something different or wacky
structural - the 'getting used to the navigation' is all part of the 'getting into the atmosphere' thing, the site would lose all its magic if u just put a bunch of links pointing at pictures.
I dont see the point of argueing that this or that site is supposed to be like this because of the content it has. Your not looking at that site in search of information on world war, its purely entertainment and art
Its up to the designer to chose between a site full of text, badly formatted (lo theregister.co.uk) or a site which catches the eye and fulfills its needs (or anything in between)
what i hate, is sites which are plain ugly, have no content whatsoever and relate in no sense to what the webdesigner (if any) had in mind
and besides, i hate having to load a whole site just because of 1 picture, then having to Alt+LeftArrow to go back, thus losing a bit more time when it can just show me a pop up with it
Last edited by Flavius; 7 Dec 2002 at 19:20.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 19:31
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Flavius
since when are you a conservativist ?
the whole speech going around 'its a xxx, it shouldnt have yyy' is completely useless here, if your looking for a book, buy a book. Websites arent supposed to have the same feeling as books or newspapers, u want those then u should buy those. The next thing u mentioned was audience, i am most sure this site wasnt aimed at the grand audience, and thus, fulfills its purpose. Just think of this as an art/portfolio book, and not a newspaper
certain sites fulfill certain needs, and the same happens with books
i dont see anything wrong with trying something different or wacky
structual - the 'getting used to the navigation' is all part of the 'getting into the atmosphere' thing, the site would lose all its magic if u just put a bunch of links pointing at pictures
and besides, i hate having to load a whole site just because of 1 picture, then having to Alt+LeftArrow to go back, thus losing a bit more time when it can just show me a pop up with it
|
nononono, im not saying that all things should 'look the same'.
Its like this you see. The purpose of a newspaper is to tell the reader news. Therefore, its not going to have sound coming out of every page or extra features that allow you to cook your breakfast while reading it. A car is meant to drive places. It is not going to have a chimney coming out the roof because 'it looks good'.
Now, the purpose of a website is to deliver content to the person reading. This implies a few things.
1) A good navigation system. There is no point whatsoever in deliberately confusing the reader. It isnt 'cool', it isnt 'new age', it isnt 'wacky', it isnt 'original' and it isnt 'kitsch'. It is fu*king stupid. There is no point in doing it whatsoever other than to say "omg ur so boring adapt to the new age of art student webpage design u fag". I know some designers feel that making their links 2 pixels high and scattering them randomly over the page is in someway 'raging against the conservative machine', but I can say in full confidence that they are the retarded ones, not the people who inform them of their stupidity and lack of any kind of design skill.
2) Readable text. Now, I'm not implying that there is one 'correct' system for readable text, but this doesnt change the fact that there are lots and lots of wrong ones. This includes any of the following: a) Putting text in tiny little boxes, that requires the user to click on 'next' after every 20 words. b) Using small fonts 'because they look pretty'. Retarded. c) Stupid stupid combinations of text and background colour, eg white text on a blue background. Just. No. People dont stick to the traditional black text on white because they are "boring neolithic dinosaurs stuck in a metaevolutionaly pre-derridian neo-conservative time era, with no desire to adapt their paradigms to reconcile them with a modern proactive proto-reactionary artistic utopia of unbridled freedom and expression". They do it because it makes it easy' to read. Artistic text looks shit. The reason it looks shit is because you cant read it. A Van Gogh painting might look nice in your living room, but if you painted it on your toilet seat, it would look stupid. This is because it is not meant to be there.
3) Decent viewing times. I do not want to wait about 5 seconds for every page to load on a broadband connection. Its bad enough when download times are caused due to site slowness and internet lag, but its unforgiveable when they are caused because the site designer wants you to watch a 10 second long animation every single time you click a link.
Now, these are the 3 things that define the 'function' of the website. The form must conform to suit them, not the other way round. If it doesnt, then it is 'retarded' and 'wrong'. Within the scope of these 3 criteria, you are free to do whatever you want and have your website classed as 'decent'. If a designer deviates from them, then their site is 'shit', no matter what their trusted coffee-shop pseudo-art-critic student chums tell them.
Wow, that was longer that I meant it to be.
Last edited by Nodrog; 7 Dec 2002 at 19:39.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 19:39
|
#12
|
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 421
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nodrog
nononono, im not saying that all things should 'look the same'.
Its like this you see. The purpose of a newspaper is to tell the reader news. Therefore, its not going to have sound coming out of every page or extra features that allow you to cook your breakfast while reading it. A car is meant to drive places. It is not going to have a chimney coming out the roof because 'it looks good'.
Now, the purpose of a website is to deliver content to the person reading. This implies a few things.
1) A good navigation system. There is no point whatsoever in deliberately confusing the reader. It isnt 'cool', it isnt 'new age', it isnt 'wacky', it isnt 'original' and it isnt 'kitsch'. It is fu*cking stupid. There is no point in doing it whatsoever other than to say "omg ur so boring adapt to the new age of art student webpage design u fag".
2) Readable text. Now, although there is no one 'correct' system for readable text, there are lots and lots of ones that are definitely wrong. This includes any of the following: a) Putting text in tiny little boxes, that requires the user to click on 'next' after every 20 words. b) Using small fonts 'because they look pretty'. Retarded. c) Stupid stupid combinations of text and background colour, eg white text on a blue background. Just. No. People dont stick to the traditional black text on white because they are "boring neolithic dinosaurs stuck in a metaevolutionaly pre-derridian neo-conservative time era, with no desire to adapt their paradigms to reconcile them with a modern proactive proto-reactionary artistic utopia of unbridled freedom and expression". They do it because it makes it easy' to read. Artistic text looks ****. The reason it looks **** is because you cant read it. A Van Gogh painting might look nice in your living room, but if you painted it on your toilet seat, it would look stupid because it is not meant to be there.
3) Decent viewing times. I do not want to wait about 5 seconds for every page to load on a broadband connection. Its bad enough when download times are caused due to site slowness and internet lag, but its unforgiveable when they are caused because the site designer wants you to watch a 10 second long animation every single time you click a link.
Now, these are the 3 things that define the 'function' of the website. The form must conform to suit them, not the other way round. If it doesnt, then it is 'retarded' and 'wrong'. Within the scope of these 3 criteria, you are free to do whatever you want and have your website classed as 'decent'. If a designer deviate from them, then their site is '****', no matter what their trusted coffee-shop pseudo-art-critic student chums tell them.
Wow, that was longer that I meant it to be.
|
now i manage to agree with you
ur first post saying that "There isnt a single good flash site on the entire internet." isnt precise, as u didnt specify any standards
if u are lookign for content, then obviously u dont want flash to be intrusive. If flash is on the background, loading quickly, and giving u music for example, which you can close and choose with the click of a button, i dont see where the problem relies
however, if it flashes at u, pops up a window in the middle of the screen saying 'CLICK HERE TO WIN A TRIP TO AWAY' then its obviously **** and deserves to be shot or killed, or both
the purpose of websites isnt just to give you textual information or fast loading speeds. If a designer wants his site to be heavily graphic oriented, aimed at University connections or just to show his art, he can do whatever he wants.
and yes, small un-adjustable fonts blow
ps tsk tsk censor evasion
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 21:37
|
#13
|
Guest
|
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 21:48
|
#14
|
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: leeds
Posts: 592
|
http://www.kerb.co.uk
a pretty good flash site
with a different approch to navigation
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 22:00
|
#15
|
Wankoverable
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: wherever I am
Posts: 726
|
I agree 100% with nodrog here
__________________
Don't worry, life is too long.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 22:43
|
#17
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
See, now this is a lot better. However, it still falls into the same traps above. Look at the size of the viewscreen. The bit that contains the text is about 1/4 of the screen size. This is horrible to read. A 4 column layout where just 1 column contains your information is just silly, and makes it annoying to read.
Now look at the navigation. You click a link on the far left, and the submenu comes up on the far right. Thats just stupid. There are 3 different columns of navigation compared to 1 of actual content.
And the loading times. I click a link - cool, I get to watch a dancing baby for 10 seconds. Fantastic!
See, its too easy to look at a site like that, and think "wow, that looks really good!". And it does - it looks gorgeous, this isnt in question. But the thing is, if youre trying to actually read the site, or to navigate your way around it, it isnt quite that fantastic.
Also, you could do pretty much an identical copy of that site in HTML/CSS and Javascript if you were skilled enough (not that I'm suggesting that javascript isnt a horrible horrible thing to put on a website). The problems of this site are general design ones, rather than anything to do with Flash itself.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 22:59
|
#18
|
J to the C to the A G E
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scúnthorpe
Posts: 5,583
|
It says in the top right hand corner while the site takes a day to load
"Optimal performance: 1600x1200 (very common)
2GHZ CPU (also very common)"
I find the main problem with Flash sites are the monsterously long loading times, and the pointless sounds, that make it impossible to leave your PC speaker on, unless you like suicide.
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 23:01
|
#19
|
J to the C to the A G E
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scúnthorpe
Posts: 5,583
|
I'm afraid I can't speak from experience here, but won't it be a lot harder to keep a flash site up to date, as well?
|
|
|
7 Dec 2002, 23:23
|
#20
|
Not a Cow
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 201
|
That looks absolutely horrible. Worst use of flash bar my companies website.
__________________
<GSVsleep> cows would live a lot longer if they werent made out of steaks and leather
|
|
|
8 Dec 2002, 00:25
|
#21
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nodrog
Now, the purpose of a website is to deliver content to the person reading.
|
While I do agree with you, I would also like to point out that the presentation of that content depends purely on what audience you are aiming at and what said content is.
A comic book and a newspaper are both printed media, yet they are very different in style. Whereas a comic book can get away with a lot of bright colours, flashy ads and whatnot, a newspaper has to be sober, clear and to the point.
I personally see no reason why it's bad to build a site in Flash, of course within the limits of what's acceptable (don't use Flash because you want to have Flash on your page, but because you feel it's the best tool to convey the information you want to give out). I have no serious problems with most of the sites linked to on this page. They show skill with Flash and probably do exactly what the designer intended. If the targeted audience is positive about the site, then it has fulfilled it's purpose.
|
|
|
8 Dec 2002, 00:28
|
#22
|
mmm.. pills
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,152
|
Flash filled a large gaping hole that had existed in the internet for ages, lack of true multimedia content and design.
However the technology is still a bit ahead of itself as bandwidth while vastly improved is still the bottleneck to achieving a trulely seamless experience.
I think that as long as the user is given the option of either skipping a flash presentation or using a conventional interface then there is no problem with using it at all.
=[DJ Bass]=
__________________
CSS : the result of letting artists design something only an engineer should touch.
|
|
|
8 Dec 2002, 00:39
|
#23
|
mmm.. pills
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,152
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Flavius
ill give you this for now
|
OMFG! I think I'm going to be having nightmares about this site...:eek:
=[DJ Bass]=
__________________
CSS : the result of letting artists design something only an engineer should touch.
|
|
|
8 Dec 2002, 12:03
|
#24
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: :noitacoL
Posts: 1,200
|
Very clever but dreadful at the same time :/
|
|
|
8 Dec 2002, 20:26
|
#25
|
Guest
|
odd - the Conspiracy flash site has changed - it was fully working before - and loaded quicker (I last saw it leik 4 months ago)
well it's the best in terms of technological sense I mean - I haven't seen anything anywhere else as good as what is produced there - the design is not to my liking and there are flaws ok (:
|
|
|
8 Dec 2002, 20:50
|
#26
|
Darling
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 890
|
conspiracy is one of the best flash websites i have seen navigational wise [it has a normal-ish menu system] and has its own back/foward (albiet hard to find) though it falls down on its speed to navigate on all fronts - speed to load, speed for pages to load, and render-time-per-frame
therefore it needs LOTS of work
|
|
|
9 Dec 2002, 06:29
|
#27
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Oh.
I forgot to mention the fact that you cant copy text either, or link to any page on the site bar the entry point.
Having said this, ive never used Flash before, so dont know what its capable of. Could you make it take a parameter in the URL, and start the thing on a different page depending on it? eg someflashthing.swf?page=news, so that you can go straight to the news page. Coz that would be like, cool, and stuff.
|
|
|
9 Dec 2002, 09:33
|
#28
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: :noitacoL
Posts: 1,200
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nodrog
I forgot to mention the fact that you cant copy text either, or link to any page on the site bar the entry point.
Having said this, ive never used Flash before, so dont know what its capable of. Could you make it take a parameter in the URL, and start the thing on a different page depending on it? eg someflashthing.swf?page=news, so that you can go straight to the news page. Coz that would be like, cool, and stuff.
|
Yes, but afaik you need a serverside script running (with the flash applet on a page), e.g. PHP. Also if the creators of the sites had time i'm sure they'll make the text selectable.
|
|
|
9 Dec 2002, 10:20
|
#29
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Abducted By Aliens
Posts: 282
|
|
|
|
9 Dec 2002, 14:20
|
#30
|
/dev/zero Retired Mod
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 415
|
5 minutes later, and I'm on 60% loaded!
__________________
#linux : Home of Genius
<idimmu> ok i was chained to a desk with this oriental dude
|
|
|
9 Dec 2002, 15:36
|
#31
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
Die.
|
|
|
9 Dec 2002, 17:29
|
#32
|
Born Sinful
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Loughborough, UK
Posts: 4,059
|
That conspiracy site is a little, er, confusing.
Especially if you activate the "emergency" thingy (bottom right) and fail to do whatever it is you're meant to do, as it then kicks you out. Nice.
When I started the thread I knew bandwidth would come up, but I wasn't intending it to be part of the thread really. I know flash is still too far ahead of what most people have in bandwidth terms - I was just simply looking for 'nice' sites.
__________________
Worth dying for. Worth killing for. Worth going to hell for. Amen.
|
|
|
9 Dec 2002, 17:54
|
#33
|
Motherfracker
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,985
|
despite the awful loadtime on conspiracy games, it is a good site. it's just a shame the designer really has no idea about wide usuability. even on adsl, the site takes 3-4 minutes to load and each page after that takes 2 mins at the very least.
design is good, but it's ****.
|
|
|
9 Dec 2002, 19:10
|
#34
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Abducted By Aliens
Posts: 282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Leshy
Die.
|
no ta thats a site i just completed the backend/dynamic flash/cookie system etc for
with what it paid well lets just say that site alone would be enough to buy pa 4 times over.
it may be a very camp site but its a very expensive one 8o) and one of the few flash sites thats actually navigatiable
|
|
|
11 Dec 2002, 00:19
|
#35
|
Muad'Dib
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Molde, Norway
Posts: 71
|
__________________
Rnd 1: Bluetuba, Rnd 2: Bluetuba, Rnd 3: The Legion, Rnd 4: The Legion / Wolfpack, Rnd 5: Wolfpack / Out of Order, Rnd 6: No alliance, merely idling
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
|
|
|
11 Dec 2002, 09:21
|
#36
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: :noitacoL
Posts: 1,200
|
We've had better posted above :/
|
|
|
11 Dec 2002, 10:19
|
#37
|
TashTastic
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,354
|
imo this is a very well made flash site http://www.itcatmedia.com/school
Madina
__________________
Its only gay if you enjoy it!
|
|
|
11 Dec 2002, 13:53
|
#38
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
Quote:
Originally posted by hinch
it may be a very camp site
|
'may be'? You sold your soul to the devil
(On that note, see you in seven years. )
|
|
|
11 Dec 2002, 13:54
|
#39
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Abducted By Aliens
Posts: 282
|
why 7 years? you gonna come and be my buttler?
|
|
|
11 Dec 2002, 17:52
|
#40
|
Muad'Dib
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Molde, Norway
Posts: 71
|
Quote:
Originally posted by mbushell
We've had better posted above :/
|
that might be, I just know that this is a very good flash site ;-)
__________________
Rnd 1: Bluetuba, Rnd 2: Bluetuba, Rnd 3: The Legion, Rnd 4: The Legion / Wolfpack, Rnd 5: Wolfpack / Out of Order, Rnd 6: No alliance, merely idling
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
|
|
|
12 Dec 2002, 00:36
|
#41
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: U.S.
Posts: 28
|
Yea that site is nice, but what about http://www.whoswe.com/cigar.html the developers there are full of invoative ideas
__________________
do not let anyone decieve you with the legitimization of their myth
|
|
|
12 Dec 2002, 09:21
|
#42
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: :noitacoL
Posts: 1,200
|
Excellent visual but *cough* loading is dreadful.
|
|
|
12 Dec 2002, 11:52
|
#43
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Abducted By Aliens
Posts: 282
|
forgot 2 sites.
www.mecompany.com
(these guys do the cg for bjorks videos and several other famous people)
www.ninjai.com
(online story told in flash each chapter takes about 15 mins to load on a dsl line purely because of the quality and size of them and the fact each chapter is about 5 mins long)
|
|
|
12 Dec 2002, 13:32
|
#44
|
/dev/zero Retired Mod
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 415
|
what do you think of this sites use of flash?
__________________
#linux : Home of Genius
<idimmu> ok i was chained to a desk with this oriental dude
|
|
|
12 Dec 2002, 14:52
|
#45
|
Born Sinful
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Loughborough, UK
Posts: 4,059
|
It's nothing out of the ordinary but it's nice and functional, unlike many.
Dunno how long the intro takes to load for "normal" people - it was pretty much instant here but this is a uni net connection. Might need a skip intro option for modem people?
__________________
Worth dying for. Worth killing for. Worth going to hell for. Amen.
|
|
|
12 Dec 2002, 14:54
|
#46
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Abducted By Aliens
Posts: 282
|
oh dear
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:07.
| |