Has anyone seen many websites of 2011 that are still created with Flash and Static code? I’m not talking about a hybrid website that uses both, I’m talking about a website that gives the visitor the option of choosing either a Flash version of Static version.
Thanks
I can’t think of one off the bat. Most modern browsers handle Flash very well, and the need for such an option is pretty much obsolete unless you’re dealing with a user base with bandwidth or browser issues. Since Flash-based sites have so many other issues, I wouldn’t recommend designing a site in Flash. Adding Flash elements is perfectly fine, but the whole site? No.
Thanks. It’s too late. 
My website is all flash. That’s why I want to add an html website to it as well. I will give the visitor the option of viewing either or.
About the only time I see 100% Flash sites are being by people who do Flash professionally and are trying to show off their skills. I don’t really see the need for a second version of the site.
…except on an iDevice, iGadget or iComputer, which will not support Flash in any way, shape or form. The proportion of people using these iWossnames is large and growing, and anyone who requires the use of Flash to access their website is cutting out a huge chunk of potential users.
Flash as an enhancement to a website, where it adds something that is beneficial but not essential, can be OK. Flash as the basis for the whole structure, or for any essential element, is a total and absolute irredeemable FAIL. Running parallel Flash and HTML websites is not generally a good solution, because unless you’re doing something very clever behind the scenes, the chances are that you’re going to end up having to design and maintain two separate sites, which means twice as much work for you. Why not just make one site that works for everybody?
Flash is old technology. You will be hard pressed to find it on the web anymore in its full entirety. It is a CPU hog and bogs down performance.
HTML 5 and especially jQuery have replaced it - and from my experience, it works so much better.
Is this Samsung site consider flash and static? http://www.samsung.com/my/ , it allow user to switch static version.
Plus in the near future all Android devices too, probably, since Adobe decided to stop working on mobile flash.
Just out of curiosity, would there be any sort of search engine penalty to maintaining two website that would, one assumes, mirror the same content?
If you have an HTML website and a Flash website then there’s a strong chance that Google will see an HTML website and a load of blank pages anyway…
The penalty to having duplicate content is that Google has two pages fighting for its attention rather than one, there’s a risk that your inbound links will be split between the two, and that means that instead of harnessing all your link juice and content and everything to promote one version of your site ahead of everyone else, you’ve got two versions bickering with each other and not working effectively to beat your real competition.
The site does use flash, in the firebug it shows as:
<div class="promo_wrap"> <object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="/my/flash/p2main/main.swf" width="100%" height="100%" id="main_promo" style="visibility: visible; width: 100%; left: auto; margin-left: 0px; height: 768px; top: auto; margin-top: 0px; "><param name="wmode" value="opaque"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="flashvars" value="config_file=/my/flash/p2main/xml/config.xml"></object></div>
I could see no evidence of a low bandwidth option. I quickly went through the javascript and did not see any ‘sniffing’ javascript that would determine if it should throw a ‘low bandwidth’ alert, so unless it is done with a dynamic lanaguage like php, .NET… I don’t think it is low bandwidth; my phone was served the same desktop version.
I also could not see a static link option, unless like you, JS was disabled?
Regards,
Steve
There’s a link near the bottom-left of the page: “view low bandwidth version”
It’s next to the language/ country/ locale selector thingy.
So basically you have to load the high-bandwidth version so you can click on the low-bandwidth one… nice 
Well that way you get a chance to see what you’ll be missing
You also need good eyesight (the link is tiny) and the ability to find it while the graphics are doing their stuff all over the page. I think my definition of “low bandwidth” must be different to theirs, as even that version has 300kb background images - they just change more slowly than the other version. The thought of that on my old dial-up (ostensibly 56kbps, but it struggled to reach 28kbps most days and never made it past 32kbps)…
An also a big ever-widening bill from my punitive cell provider 
Yes, my eyesight is not that good and if you recently saw Stomme Poes regarding 40% of rural Americans don’t have high bandwidth, and I am sure similar low-high bandwidth distributions exist in other countries (I know Canada does). Not to be too strong, but their idea of low-bandwidth is wrong. Perhaps they have just made the corporate decision that they don’t care about the customer base that can’t consume their high or low bandwidth versions?
Flash was really designed for video playback, like youtube has it. It’s not suppose to be for website navigation as it really does not do any justice to your search engine factors.
The only places I’ve seen website with Flash are pop signers/music artists and celebrities, were search engine optimization is less important, let’s face it if you want to find “Jackie Chan” you’d probably just search for him. But even on his site there are components of Flash and not an entire Flash website. Full flash websites have a different approach completely to what they normally did - http://waterlife.nfb.ca/, amazing stuff!