IQue - Our Twist on the Web

At a developer conference this week, Microsoft announced it would be releasing a cloud computing service alongside its forthcoming operating system, Windows 7. Cloud computing is a broad term that describes software and services made available on the Internet instead of on local computers and servers.

Examples of current cloud applications are the various Google Apps like Google Docs, where word processor and spreadsheet applications are not installed on a local computer, but rather exist as a service accessed online. One of the benefits of cloud applications is that, because they exist online as opposed to on a single computer or network, they can be accessed from any computer. Also, because the services exist across a number of servers, there is great reliability, as well as the capability to handle spikes in online traffic.

The Windows announcement is a clear response to companies like Google and Amazon.com, an early pioneer in commercial cloud services. While Microsoft certainly has the resources to commit data centers to these services, it remains to be seen how they will fare in this newest stage of computing.

Shortly after writing Comparing Web Browsers, Internet giant Google threw their hat in the ring of Web browsers with Chrome. The release (complete with its own promotional comic) followed years of speculation about if and when Google would develop a browser: some argued it would just be another player in already crowded field, while others felt it was the next logistical step for the Internet giant who was already heavily integrated with existing browsers through toolbars and other features.

Now that I’ve had a few weeks to work with the browser, its strengths and weaknesses are becoming more apparent. In the flurry of hype following its release, Chrome saw its market share spike to just over 3% (no small feat, considering mainstay Opera currently holds a mere 2%). Since then, however, use has dropped off. With the release of new cell phones using Google’s Android platform – and the Chrome browser – the adoption rate may increase. Here are some thoughts from a developer and user perspective:

Developer: Chrome uses WebKit, the same browser rendering engine as Safari, so site testing doesn’t mean having to account for an entirely new rendering. Google’s custom Javascript engine V8 was designed from the ground up to run more quickly and efficiently than existing engines – a benchmark which it reaches handily.

Equally important though, is that the browser carries Google’s signature minimalist look. Most browsers frame their window with borders, toolbars, widgets and other elements. In Chrome, these framing elements (which, in Web jargon, are ironically called “chrome”) only exist along the top, allowing maximum real estate for the beautiful websites we design. And isn’t that what’s really important?

User: Any browser worth its salt now offers tabbed browsing (if you’re on Internet Explorer 6 and don’t know what I’m talking about, please stop reading for a moment and upgrade). While it’s a fantastic feature, it can support some bad habits like leaving several (sometimes dozens) of tabs open, which I tend to overlook until something I’m loading causes my browser to freeze or hang. The result: many, many Web pages I can’t view until my browsers works through whatever it’s dealing with or, worse, it freezes and I have to restart.

One great feature of Chrome is that each tab runs as its own process, instead of them all running under the umbrella of a single process. That means if one tab is loading slowly, freezes or crashes, you can still access the other tabs without issue, and don’t have to reload them all if one has to be shut down. While this means a little more system resources up front, it can be a valuable asset for those who, like me, tend to abuse tabs.

Other Chrome features include integrated security features that warn against sites with malware or phishing threats, a streamlined download system, and a combined search and address bar. And for those worried about a record of their browsing habits, Chrome features an Incognito mode that will prevent the sites you view from being logged in your browser history.

On the downside, Chrome is still a beta release, and a few minor bugs are being ironed out. More importantly, though, is that the community of developers whose add-ons and plug-ins made Firefox so popular has not had time to develop around Chrome yet. So for those Firefox users who can’t imagine living without NoScript, AdBlock and FlashGot, you may have to wait awhile before Chrome becomes attractive.

I have been using Flash as a development tool for almost 10 years now, and over that time it has become an increasingly powerful tool for the Web and other media platforms. At the same time, the role of Flash in a website has sometimes been confused, and many people seem to like or dislike Flash for the wrong reasons. So when should one choose Flash? Here are some items about when Flash might not be a good fit:

Website Intros

As a firm rule of thumb, I recommend against a Flash intro serving as a website’s home page. From a usability standpoint, you’re creating a barrier between the visitor and the content they are looking for. We’ve all been to a site where we realize we’re being presented with a Flash intro, and we quickly begin to scour the page looking for the “Skip Intro” button (assuming the developer has been helpful enough to provide one).

Even if a user finds the intro to be worthwhile, will they the second time they visit your site? The tenth? Unless there is a very specific reason a user needs to see the intro before they get to the meat of your site, you should find another way to incorporate it, or leave it out altogether.

SEO Goals

Flash is often portrayed as being at odds with search engine friendliness, and with a good bit of truth. Now more than ever, your site’s content is a crucial part of search engine success. When your site’s content is embedded in Flash, however, it is for the most part invisible to Google and its kin. Over the past few years Google has made baby steps toward properly indexing Flash content. But even with their recent announcement with Adobe that significant Flash searchability was on the horizon, it remains to be seen how successful it will be, or how widely applied.

This isn’t to say that a heavily Flash-based site cannot rank well in Google, but the additional efforts necessary to make them successful must be considered. The bottom line is that if search engine placement is a big part of how you plan to market your site, you should probably avoid a full-Flash website, and keep main content elements outside of Flash.

Content Management

Just like some simple Flash features are difficult or impossible to achieve in another medium, some simple websites features can become awkward or unwieldy when they’re attempted in Flash. Sites that require frequent updates and additions can often become cumbersome when in a Flash environment, particularly if they were not originally developed in anticipation of those changes. In considering Flash for a website, one should consider not only the immediate needs, but what the needs for the site may be in the next one to two years.

Animation

Flash began its existence in 1995 as the humble FutureSplash Animator, a vector-based animation tool for the Web. Since then its power and versatility have grown exponentially, but that animation framework still lies at the core of its identity, for good and bad. When it comes to animation, a little goes a long way. While the visual possibilities with Flash are immense, so too is the need to be judicious in choosing which of those to use.

One common pitfall is to excessively animate a site: menus that blink, images that rotate, sparkling rollovers that would put Las Vegas jealous. I have seen sites where a user literally has to wait 15 seconds or more while each site element individually animates into place. When a client tells me that they don’t want a site that’s “Flash-y”, this is what they’re referring to.

Alternatives

In Web development, there is usually more than one way to skin a given cat. Could a given animation effect be achieved using Javascript or a smartly applied CSS technique? Or if you need to load content without navigating between website pages, it may be worth comparing Flash to an AJAX-based solution.

Form follows function, as the saying goes. The form your site content and elements take should be dictated by the functionality you are trying to achieve. There will be number of instances where using Flash is the smartest solution available for the goals you’re trying to achieve (more on these in a later article). But care must be taken that the goals of the site don’t become secondary to the means used to achieve them. Flash is a great tool in a Web developer’s arsenal, but like any tool, it won’t be the right one for every job.