View Full Version : Floating menus bad?
I've gotten a request to implement a "floating" menu or frames-based navigation on a site we're re-working. This is in response to a perceived need of users having to scroll back up on their content-laden pages. I personally think it's a bunch of crap, creating complication where it's not needed. Are people really too lazy to scroll??! Good god. Too bad I can't say what I really think.
Considering the text is peppered with contextual links (i.e. if a product is mentioned there's a link to it), and that is a text menu at the bottom linking to the top-level sections, it seems like we'd be fixing something that isn't broken. Mostly I just find floating menus to be aesthetically annoying, and I dislike the way your text cuts off in frames, but those don't really make for strong arguments. At one point they were concerned about how the pages printed, so I suppose that's one concrete reason to avoid floating or frame-based menus.
Any other input I could use to try and shoot down this idea? Or does anyone feel that I'm coming at this wrong and that Frames or floating menus are good UI?
( If it matters, we'll likely be using embedded Flash for the navigation and XHTML Transitional standards. I know there's anti-Flash folks out there, but save that debate for another thread....we have our reasons for using it here.)
There was a law, the name escapes me, but that a menu bar fixed at top has a infinite height.
The next best thing to do is to have a sidebar. This usually works better with the contexts.
Fitt's Law, but that wouldn't apply here.
well, yes, I suppose my point was that floating menu would be inherently awkward in that it's somehow in middle of your screen, just under the bar, which IMHO is more work than moving to the sidebar.
drewprops
2006-02-21, 19:55
What about a fixed DIV with your menu items in it?
Barring that, Flash.... erf.
rollercoaster375
2006-02-21, 21:15
@media print {
*selector for menu* {
display: none;
}
}
That'll fix your print fears.
Besides that, I'm quite curious as to why you're using Flash instead of CSS...
Yeah after thinking about it more, if I'm tasked to do this, it'll likely be with a fixed div and a vertical menu on the side to avoid the cutting off scrolled text. I think my first thoughts on this were those goofy floating things that accelerate and "follow" you around as you scroll. They annoy me. Display:none pretty much kills my argument regarding printing as well. I'm running out of excuses... :\
Besides that, I'm quite curious as to why you're using Flash instead of CSS...
Well we will be using XHTML/CSS for structure and text. Flash will only be used for main navigation and a few select elements.
Why use Flash as all? Well we have a few reasons. First of all its the easiest way to get animation into a site even if you don't intend on going overboard with it. Some things can be done with animated gifs and DHTML but it's pretty bare-bones comparatively, and bloats very quickly. It's also makes it easy to maintain brand standards. A side benefit by utilizing a single file for the main menu (we feed the swf a var so it can highlight the section it's in), you don't need includes that lock you into a server-side scripting language. Allows you to use .htm for non-db sites (which is mostly what we do) making it very portable. The more I look into AJAX the more I think I'll be able to ditch some of our other server-side dependencies as well. But the real reason we intend to use it is because we want to be be a little tricky and protect our interests with the client (which they want as well).
Our client is a division of a company that was recently purchased. In the past they've been left alone by the parent company to do as they please with their marketing and who they use. It's unclear if that will happen with the new parent company. By incorporating a compiled element like an .swf into the site, especially into such a crucial component as the main navigation, this means that any major changes in the site will have to come back to us if they don't want to start over on a menu. They'll either have us do it, or at least will come back asking us for the .fla files which gives us a foot in the door with the new parent company. Sneaky? Yes. But hey we're not in this simply for the fun of it.
Most of the arguments I've seen against Flash come from people outside of the marketing/branding world and have been fueled by overuse and abuse of the format. Flash is just a tool like anything else. It's generally the implementation that makes things good or bad, not the application itself.
rollercoaster375
2006-02-22, 18:37
Yeah after thinking about it more, if I'm tasked to do this, it'll likely be with a fixed div and a vertical menu on the side to avoid the cutting off scrolled text. I think my first thoughts on this were those goofy floating things that accelerate and "follow" you around as you scroll.
Those are done with Javascript, not CSS (I too find them annoying).
Well we will be using XHTML/CSS for structure and text. Flash will only be used for main navigation and a few select elements.
<snip>Well thought out explanation</snip>
Most of the arguments I've seen against Flash come from people outside of the marketing/branding world and have been fueled by overuse and abuse of the format. Flash is just a tool like anything else. It's generally the implementation that makes things good or bad, not the application itself.
I'll say upfront that I have never worked for a client, and so I'm not very experienced in this specific situation.
However, my arguments against flash don't have very much to do with abuse of format, but rather, abuse of XHTML. My issue is that Screen-readers, and other alternate User-Agents, aren't able to parse flash. Hence, when they recieve a flash document as the main navigation, they're unable to navigate the site. On a related note (I could have a fix), how are you planning to display the flash menu (<embed>, <object>, etc.)?
First of all its the easiest way to get animation
1. Bleh. :p
2. What rollercoaster375 said. It is worth sacrificing a lot of usability for a little bit of animation? Consider that by using Flash for a critical part of your site that you will be completely cutting off users to anything that requires its use. That's really bad when you consider that you're to use it for the site's primary navigation; that means that visitors may not be able to get past the first page.
1) Pfffft, do YOU have Flash Player installed? If so, why? :D
2) Well first of all Rollercoaster is wrong. Since Flash MX, accessibility components (http://www.macromedia.com/resources/accessibility/) have been included in Flash. Also, if our client believed that they were catering to an audience that would be frequently accessing their site with screen readers then we would design accordingly. It's not, so it's not really a priority. Truthfully we've never been asked to consider it, nor have we pushed the issue, but if it ends up costing the client extra I can tell you want their opinion of it will be. That being said, I'll have to look into it more to see if there is some basic functionality we can start working into our swfs without incurring too much extra cost.
With regards to people not updating their Flash plug-ins, we generally target a version a few revs below the current one if possible (Flash 6 probably here since we have no need of video). The most recent NDP census (http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetration.html) puts Flash 6 at 97% in the US, so it's pretty likely that most people will meet our requirements.
Bottom line is that clients want compelling sites that meets their branding. Flash helps us do that better than anything else. If that means choice between the 97% vs the 3%, guess which one the client will chose?
Oh and Rollercoaster we'll either use the Flash Satay (http://www.alistapart.com/stories/flashsatay/) method or just a plain 'ol object tag wrapped around an embed tag. We have employed the old standard of using document.write to display an optional image (or image map usually) but we've been straying away from that (it's so messy). Recently I've done detection (via the MM detection kit ( http://www.macromedia.com/software/flashplayer/download/detection_kit/ )) at the index page, kicking the user to a "get flash" or "omg you've got scripting turned off" page if necessary. At that point we could also include some optional non-flash content if it's deemed necessary.
rollercoaster375
2006-02-22, 23:14
1) Pfffft, do YOU have Flash Player installed? If so, why? :D
As a matter of fact, I don't. I don't play online games, and the only Flash-based application that I use (Google Video) provides downloadable files. (I do, however, have it installed on my Windows box, because of younger siblings)
The accessability stuff you linked to was best practices for flash authors. It doesn't install a plugin into Lynx (I don't use screen-readers, so I don't know any popular ones) for reading the data from an SWF...
If you're using an <object> tag, it would seem that fallbacks would be supported pretty easily. Why not just provide textual links? (On a side note, I don't believe document.write is available in Mozilla for properly served XHTML documents...)
drewprops
2006-02-23, 00:01
Despite my conversion to XHTML/CSS it is here that I must insert the reminder to everyone:
Design your site for your target audience.
If they're Flash savvy then use it... as long as it makes sense to use it. I recently decided to use Flash video on a site I'm developing for my current employer exactly for the reason that Flash has such a huge market penetration and we don't have to fight over WMV versus QuickTime/MPEG-4. The video is a targeted use in an otherwise XHTML/CSS website. It fits the need, suits the company's tenor (a managerial service) and I'm left with a website whose contents will load into even the oldest of browsers if they cannot implement CSS.
Wouldn't it be cool if you could load Flash content into DIVs like you can with CSS background images? yeeeeahhhh
I think you nailed it Drew, that's where disconnect lies with the XHTML accessibility purist mentality. Most of those opinions come from outside the marketing world where "target audience" means everyone who can possibly view it.
The accessability stuff you linked to was best practices for flash authors. It doesn't install a plugin into Lynx (I don't use screen-readers, so I don't know any popular ones) for reading the data from an SWF...
Umm if you don't know popular ones then how do you know they don't read the data from an SWF? You seem to be speaking from inexperience here. I find it hard to take your position and criticism seriously without you having done any research (http://weblogs.macromedia.com/accessibility/archives/2005/08/in_search_of_a.cfm).
But yeah you can put optional content in the object tag. The Flash Satay method suggests this. I'm unclear on what browsers still require the embed tag (the old way (http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=tn_4150) was embed tag as the optional content) I need to double check that I'm not locking out any significant ones. Further reading also suggests that not all browsers accept the object tag only and that it consequently causes problems (http://accessify.com/archives/2005_08_01_default.php) with accessibility (also see above 'research' link) so embed may still be the way to go in those instances.
If you've followed the links I've provided you begin to see complications (i.e. cost in the real world) involved. This along with the low percentage of site thats list accessibility as their requirements (we're talking commercial not government sites here) are why you don't see more accessibility implementation.
Sure you can fall back to a pretty basic structure that's compatible to all browsers/readers, but is that a compelling site to the clients target audience? To the majority of the sites users? Compared to their competitors and ours? That old saying jack-all-trades-master-of-none comes to mind.
(since this has turned into the merits of Flash thread maybe a mod could change the title to " Floating menus and Flash discussion" or something else more explanatory.)
research (http://weblogs.macromedia.com/accessibility/archives/2005/08/in_search_of_a.cfm).
Oh come on now. Like Macromedia is an unbiased source for "research" on Flash.
Did you even read the link Chucker? It's simple browser and screen reader tests based on all the popular methods, and not all of them favorable. In fact they all have some inherent issue really. If you have a better more "independent" link then cough it up.
I just wish that list would have included IE 5 and 5.5 as we of course still target those.
rollercoaster375
2006-02-23, 16:35
Being at Macromedia and focused on accessibility, my primary concerns are that the Flash content is available to any browser capable of displaying Flash and that users who interact with the Flash content can do so in an accessible fashion. Validity is nice to have, but not at the expense of the other two concerns.
How on earth do people expect to move forward if the standards are treated as guidelines?
Drew: I have no problem with people designing to their users. I completely support that, so long as it doesn't mean dropping standards. Page validation is only part of following standards. That's a very important thing to keep in mind. XHTML is for specifying to the User-Agent what data they're getting. When you mix flash into that document, you have issues. Namely, the complete amount of data in a document is no longer located in the XHTML; rather, User-Agents must search even farther into the document. I don't really have a problem with people using flash for logos, or splash pages, but when it contains data, it starts to become an issue.
Of course, this is all just my opinion, so throw it out the door if you wish.
(As I already admitted, I don't use a screen reader, and so I'm unaware of their capabilites)
I'm not an accessibility purist, however, recent W3 specs have been aimed at serving content to alternate User-Agents, and I am a standards purist.
How do we expect to move forward? One step at a time. If you read that "stuff I linked to" you'd see the whole point was how to deliver Flash in the most valid way that reaches the most users.
Roller, the viewpoints stated so far sound to me to be purely academic and based in a world where everyone already uses standards-based browsers. There have a big push towards standards (and semantic coding) over the past few years thankfully, but we're still at a point in the real world where we have to make concessions to reach all of our intended audience while still being compelling in a marketing sense.
It seems your more worried about HOW the user gets the data/content than IF they get it (and if it's compelling to them). How is a goal... If is the real concern in the here and now.
Also I'm not sure what you're getting at with Drew regarding the User-Agents and content being confined to XHTML. Please elaborate what problems this poses and provide some examples?
torifile
2006-02-24, 13:49
Speaking of flash navigation (http://www.windows.com/Passion/index_enu.html). :lol:
Wow that thing's a hog. OK so that'd be an example of a bad implementation. :lol:
rollercoaster375
2006-02-24, 16:38
How do we expect to move forward? One step at a time. If you read that "stuff I linked to" you'd see the whole point was how to deliver Flash in the most valid way that reaches the most users.
Really, I'm not trying to be ignorant here. I read that entire blog entry. I wasn't able to read through everything that you've linked to because of how *horrible* my internet connection has been (Disconnecting after every page load, sometimes not reconnecting).
Secondly, the point of that article was how to deliver flash to the most people, not in the most valid way. The quote that I presented shows this.
Roller, the viewpoints stated so far sound to me to be purely academic and based in a world where everyone already uses standards-based browsers. There have a big push towards standards (and semantic coding) over the past few years thankfully, but we're still at a point in the real world where we have to make concessions to reach all of our intended audience while still being compelling in a marketing sense.
Just a note here, I prefer to be called "Coaster" over "Roller"... :P
I know that everyone doesn't use proper browsers. In fact, most people don't :P. However, that doesn't mean that you can't serve proper content to the browser.
It seems your more worried about HOW the user gets the data/content than IF they get it (and if it's compelling to them). How is a goal... If is the real concern in the here and now.
Unless they get an interupted HTTP request, they'll still be getting the data. In my experience, using conditional comments to link to an alternate stylesheet is the best solution to ensuring that things look the same in IE. "How" is not just a goal. "How" is just as important as "if". To expand on this, think about this example: you request a document. The document is returned encrypted. It was returned, just as you requested, so it satisfies the "if", however, the "how" made a huge impact on the usability of the returned data.
Also I'm not sure what you're getting at with Drew regarding the User-Agents and content being confined to XHTML. Please elaborate what problems this poses and provide some examples?
The main problem is poses is just as I outlined. The XHTML (which is a data medium) is no longer the container of the data.
drewprops
2006-02-24, 19:30
I have to say that after learning XHTML/CSS I find Flash more troubling than I ever did before, because of its proprietary nature and the "locked in" feeling. I'd like to learn it more and more but am afraid of it too (which means that I'll undoubtedly learn it at some point). Still, you couldn't get sites like Leo Burnett (http://www.leoburnett.ca/) without a mega-dose of Flash.
Target audience reached? Check.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.