Andrew, it does. Heavy code can be server side and also simply need a better code. Through trial and error I've reduce 2000 lines to a 1000 and it increases performance. I have a friend is a bad ass and can create a flash site, simple one, but functional and looks good with script alone. Animations need to be cached and sometimes there is some much load/unload/remove etc that it ways the transitions. But, I'm really talking about scripted navigation and animations from nav effects. Once a site is loaded, it should run smoothly. Even 2Advances stuff lags after a while. The remove clip scripts can hinder it, were as a site like neostream will take a will to load, but once the movies load, it's pretty seamless. And with neostream you'll notice that the main color scheme is like 3-4 colors within any given scene. Most is vector work. It's interesting how a work around becomes a style or technique. Sometimes, it doesn't matter really at all. Factors of time come into play as well. Some people create 50 separate swfs and others code the hell of one main scene or timeline. And, I completely agree with you. Creative will pick something apart. Especially when we have a working knowledge. Just my experiences. I wish I could code 2000 lines on my own. But then, a simple dragging of a few keyframes is so much quicker. And I can watch the preview withing the specific scene.

I thought code decreased file size, load size, animation speed etc. because it eliminates objects within the stage and tweens?

I also think as creatives we tend to anaylze executions until every one of them has a flaw.

I think the intro video is a tricky thing to get right. Like you said marc it better be really cool to keep you there. Well, what's cool? Sure, I don't want some damn intro to adholes.com cause I came here for some quick info—get in, get enlightened, move on sort of thing—but if I'm a gamer checking out the latest, a cool intro might excite me about the game and entice me to look around a bit. The trick is to keep the user on the page and give them an experience they'll come back for. Otherwise the site is viewed once and dies tomorrow.

Not for creatives. :) I personally liked wefail.com/twats And wefail's site in general.

The intro better be really cool not just a way to waste 15 seconds. I want to get to the info ASAP. I frequently leave sites that give me no choice. You don't need an intro to a newspaper. Why need one for a website? Even television shows are dumping theme songs? How is an intro any more than an execution instead of an idea? Can anyone name one intro that was worth waiting for?

And, the complaints about bookmarking and meta data can be overcome. There are plenty of tricks and built-in flash components for it.

Well, I enjoy a good flash intro. And so does a consumer who doesn't work in flash. No longer then a 15 second spot. Even a 30 is good. But in the end, I really think it depends on the message being communicated. Animation is fantastic when it's done right. Interface animation is very tricky. Look how bad some of the simple ajax stuff looks, clunky and a delays, but since the screen is static, people deal with it.Let's not forget, we live here ( online )a good portion of the day. Sometimes just looking for fun. And as more and more screenagers eyes are drawn to the monitor, expect more intros, animations, and video in general. Video and content will be animated in together with selectable text from within a movie etc. Image being able to select the movie credits as they scroll. Or highlight a person within the film, and right mouse click to get info. Animation and sounds bring us closer to a personal touch. Bandwidth is the real problem. Quicktime and Live Motion used to do the same things. With better results. Personally, I think adobe's code was lighter. I find my code is really what slows most of my animations down. Keep it lite. Colors would be the second consideration. A huge reason the vector/streamlined look is so popular. Better scripting works. The same as HTML and java.

GE has a great, content-rich flash site, btw. the ecomagination stuff is pretty fresh, but a browser killer. In general though, what gives me the wow feeling is great layouts, super fast navigation a-la css and excellent writing and/or filmed content.

But what's the big deal if 5% can't see the site? And when the site considers user experiences in it's design and target, isn't there a considerable value added when the percentage of the percentage gets that "wow" feeling that immerses them? Icing on the cake? I say it is the cake, icing, and the pretty little edible flowers on top too—when done right. What's the point of advertising that offers solutions if the client doesn't want creative?

Excellent points... I do the same thing Raafi, I hate all that crap too and if a site forces my browser window full-screen, I close it every time. This stuff is user experience 101 that flash developers think they can skip over. And as far as strategy goes, it's my philosophy that web holds no exception over it or the brand message. I think when done correctly, and I'm still learning production methods to do so, Flash sites are quite tasteful, and the design savvy interface of the program allows for creative freedom and capabilities not seen in simple HTML.

******NEWS FLASH******BUDDY FRIENDLY IS FOR THE MINORITY.....Don't forget to remember to click on the event tab, VOTE BUDDY FRIENDLY FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008! VOTE EARLY AND OFTEN! Do what is best for you- VOTE FOR ME! Tell twenty two friends to vote too. Thanks, so much.

I jumped ship from the flash boat a couple of years ago. I've seen too many great looking sites... that I never want to see again. As an end user, I skip intro every time, music off every time, and might skip the site if the load takes more than a couple of seconds. I can understand how the clients feel. It's not just about flash penetration, it's also whether all that shine will distract from the brand message.

I'd say a % of the % are cash poor, their computer unable to run the new software. The other % of the % are either not tech savvy or have handcuffs from their IT department. Some agencies you can't even load a new font without submitting a help ticket.

Is it conducive to the Time-poor among us? Is it a feature or a benefit? Is it icing on the cake or the cake? Is it more form than function. Does it all start to look the same after awhile? You tell me.....

A problem I've realized is that, to install a simple upgrade such as a newer version of a browser or player on the clients corporate computers requires the system administrator to install it on every computer. This of course requires a considerable amount of time and money and a bit of jumping through political hoops to get it done, territory the the marketing contact is sometimes "out of the loop" on. I think they just assume they have the most recent software, so, when they are at work and trying to view the kick-ass site you've done for them on I.E. 0.0 and using Flash Player Version Extinct, they assume nobody else can see it. Reality...get with the program and move with the times, get your head outta your ass and let me do my job.

I had a client that was one of these low percenters. It was always like "Oh, this is breaking..." "What are you using?" "IE 3.0." "Well, don't most web pages break in that?"

My thoughts exactly marc... only with more explicits

@#$% the 5%. In fact, @#$% 20%! Tell them to get with the program. My friend once launched a website and asked 30 of his friends for input. All 30 of them pointed out an error. 29 of them blamed themselves. (I was the one who blamed him. LOL)

i agree completely, but as a less-than-junior-developer, I'm learning it's all about the site structure. If it's planned out and built correctly, load time is tolerable.

loading time sucks.. i hate to waiting to load. now loading.............now re-loading.