Good article.
I believe Flash has its place.
It's interesting how some people want to see a Flash intro, but others feel that they are being coddled or frustrated in their effort to "get into the site, get the info, and get out". This relates directly to that article about core vs. ring.
I have only used Flash for 2 sites so far.
The first site has an optional lengthy introduction about why the new technology for handling a process is so much better than the old technology. It has to be explained in a way that both engineers and the money men will not react negatively to. They'll say, "hey, this website really does understand all the old stuff and how it works and they do seem genuinely interested in preserving all the capabilities of the old way with the new technology."
That same site also uses Flash for the navigation bar. I designed it in the mindset of a non-flash interface and only used Flash to enhance and provide some animation as the user is moving through it.
On the other site, I used Flash to animate elements of the webpage that were already working fine as static elements but looked better animated. Most of the animation was subtle (a quick glance only reveals 1 of the 3 animations). In one case, the animated part I created was SMALLER than the JPEG it replaced!
(Incidentially, I do not actually develop with Flash. I guess I've had enough of the typical Macromedia user-hostile interface. I have several years experience with Director making Kiosks, etc. So I do all my Flash work in Livemotion 2 with the typical [wonderful] Adobe interface.)
I might do an all-flash or nearly-all-flash website some day, but it would have to be an entertainment-oriented site, where someone is expecting it to be animated and a bit self-guided. Flash is great for explaining things, and it's great for animating more efficiently than a GIF, but it is very easy for Flash to become obtrusive and get a negative customer reaction.
Although it has been recently changed, DirecTV.com was the perfect example of how NOT to design a website for about 6 months. They won several awards for bad web design. It used mystery meat navigation, did not offer a non-Flash version of the site, and had many other problems.
In place of the common "Programming Packages", "Help", etc. were bizarre links like "See", "Learn", etc. Mind-bogglingly bad design. There was a giant grid that you rolled over and things appeared, but nothing really relating to the top 5 questions people have. (can I get local channels, how many HBOs do you have, how much does the programming cost, what kind of dish/equipment do I need, etc.?) Their new site is a bit of a hybrid now.
If you are having trouble knowing how to design the site, ask some users what they think. And I don't mean asking them for graphic design suggestions, otherwise they will give you non-graphic designer suggestions which can be pretty bad! Just ask them if the site follows a progression that does not overwhelm them at front but quickly ramps up to getting them the information they came looking for in 3-5 clicks.
It is pretty difficult to design for both mindsets written about in that article. A good example is www.TiVoFAQ.com. This page has 2 major failings:
-40% of the questions are NOT frequently asked and they are not grouped in order of what a visitor would be looking for first.
-All of the questions are phrased using jargon that newbies would not yet be familiar with! The only people who could figure out which question they need to read for help are people who are already intimately familiar with a TiVo.
(I have several examples of FAQs I have created if someone needs one written).
It's unfortunate that PHP has gotten a bit of a tarnished name because of all the boxy PHPNuke-type sites. Now that more people are learning it, hopefully the general public will realize that PHP can be completely integrated into a hand-crafted user-friendly website without "losing" anything. Well, at least that's how I'm using it. 🙂 Non-designers can't tell that anything on my pages wasn't written by hand.
