Another perspective is that I, as a user, have a way to choose what kind of web site I want to visit. If I want a web site that is visually a rich experience, and maybe with sound as well, I visit a Flash-based web site, who normally offer a non-Flash version of it as well. But if I visit a “normal” web site, I really like that things aren’t moving around, blinking and flashing, and generally stealing my attention from the content.
Animations in combination with markup, what FACE is doing, requires two questions to be answered if you want to know whether this solution is viable:
1. Is the animated content communicating a vital part of the document's message?
2. Is the animation supporting the message or creating the message?
Ugh. This ended up being long again..
The main point behind FACE is so that it can be combined smoothly with other things, for instance AJAX.
There is definitely a demand for it — lots of web designers have customers who want a more lively site, nearly always forcing them to use Flash. Since there are many disadvantages to Flash, a solution to create liveliness without having to use Flash is a good solution to those people.
Is my site a good example of what it can offer? Yes and no. The examples I have on my site are purely a showcase for how flexible and also powerful it is. It also shows us that when JS is disabled, nothing is lost, and how you can now use it to give some flair to parts of your site that you really don't want to put in Flash (like navigations).
However, my examples don't really serve a purpose beyond "flair" and what I just mentioned above. So, it's time to create some examples that showcase the technology more as a useful enhancement 🙂
I've been disappointed with the apathetic and negative reactions Faruk's FACE project has attracted.
Unless I'm missing something, AJAX via *prototype.js* has a 30k overhead, which in my opinion makes it unsuitable for use on sites that must accomodate 56k dialup (FACE is 8k), and Flash has significant cost/learning curves associated with it as a dev tool.
But I use animated gifs on my site for the home and accessibility nav icons! So perhaps my reaction is only to be expected? 😉
Robert, I agree with you, though you have some bold claims, considering the party. I think there is a lot of skilled people here.
Thanks for your comments!
However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Faruk is showing us these new ways; these kinds of animations have been around since 1999.
I take that as a typo, naturally you meant AJAX-S, right? 🙂
Robert, haha, whooops. I haven't actualled used AJAX-S yet, though I have used S5, so naturally I used that. Though, of course, it goes for the concept both solutions implement. 😉
I think when you see this upcoming CMS, the Italian people at Mad4Milk use JS/DOM animated fx in a good way! Only some fades, em text altering, resize width an height, textarea. This is were it is good for IMHO:
Use (login: demo, password: demo) at a ne xample
Forgot this one (the animations)mooFx
It looks just fine, but at least what I saw is not really animations per se, but just some nice interactivity.
Have a look at this Javscript animation then:
And it’s not even done using mootools or other animation libraries that would make it even better.
…Just my two cents (or pence, as I'm British).