First off, I am new to making flash websites. Currently I run an html website threaded with a lot of php code. I started the site without any knowledge of php, and with a lot of work, I have almost made the website completly dynamic with php and mysql. There is very little content that is not a result from information from a database. Now, i want to upgrade the look of my site but still keep my php engine. I have no idea how flash sites work, and don't worry, i'm not asking for a tutorial, but what i do want to know, is php possible in a flash site?

I guess what i need to know is: is the content on flash sites written in macromedia flash, or is it simply an inline frame that's source changes as you click on links?

Yes, they are written in flash -- and most people (at least most that I know) dislike flash sites. I tend to avoid them myself. I'd recommend using flash only for bits and pieces, to dress up you site rather than writing the entire site in flash. If you must design a flash site, also give the option for an HTML version too.

__________________

During the election they said Obama could only be elected when pigs fly. Well, we currently have an epidemic of Swine Flu. Coincidence?

Thank you very much WaltP. That was precisely the answer i was looking for.

Yes, you can combine Flash as a front-end for your website and use PHP/MySQL as a back-end for your dynamic content. See this link for some good tutorials on Macromedia's website: http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/flash/php.html. Also, there's not one good reason to shy away from creating a site in flash vs using html/javascript/whatever. It's a much more advanced and easy way to create a website that will be more appealing, interactive, and just plain better site for your visitors. Don't let someone else's lack of knowledge/ability influence your progress as a web developer. Peace.

Sorry to disagree. Yes it's more advanced -- and with advanced comes overhead.

I don't find flash sites more appealing -- but that's purely subjective.

As for "someone else's lack of knowledge/ability" I figure 30 years in computers give me a little more than a lack -- of both knowledge and ability. Reread my post -- I never questioned the ability to do a website in flash, nor did I even imply it's complex to build. My comments are from a user perspective, not a development perspective. I've found very few people that prefer flash sites over non-flash sites when they browse hence my final suggestion: "If you must design a flash site, also give the option for an HTML version".

As I said, use flash to enhance a site, but the overhead of flash IMO is not worth making a totally flash site.

__________________

During the election they said Obama could only be elected when pigs fly. Well, we currently have an epidemic of Swine Flu. Coincidence?

blurry, thank you. That was a really interesting article. However, if i decide to make a flash site and uese this method, it would require a lot of extra programming in both php and actionscript. Maybe that will have to wait until the next site i make. For not i think i will use html with flash components, such as links and banners. So thank you both, you guys have a lot of knowledge about this stuff.

I apologize if I came off as if my nose were turned up, I didn't mean for it to come off that way, but I've heard comments like yours before and I just don't understand them. I made my statement because I've always attributed those types of comments to a lack of knowledge or unwillingness to change. You can't argue that flash doesn't have countless advantages over straight html from a developer's perspective, which you agreed to in your reply. However, contrary to your statements, flash is just as easy to use as straight html from a user's perspective as well. IMHO if used properly flash can not only provide the same functionality as straight html, but it can also enhance the user's experience with more flexibilty and interactivity.

Because I am genuinely curious, why do you think a site made in straight html is any easier to use from a user's perspective? I don't understand your reasoning that the reason some developers create mirror flash/html sites is because html sites are somehow easier to use. A developer can produce the exact same site in flash as one in straight html both literally and strictly in terms of use by the user. The reason some developers create mirror flash/html sites is not because of a difference in ease of use. Mirror flash/html sites are sometimes created because the developer wants to be able to reach as wide of an audience as possible and it's assumed that some people don't have flash player on their pc and are too lazy to download it.

Also, it's obvious the more fancy you get with flash the more overhead you will get just as in any programming language/tool, however I feel that you are over-exaggerating that fact because even if you made the most ridiculously fancy website in the world, with broadband connections becoming the norm that overhead is no longer a factor even worth considering if it ever was one at all.

If you want to leave all of flash's extra capabilities out of the picture, from a user's perspective to me this argument is kind of like my grandparents and their telephone. They still have one rotary phone in the whole house when they have lots of trouble moving around and could have a cordless phone that can do the exact same thing as their rotary phone but is just as easy if not easier to use. I feel as if you are my grandparents and are arguing that the rotary phone is somehow easier to use from a user's standpoint. I would also compare it from a developer's perspective to having a choice between two different tools at your disposal that can be used to do the exact same thing but one is much more powerful than the other. If you had to dig a ditch which would you use, a spoon or a shovel?

Actually there is.... if you care about Search Engine referrals / traffic, a FLASH ONLY site is the absolute worst thing you can do - at least for the moment. If this is no longer true (like if Google can now crawl and index flash sites), then a flash only site would be a decent alternative but dialup users will still curse you for it

__________________
J de Silva
Learning Journal | GIDForums™ | GIDNetwork™ | GIDWebhosts™ | GIDSearch™

I don't believe that is a valid concern either with cascading style sheets and absolute positioning. As we all know Google assesses the usefullness of a site when indexing it for a search using the text, hyperlinks, etc instead of using the meta tags as the main source of ranking. A web developer can quite easily flood the body of a web page with any text and hyperlinks one wants in order to get the best search engine ranking possible (just like we used to flood the meta tags) and then slap their flash image right on top of it with css so all of the text and hyperlinks used for search engine purposes are covered up for the user during site navigation.

As far as dialup users cursing flash sites, that has more to do with good/bad design values than flash itself. Any site, whether it's pure flash or straight html, if poorly optimized/designed can be a headache for a dialup user. If a flash site is designed properly a dialup user should be just as happy if not happier when navigating it as when navigating a straight html site.