From: Cassity Daniel SSgt 86 MSS/DPMX <Daniel.Cassity>
>> (I'm not especially impressed by the first example, frankly. Still
>> pictures with an animated [slow] page turn, big whoop. That's about like
>> replacing your car steering wheel with an old ship's wheel and saying
>> it's better because of the spokes sticking out of it.)
>
>At least Bagge's being on Adobe is comics on a MAJOR Internet site, not a
>li'l home site. And, it's not superfreaks, either.
>
>Right on Tom. This GUTTERS forum is for helping each other grow as friends
>with a common goal, not making cheap shots at people's work Jim. At least
>be constructive.
Be your pardon?
First, I'm not trashing Bagge's work at all. (Or I don't think I am. Maybe
he did design and implement the "page turning" geegaw.) I don't particularly
like his work -- never have -- but it isn't the issue.
Let's see. 45 seconds of "intro" featuring very limited Flash animation
(produced with LiveMotion) and annoying music. 35 seconds of comics which
I read faster than in takes with the "thumb" to appear -- thereby holding
*back* my reading process and breaking me out of the comic while I wait to
be *allowed* to go to the next panel. 35 second in which the comics are
*static*, in opposition to what the intro implied. An interesting
transition effect (there: constructive you want, constructive you get) that
holds the attention maybe twice before you realize that they could just show
the next dang panel rather than making you wait two seconds for it to clear.
35 seconds of annoying music. And then 15 second of limited animation
credits -- in B&W to boot -- with the omnipresent annoying music.
In all, did this story thrill me? I can't remember; I was too annoyed by
the "features" that "gosh wow"ed it into the ground.
Did this story (or rather, its methods) do anything to improve the state
of comics on the web? Not in the least. First, it added music (which,
annoying or otherwise, was not inherent to the story and thus interfered
with the immersion effect because it was noticed). Second, it present a
whopping one panel at a time, interfering with McCloudian closure by
not allow us any context other than that which was most recently in memory.
Third, by not allow a "go back" method, it restricted the power of comics
by not letting the user review at will. Fourth, by instututing a timed
method for page turning, it restricted the reader's ability to control the
passage of time. Fifth, at only nine panels, this was a paltry example;
the whole thing could have been displayed and read in one column in half
the time, to better effect; the special stuff inherent in the display format
wasn't called for.
In short, beyond the "kewl" (and immersion breaking) transition, there is
nothing in this example that presents anything that hasn't been seen in
comics on the web many times before, and it does them more poorly than
others have, too.
Grade: D
Jim
