I love flash, and I think it adds a dimension to webpages, when done properly, that HTML doesn’t offer and Javascript is just too buggy to handle well (I don’t know how many pages I visit with javascript coding errors, ugh!).
Flash is often overdone, however. I mean, I am talking “neon sign” simple. If it is to be more complicated than that it is far too flashy and won’t work on a lot of browsers. anything you do in flash should also be theoretically do-able in animated GIF format too, but .swf files are smaller and cleaner-looking.
At any rate, I think that most business webpages are the absolute poorest model for how a website should be designed. In my opinion, if you cannot easily sum up a web page structure in a table-of-contents or outline style format (as in: site map!) then * don’t put your friggin’ page on the web*. Unless it was like my erisnet.net page which was supposed to be all over the place. 
You hear a lot of netizens whine about “flash” and “javascript” and “text only” which is ok if you really feel you need to access a large audience. I personally feel that they need to go to their local library to surf if they are too cheap to download free functional browsers. I am bitter about it.
What I like
Frames! Argh, I can’t say how nice they can make a page look. They also make loading much nicer because the whole friggin’ page, graphics and all, doesn’t have to reload every time you follow a link. However, my beef with frames is their poor implementation. I like: navigation frame (resizable), title frame (no border), main frame. Thus, the window is divided first into two sections, navigation and other (left and right), and then the “other” is divided into two sections again (top and bottom), title and main. I think it is very simple and looks very nice, and can accomodate all sorts of screen sizes easily enough. It doesn’t require messy back button nonsense which I find myself using all over the web.
When I use frames I say: if I were driving through this webpage, is the shortest distance between to points accessible without following more than two links or hitting “back” more than once? If not, then something is wrong.
Some people don’t like frames because they are, some say, “buggy.” I don’t know how they are buggy. I have never had problems with them.
Plain Backgrounds! don’t try and get too fancy with color schemes on backgrounds. Black backgrounds give me a headache. If you gotta use pictures in the background try and make them faint and not “busy”. I am reading your page, not admiring the artwork.
Interactivity? I could care less. Reading or otherwise browsing your page is interactive enough. I don’t need little popup windows or alternate text all over the place. I don’t need neato or cute rollover images. I just want to see what you have to say, sell, or otherwise distribute. But, interactive elements don’t really bother me, either, and many people do seem to like them.
What I don’t like
People who insist that every web page should be viewable by every browser ever, or similar hogwash (test it using fifteen different versions of seven different browser styles in eight different operating systems… :mad: ). If I had more to say on the subject the Mods would yell at me for saying it in IMHO. I simply do not get mad at my VCR for not playing DVD’s, and I don’t expect movie makers to release all movies in all formats, and I don’t see why the web is any different whatsoever, so I have nothing more to say on the matter.
Websites which have any moving ads whatsoever. Not much to say here, either, but every single ad seems to detract from the page, IMO. Especially animated ads… the static ads I can live with. I’ve even clicked on a few!
Background music. I think that explains itself well enough.
Busy pages. So many pages have simply too much stuff to say and I effectively end up not hearing any of it.
Here is Microsoft’s main page, and even though it doesn’t use frames it still is very nicely designed. There are graphics that aren’t busy, easy nav-bar on the left, some comments about stuff in the right, simple title bar with very general information links on the top. That design is very flexible, easy to shift around to stay interesting without becoming a burden to read or interact with (still, I like frames better, just me though I sometimes think).
Thisis compaq’s main page, and it is redundant and completely, IMO, unintuitive. Contrasting colors are harsh on the eyes. I think it is garbage, IMO.
Here is TheSpark’s home page, a decent one IMO that is busy but organized well enough from the outset. If you have flash activated there is a good example of what I think Flash is great for on their logo (put your mouse over it)… I am not sure how it looks when flash is not present, probably a static .gif or maybe a rollover animation.
All in all, I think the best advice is to think: “Who is reading this webpage?” If your answer is “Everyone!” then you are lying to yourself and need to take a break. Consider your target group, what they normally interact with (take IGN’s style for gamers, for example), and work from there. Do not design a page for everyone, it will be boring.
The less neat stuff is on a page, the less interesting it is. I don’t even think God could design a webpage for everyone, so don’t let some people tell you you should either. That claim is simply ridiculous.
