473,698 Members | 2,304 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Flash Loons

I was thinking about where to go for lunch the other day, so I went to
hardees.com to see what the menu looked like these days. What
comes up is a big note that my flash version is not new enough so I
can't use the site. What complete losers!

When are businesses going to understand that the purpose of a web
site is to communicate with customers or business parterns and NOT
so your "web master or "web engineer" can show off what they learned
down at the community college last week!

So I went to Taco Bell. A couple or years ago a similar thing happened
when I went shopping for a new backpack. The frist place on the google
list refused to work because I didn't have flash install. I went to the
next business and orders several hundred dollars in gear. Hopefully
the losers at the first place went out of business.

I am beginning to believe that FLASH is, on total, a loss for the
Internet. It breaks browsers (especially mozilla/firefox), it chews
up cpu cycles on the clients, and it can write stuff on you
computer. And more.

To do my small part, I installed FLASHBLOCKER on by browser.

End of rant.

Jun 30 '06 #1
115 13289
po*********@yah oo.com wrote:

When are businesses going to understand that the purpose of a web
site is to communicate with customers or business parterns and NOT
so your "web master or "web engineer" can show off what they learned
down at the community college last week!

Close. The purpose of most web sites (not web *applications*, mind you)
is marketing. Marketing, marketing, marketing. Unfortunately for you,
John and Jane Doe are more attracted to pretty pictures and "gee-whiz"
animation than they are to usability and real information. They both
use Windows and Internet Explorer, and have Flash installed (whether
they know it or not, because they don't bother to read browser pop-up
windows before clicking buttons to make them go away).

Even more unfortunately, these are the people that companies care about
because they are the vast majority and flash-haters are a tiny minority.
The companies see you as a grumpy, Get-Off-My-Lawn type who is not
going to buy their product anyway, because you're far too busy thinking
about the Early Bird Special at Fresh Choice and boasting about your
grandchildren :-)

I personally think flash has its place. I'm not going to go out of my
way to block it, but I'm not going to go out of my way to make it work,
either. I definitely agree that it's VASTLY over-used, especially in
banner ads. Dear lord, I hate banner ads - it's a bit hypocritical that
I work for a company that produces them :-P

Jeremy
Jun 30 '06 #2

po*********@yah oo.com wrote:
I was thinking about where to go for lunch the other day, so I went to
hardees.com to see what the menu looked like these days. What
comes up is a big note that my flash version is not new enough so I
can't use the site. What complete losers!

When are businesses going to understand that the purpose of a web
site is to communicate with customers or business parterns and NOT
so your "web master or "web engineer" can show off what they learned
down at the community college last week! Haha.
Siriously, that's a dam good question.
I do not know the answer though.
Then again, I think it may have to do more with the clients then the
web designers.

So I went to Taco Bell. A couple or years ago a similar thing happened
when I went shopping for a new backpack. The frist place on the google
list refused to work because I didn't have flash install. I went to the
next business and orders several hundred dollars in gear. Hopefully
the losers at the first place went out of business.

I am beginning to believe that FLASH is, on total, a loss for the
Internet. It breaks browsers (especially mozilla/firefox), it chews
up cpu cycles on the clients, and it can write stuff on you
computer. And more.

To do my small part, I installed FLASHBLOCKER on by browser.

End of rant.

I tend to agree, that Flash is indead a bad tool for the web,
especially when it is badly implermented.
It has it's place, perhaps on an arts site, where you need to be
perswaided by some good visual design in order to buy a product, but
not on a food retailer site, where all you want to do is look at a
menu.
I also think that a good websites goal is to solve the customer and or
users problems.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

Jul 1 '06 #3
On 1 Jul 2006 00:48:16 -0700, "Chaddy2222 " <ro***********@ yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
It has it's place, perhaps on an arts site, where you need to be
perswaided by some good visual design in order to buy a product, but
not on a food retailer site, where all you want to do is look at a
menu.


Flash can potentially have a use on almost any site, provided it is used
as a supplement to the basic textual information, not as a substitute
for it.

But most actual uses of it are indeed pretty irritating.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 1 '06 #4
On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Stephen Poley wrote:
But most actual uses of it are indeed pretty irritating.


Yes, but advertisements are *meant* to be irritating. What other
explanation could there be for what we get to see?

And (on the other hand) the efforts on the users' behalf that go into
suppressing the display of unwanted advertising? If it wasn't so
irritating, where would be the motivation for working so hard to
suppress it?

So much for generalities. As to specifics: I've got the latest flash
installed, but protected by the flashblock extension. If and when I
decide to view the flash, I can press the flashblock button, and view
whatever it was.

Several web sites, however, somehow contrive to prevent the flashblock
button from appearing, and instead they tell me I haven't got flash
installed. The various cases that I've met so far, I reckon have been
more their loss than mine, so I haven't bothered to work out what
they're doing wrong.
Warning - I'm about to ramble off about a site that I very recently
needed to use and stuck in my memory. I'm not suggesting it's
particularly worse than many another vendor site...
Here's an interesting piece of logic. If I go to the Dell euro
support site,
http://support.euro.dell.com/support...=uk&l=en&s=gen , then
it shows me an image of some text that's telling me "This page
requires Macromedia Flash to be viewed properly". If I turn off
images, it stops claiming that, and appears to be "viewed" just fine,
modulo the occasional image lacking its mandatory alt attribute. It
even sprouts a "Skip to main content" link, suggestive of someone with
a glimmer of an idea (I have my own opinions about such links, but I
concede that my opinion is in a minority).

So what do they mean by "viewed properly" ??? There surely can be no
"proper" way to view a page that fails HTML syntax validation (a mere
112 syntax errors).

The page is even claiming:

Dell Support Web site wins international award for
excellenceExter nal link
If I open the same page with Lynx, then I get a series of error
reports about cookies with invalid cookie domains, but, after agreeing
with Lynx's proposal to reject them, I can view the site. But several
of the advertised operations produce an "unsupporte d URL scheme" for
"javascript:... " URLs. What a pity that "internatio nal award for
excellence" doesn't necessarily mean the site has to actually *work*,
in WWW terms.

Do any cookie fans understand why these cookies failed one of Lynx's
criteria, whereas Mozilla, Opera etc. seem willing to swallow them
without any kind of alert or warning?
It'll come as no surprise to this group that the awarding body's own
web page http://www.lisa.org/awards/index.html doesn't even pass HTML
validation. I had to turn its stylesheet off to be able to read it
comfortably. And it failed automated checking for 508 or W3C WAI, as
one would expect.

It claimed to be "XHTML/1.0 Transitional". Is it just me, or is that
an instant bogosity detector?

cheers
Jul 1 '06 #5
On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Alan J. Flavell wrote:

(about
http://support.euro.dell.com/support...=uk&l=en&s=gen )
If I open the same page with Lynx, then I get a series of error
reports about cookies with invalid cookie domains, but, after
agreeing with Lynx's proposal to reject them, I can view the site.


Sorry, I'm drifting off-topic for this group - but I'm not sure where
the proper place is for discussing this.

The above scenario seems to be analogous to what's reported in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253974

In the present case, AFAICS, support.euro.de ll.com were attempting to
set a cookie for domain .dell.com - that's illegal according to the
RFCs. RFC2109 4.3.2 for Set-Cookie ("shall not store", i.e a mandatory
requirement on clients):

| Examples:
| A Set-Cookie from request-host y.x.foo.com for Domain=.foo.com
| would be rejected, because H is y.x and contains a dot.

Also RFC2965 3.3.2 (SHALL NOT, i.e a mandatory requirement on clients)
for Set-Cookie2, with a similar example.

The following text in what seems to be a related Moz. bug 263931 is
more than a little worrying:

| We tried enforcing that once or twice and broke big-name sites. It
| might be their fault for violating the spec but the user blames *us*
| for having a broken browser.

Does that say that Mozilla are content to compromise their users'
privacy because "big name" web sites violate the specifications?
That's not very nice!!!
Jul 1 '06 #6
po*********@yah oo.com wrote:
I was thinking about where to go for lunch the other day, so I went to
hardees.com to see what the menu looked like these days. What
comes up is a big note that my flash version is not new enough so I
can't use the site. What complete losers!

When are businesses going to understand that the purpose of a web
site is to communicate with customers or business parterns and NOT
so your "web master or "web engineer" can show off what they learned
down at the community college last week!

So I went to Taco Bell. A couple or years ago a similar thing happened
when I went shopping for a new backpack. The frist place on the google
list refused to work because I didn't have flash install. I went to the
next business and orders several hundred dollars in gear. Hopefully
the losers at the first place went out of business.

I am beginning to believe that FLASH is, on total, a loss for the
Internet. It breaks browsers (especially mozilla/firefox), it chews
up cpu cycles on the clients, and it can write stuff on you
computer. And more.

To do my small part, I installed FLASHBLOCKER on by browser.

End of rant.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/internet/Webdevelopers.h tml#flash>.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>
Jul 2 '06 #7
po*********@yah oo.com wrote:
I am beginning to believe that FLASH is, on total, a loss for the
Internet.
I think it's great - nearly as good as HTML email. How else can I have
such clear and simple annotation for "you don't need to bother reading
this bit" ?

Jul 3 '06 #8
In article <11************ **********@m73g 2000cwd.googleg roups.com>,
"Andy Dingley <di*****@codesm iths.com>" <di*****@codesm iths.comwrites
>po*********@ya hoo.com wrote:
>I am beginning to believe that FLASH is, on total, a loss for the
Internet.

I think it's great - nearly as good as HTML email. How else can I have
such clear and simple annotation for "you don't need to bother reading
this bit" ?
That's about the funniest and truest thing I've read today (which tells
you something about my day!!)

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jul 3 '06 #9
In article <Pi************ *************** ****@ppepc87.ph .gla.ac.uk>,
Alan J. Flavell <fl*****@physic s.gla.ac.ukwrit es
>So what do they mean by "viewed properly" ??? There surely can be no
"proper" way to view a page that fails HTML syntax validation (a mere
112 syntax errors).
Sure there's a proper way to view such a page. You click the Back button
and view it disappear!! It's a lovely feeling. You can even call out
"Bye bye loser" as it goes. Makes me feel a whole lot better sometimes.
>The page is even claiming:

Dell Support Web site wins international award for
excellenceExter nal link
Ah, but they don't say for what. They can easily claim excellence in
validation errors. I reckon that one page has more of them than all of
my web sites put together!!

Ta ra

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jul 3 '06 #10

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.