473,704 Members | 6,472 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
115 13300
In article <sy************ *********@newss vr29.news.prodi gy.net>,
Jeremy <je*****@uci.ed uwrote:
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).
Then again, there are folks who use Flash in very creative ways...

Try (assuming you have Flash installed/enabled)
http://www.cbc.ca/mapleshorts/

My favourite:
http://www.cbc.ca/mapleshorts/films/?filmid=4

A little harmless time-wasting never hurt anyone!
Jul 4 '06 #11
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:02:46 -0400, David Stone in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:
>Then again, there are folks who use Flash in very creative ways...
>Try (assuming you have Flash installed/enabled)
http://www.cbc.ca/mapleshorts/
>My favourite:
http://www.cbc.ca/mapleshorts/films/?filmid=4
Thanks for sharing ! Did you have a direct involvent with either/or ?
>A little harmless time-wasting never hurt anyone!
Exactly ! In my experience it's luddite developers whom can't stand
progress, that dislike Flash so strongly.

It's a no brainer that everyone dislikes the Flash splash pages of a
bygone era -- But, anyone whom considers themselves a Web Developer, has
to provide clients and their clients, the end users, what they want.

Increasingly this is multi-media, rich interfaces, that in most cases
can't be done with CSS/HTML. Flash is the best way in my opinion of
providing that experience. It's also the best way to provide video on
the Web as of Flash Player 8&9.

Flash is here to stay folks and will be increasingly used. To deny
otherwise is to stick your head in the sand, and refuse to believe the
inevitable.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Jul 4 '06 #12
In article <sl************ *************** *@sweetpig.dynd ns.org>, Stephen
<St************ *@gmail.comwrit es
>Exactly ! In my experience it's luddite developers whom can't stand
progress, that dislike Flash so strongly.
No, what we luddites don't like is when the usability of the site is
sacrificed in the name of flashy design. Sure the site needs to satisfy
the client's requirements for being attractive, but it also needs to be
usable. Too many Flash sites have serious usability issues, and not just
for people with disabilities.

As many have said before, the problem is not Flash per se, it's the
(ab)use of Flash in practice. When done well it can enhance a site.

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jul 4 '06 #13
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Alan Silver wrote:
<St************ *@gmail.comwrit es
Exactly ! In my experience it's luddite developers whom can't
stand progress, that dislike Flash so strongly.

No, what we luddites don't like is when the usability of the site is
sacrificed in the name of flashy design. Sure the site needs to
satisfy the client's requirements for being attractive, but it also
needs to be usable.
Usable? - that's just what a certain kind of deezyner can't stand. The
last thing that they'd want is for the user to have any kind of
control over *their* precious presentation[1]. That's one of the
reasons that flash appeals to them - it gives them the impression that
/they/ are going to be in control of the user, instead of vice
versa.[2]
As many have said before, the problem is not Flash per se, it's the
(ab)use of Flash in practice. When done well it can enhance a site.
Indeed, and that goes for pretty much any kind of media, if
appropriate to the purpose to which it's being put. But to make an
otherwise useful web site /dependent/ on those other media is a
different story. Those whose current browsing situation doesn't
facilitate viewing (for some wide sense of the term "viewing" ;) the
other media are then, at least, in a position to decide whether
they'll revisit when they're in a position to view it.

Given a choice, though, I'd prefer an open format to a proprietary
one.

HTML is still a "lingua franca" of the web; it would be foolish to
toss it aside and make one's basic navigation depend on something else
(whether it be flash, java, MS Word, PDF or whatever).

regards

[1] a few years back, one of these deezyner types posted, apparently
in all seriousness, on a German language discussion to say that any
user who interfered with the settings of their browser was in
violation of the author's artistic copyright under German law, since
the law said that authors of works of art could mandate the conditions
under which their work could be shown, and - in that poster's opinion
- the HTML and CSS *were* that mandate. I didn't see anyone else
supporting their argument, though!

[2] The truth may be that Flash is in control of both of them :-}
Jul 4 '06 #14
In <Pi************ *************** ****@ppepc87.ph .gla.ac.ukon
Tue, 4 Jul 2006 19:10:57 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@physic s.gla.ac.ukwrot e:
>On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Alan Silver wrote:
><St*********** **@gmail.comwri tes
Exactly ! In my experience it's luddite developers whom can't
stand progress, that dislike Flash so strongly.

No, what we luddites don't like is when the usability of the site is
sacrificed in the name of flashy design. Sure the site needs to
satisfy the client's requirements for being attractive, but it also
needs to be usable.

Usable? - that's just what a certain kind of deezyner can't stand.
If a report on BBC News24's flavour-of-the-week cool-gimmick
worshipping Click programme is a sign of the times, that old
"Luddite" argument might be about to cause some serious blushing.

According to the report, it appears the latest really kewl thing
to hit "the net" is a revolutionary new discovery by several large
corporations that the way to get more business via their websites
is - wait for it -

a) to place content high on the front page
b) to cut out unnecessary graphics
c) to dump fancy navigation bollocks in favour of text links.
Laugh? I nearly bought a round. Not a dry leg in the house.

--
DG
Jul 4 '06 #15
In article <fo************ *************** *****@4ax.com>, Dick Gaughan
<dg@dickgaughan .co.ukwrites
>If a report on BBC News24's flavour-of-the-week cool-gimmick
worshipping Click programme is a sign of the times, that old "Luddite"
argument might be about to cause some serious blushing.

According to the report, it appears the latest really kewl thing to hit
"the net" is a revolutionary new discovery by several large
corporations that the way to get more business via their websites is -
wait for it -

a) to place content high on the front page
What? You mean real content? Like the stuff that people can actually
read????? Why didn't someone tell me this before?
>b) to cut out unnecessary graphics
Oh all my graphics are necessary. The 3.4Mb splash screen graphic simply
can't be dropped for anything, and the 1.7Mb banner at the top of the
page (different version for every page of course) is core to the very
essence of the site.

I guess I *could* drop the 1.2Kb single-pixel .gif file I used for
spacing though. A few more nested tables might just create the same
effect.
>c) to dump fancy navigation bollocks in favour of text links.
Text links? Can't use them, people might be able to read the words.

Deary me, whatever do these idiots think they are talking about? They
obviously don't understand anything about the web like we kewl
dee-zinerz do.
>Laugh? I nearly bought a round. Not a dry leg in the house.
Didn't buy me one. Huh.

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jul 5 '06 #16
In <6$************ **@nospamthanky ou.spamon Wed, 5 Jul 2006
14:23:46 +0100, Alan Silver <al*********@no spam.thanx.inva lid>
wrote:
>In article <fo************ *************** *****@4ax.com>, Dick Gaughan
<dg@dickgaugha n.co.ukwrites
>>a) to place content high on the front page

What? You mean real content? Like the stuff that people can actually
read?????
'fraid so - all that boring stuff that fills up the spaces between
the funky bits.
>>Laugh? I nearly bought a round. Not a dry leg in the house.

Didn't buy me one. Huh.
The significant word in that sentence was "nearly".

--
DG
Jul 5 '06 #17
In message <lr************ *************** *****@4ax.com>, Dick Gaughan
<dg@dickgaughan .co.ukwrites
>'fraid so - all that boring stuff that fills up the spaces between the
funky bits.
ITYM "verses". HTH.

--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata .org.uk>
Jul 5 '06 #18
In article <lr************ *************** *****@4ax.com>, Dick Gaughan
<dg@dickgaughan .co.ukwrites
>>>Laugh? I nearly bought a round. Not a dry leg in the house.

Didn't buy me one. Huh.

The significant word in that sentence was "nearly".
OK, but I bet you didn't even nearly buy me one!!

Listen, if I want to sulk, then you can't stop me so ner, ner, ner. I've
had a bad day already, being told that my web site is supposed to have
some real content in it, you can't expect me not to react at not nearly
being bought a drink can you?

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Jul 6 '06 #19
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 19:10:57 +0100, Alan J. Flavell in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:
>Usable? - that's just what a certain kind of deezyner can't stand. The
last thing that they'd want is for the user to have any kind of
control over *their* precious presentation[1]. That's one of the
reasons that flash appeals to them - it gives them the impression that
/they/ are going to be in control of the user, instead of vice
versa.[2]
<sighIt's not the designer(s), it's the clients ! In the end it
doesn't matter what we want, we're paid to provide a service, which is
in the majority of cases _Marketing_. Marketing people know what sells.

<snip>
>Given a choice, though, I'd prefer an open format to a proprietary
one.
Sure and Flash is an _open_ specification.
>HTML is still a "lingua franca" of the web; it would be foolish to
toss it aside and make one's basic navigation depend on something else
(whether it be flash, java, MS Word, PDF or whatever).
I don't think anyone is arguing that HTML should be replaced.
>regards
>[1] a few years back, one of these deezyner types posted, apparently
in all seriousness, on a German language discussion to say that any
user who interfered with the settings of their browser was in
violation of the author's artistic copyright under German law, since
the law said that authors of works of art could mandate the conditions
under which their work could be shown, and - in that poster's opinion
- the HTML and CSS *were* that mandate. I didn't see anyone else
supporting their argument, though!
Just because _some_ designers think this way, doesn't mean the majority
of us do. I've been in the industry since 1994. I don't see this
attitude amongst any of the designers I work with or have worked with
over the years. Schools don't teach this, at least in the neck of the
woods where I'm from. So, sure anyone can find minority instances where
some attitudes persist, but it's not the norm from my experience.

The bottom line is to give what the client expects. Increasingly this is
rich interfaces and video.
Jul 6 '06 #20

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.