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  13170 
In message <Xn****************************@69.28.186.121>, Adrienne
Boswell <ar****@yahoo.comwrites
>Accessibility on the Internet isn't
a life/death or safety issue.
Yeah, right: http://www.samaritans.org.uk/
>You don't know that.
Either that, or he's just being deliberately obtuse and offensive.
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
In message <g5************@xword.teksavvy.com>, Chris F.A. Johnson
<cf********@gmail.comwrites
>Tell me what that percentage is, say for people wanting to look at
automobiles on the GM Website that are totally blind ?
Why would you turn away the grandfather wanting to buy a car for
his grandchild?
In once worked with someone with virtually zero vision (if you stood in
front of him, he could tell that there was someone (or something) there,
because the light level changed, but not who you were).
His rapid-onset sight loss meant that he could no longer do his job, of
installing network cables and equipment.
So he was given the job of analysing the need for, and then ordering,
such equipment - and could not so from the arrogant and clueless
suppliers whose websites were inaccessible, or whose promotional e-mails
to him were gifs of text, with no plain-text content.
The annual budget for such equipment was many tens of thousands of
pounds sterling (far more than the cost of a car); a large project a
couple of years ago had a budget of a couple of million.
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
On 22 Jul 2006 00:47:25 -0700, Chaddy2222 in
comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>On 20 Jul 2006 06:08:54 -0700, Chaddy2222 in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>BULL SHIT!
There are probly more people with vision problems in the world then you
would have time to count. I know that 10% of the Australian population
has some form of print disability (this includes Vision impaired
people) among others.
Cite ?
>http://www.visionaustralia.org.au
I still don't see any specific citation -- I'm not going to do your work for you.
<snip>
>>
My firm is quite successful, and we don't work with Mom/Pop franchises.
>That was not the point.
IMHO it is, because we believe we know where the industry is and heading,
our clients are in agreement as well.
Accessibility reached a zenith a couple of years ago, now, most businesses
are realizing that it should be done on a case by case basis, if at all,
much like browser support. Usability for the majority of the clients customers
is far more important, when getting their message across.
>They aren't visually impaired, therefore having Flash on the page is not
an issue. We're talking Flash here my man. I don't need to do anything
different to develop a website for them, then what I do normally. Voice
recognition simply does what the mouse does and "clicks" for them.
>I doubt the software could read it.
Besides, your arguments about not provideing accessible websites are
floored.
Their are very strict guidelines around that baysicly state, that all
information needs to be made accessible to people with a disability (or
anyone who wants it), this includes web content.
Did you even read the links regarding the Olimpic site? anyone
(includeing) corperet groups makeing web content needs to make it
accessible to all, even if that includes having to make two sites, with
in the same domain name.
What's so critical that you need to use Flash for anyway?, I want
examples that you have createed.
I can only think of a few sercomstances where this would be the case,
BTW, your Car buying example is not a good example, (many sited people
have totally blind friends / partners).
Also, I know that most vision impaired people can see a bit, I am one
such person.
I still find Flash inaccessible though.
BTW you would have a lot more credibility if you used proper spacing in
your paragraphs, along with proper spelling. The occasional mistake I
probably wouldn't notice, but yours are frequent.
Do you realize how hard the above is to read comfortably? Accessibility
expert indeed!
As I indicated very early on, accessibility in Flash has been an issue,
it's improving, and will only get better.
I'm done with you grasshopper, discuss this with yourself, if you must.
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:29:36 -0400, Chris F.A. Johnson in
comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html wrote:
>On 2006-07-21, Stephen wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:43:34 -0400, Chris F.A. Johnson in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>The % of people using the internet that are totally blind is probably
much smaller than you believe. :)
Who said anything about "totally blind"?
I did. :)
They are the ones that IMHO shouldn't even be using a visual medium.
Who wants to read described video? <shudder>
>Tell me what that percentage is, say for people wanting to look at
automobiles on the GM Website that are totally blind ?
Why would you turn away the grandfather wanting to buy a car for
his grandchild?
We're not, he has a choice whether or not he wants to view a Flash
movie where he can chose the colour scheme, or view a wire frame
cutout of a specific model. It's not forced on anyone.
What's the problem?
Why do you think that all Flash designers are like that? We're no
different than HTML only developers, some are good at what they do,
others aren't.
>It's like anything Chris, if the market the website is created for,
demands it, then do it.
Why limit your market?
We're not, we know our clients target demographics.
>What I'm saying is that the majority of websites, and over 99% of
the ones that my firm is involved in, don't require anything for the
visually handicapped.
Do you mean you don't make it hard for them or that you drive them
away?
We don't make it hard for them, but then we don't bend over backward
either.
>They're not in our target market.
A myopic attitude.
Nope a pragmatic one. My clients are the boss, and what drive our
decisions vis-a-vis their website. Sorry but I'm not into PC.
<snip>
>I'm one of these, in fact I'm legally blind, and I can view the web like
anyone else. Sure I up-size my fonts, but that's done easily enough.
How do you do that with a flash page? As far as I can see the only
way is to zoom, but the window stays the same size, and it is not
possible to pan (which would be irritating in any case).
Of course I can't up size fonts in a Flash movie (BTW I never advocated
creating websites in Flash so that's a moot point).
Again the size of fonts whatever, are a design decision. Make the fonts
a reasonable size to begin with. That is one bur I have about many
Flash designers -- They make their font sizes too damn small.
>P.S.
Are you the same C. Johnson from TLUG ? ;)
One and the same (unless there's another C. Johnson in TLUG).
Yup I figured, I've been a member of that list since 1998, mostly in
lurk mode. Remember Thamer ?
Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 15:03:37 GMT, Ben Bacarisse in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>>Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
>>>
Here's a nice example of an RIA;
<http://www.asfusion.com/apps/homelocator/>
>>Is that a joke? I see a blank screen and nothing else. I would be
less antagonistic to so called "rich" interfaces if they worked more
often.
Do you actually keep your flashplayer up-to-date ?
Well, who knows? The system is only a month old and the flash player
would have been current when the system was put together and all
released updates have been applied.
If you don't have
current plugins update them !
I run an up-to-date system but I will only go out of my way to view a
site (i.e. try to diagnose why I see nothing) if I *know* I want the
content. I would want, if I were forced to use flash, to be able to
report to the reader that the content will not display on a particular
version. A blank screen is the worst of all worlds.
--
Ben.
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Andy Mabbett <usenet200309
@pigsonthewing.org.ukwriting in
news:Qq**************@pigsonthewing.org.uk:
Yeah, right:
http://www.samaritans.org.uk/
That's a nice place to know about. Thanks for the link.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:09:17 +0100, Alan J. Flavell in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Stephen wrote:
>>Do you actually keep your flashplayer up-to-date ? If you don't have
current plugins update them !
>>Speaking for myself, yes, I do.
<snip>
>
>>What's so wonderful about the latest version, anyway, as compared with
one a year or so old? After all, MSIE is (in most material respects)
scarcely improved in the last 5 years or so, but it's still possible
(with minor restrictions) to use it to browse a properly-made
specification-conforming web page. The whole web is built on the
concept of version compatibility and graceful fallback. If I'm to
deduce anything from this insistence on always using the latest
version, then Flash is not.
The same can be said for JAVA, for some applications one needs to update
to the latest JRE, same with the plethora of other uses for plugins,
<ieQuickTime, Windows Media Player. Flash is hardly an exception in
this regard.
Except that it seems to be the one technology that tempts designers to
*replace* the whole site with a proprietary content format.
There were security issues with Flash Player <8. It's suggested that
people upgrade for that reason alone, from version 7 and prior.
This is why it is not installed in many environments. How many
security problems are there in version 8, I wonder.
<snip>
I realize that most here are Luddites, but surely even the most die hard
Luddite occasionally wishes to watch video online. 8-)
Ha! I like to watch video online, so I have software that can play
about 100 different video encoding wrapped in about a dozen stream
formats served over any of a handful of transport protocols but the
most frequent reason I can't view content is non-standard and/or poor
page design. A simple link to the content works on more systems then
all those dreadful embedded players, java applet kludges or javascript
popups. What is wrong with a link to the content?
--
Ben.
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:07:43 GMT, Bart Lateur in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>>No one of any importance surfs with javascript disabled these
days.
>You're underestimating the impact of very popular Firefox extensions
like NoScript.
> <https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/722/>
Not at all. My point is that the majority of average surfers don't disable
Javascript. Javascript is more popular than ever these days, and I don't
see it's use diminishing.
If you can show me empirical data that shows the opposite, I'll be
greatly interested. I doubt you'll be able to.
Jack <mr*********@nospam.jackpot.uk.netwrote in
news:e9*******************@news.demon.co.uk:
Stephen wrote:
>>
I can see folks not wanting to see some of the annoying animation
in Flash Ads, but I don't understand why one wants to block Flash
entirely, without seeing if there is anything there to annoy them
first. It's asine, in my opinion.
You're entitled to your opinion. But plenty of people *do* surf
without Flash enabled (or installed). The way I use the web, Flash
adds nothing to it (I use it mainly to find information); therefore
I've never bothered to install the plugin, and the resulting "You
need a plugin" message is an excellent warning that I need to look
for another site.
I use FF with all kinds of blocking: cookies, pop-ups, client side
programs, and other stuff I see as unnecessary including flash. I have
a DSL connection that has pretty good speed. I use my routers as my
first defense to protect my computers. I only allow programs to run
that access the web server itself. Many sites are unuseable to me
because of my security setup. For the few in the whitelist, I *need*
to access the sites (banking,dns management). When looking to buy
something, as soon as a requirement is demanded, I use the back menu to
return to the Google listing. Those requiring cookies, pop-ups, client
side scripts, etc. have lost my business. So, go ahead and toss of
some of your (or your client's) business; I don't know the % like me,
but I doubt that I'm alone on this as I have various people that I work
with on a continuing basis. Their computers are set up pretty much
like mine at my recommendation. How many others are being tossed off?
I get pretty nnoyed when someone puts up a manufacturer's website
for a product that I own, and the site relies on Flash. That means I
have to deploy my secondary browser.
I use the phone if available, usually email if no number is listed. I
tell them *why* I'm using the phone: "Your website is badly broken.
Details..."
--
Stan McCann, RETIRED!!, "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/
Implementing negative score for googlegroup postings, see http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html A zest for living must include a
willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
On 2006-07-22, Stephen wrote:
... Usability for the majority of the clients customers
is far more important, when getting their message across.
Why usability for the majority rather than usability for everyone?
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
===== My code in this post, if any, assumes the POSIX locale
===== and is released under the GNU General Public Licence
On 2006-07-22, Stephen wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:29:36 -0400, Chris F.A. Johnson in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>>On 2006-07-21, Stephen wrote:
>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:43:34 -0400, Chris F.A. Johnson in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>>The % of people using the internet that are totally blind is probably
much smaller than you believe. :)
Who said anything about "totally blind"?
I did. :)
They are the ones that IMHO shouldn't even be using a visual medium.
They're not; they are using the World-Wide Web.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
===== My code in this post, if any, assumes the POSIX locale
===== and is released under the GNU General Public Licence
In article <Xn************************@216.234.192.142>,
Stan McCann <me@stanmccann.uswrote:
>I use FF with all kinds of blocking: cookies, pop-ups, client side
programs, and other stuff I see as unnecessary including flash. I have
a DSL connection that has pretty good speed. I use my routers as my
first defense to protect my computers. I only allow programs to run
that access the web server itself. Many sites are unuseable to me
because of my security setup. For the few in the whitelist, I *need*
to access the sites (banking,dns management). When looking to buy
something, as soon as a requirement is demanded, I use the back menu to
return to the Google listing. Those requiring cookies, pop-ups, client
side scripts, etc. have lost my business.
I agree with just about everything above except the cookies. A lot of
sites try to set a session cookie; those are generally harmless. The
attempt to set a session cookie is usually because the site uses the
session ID for login purposes. Same is true if the site is running a
forum.
>I use the phone if available, usually email if no number is listed. I
tell them *why* I'm using the phone: "Your website is badly broken.
Details..."
I had to do that for a headhunter site that required ActiveX just to
view the home page. When he called me asking if I had looked at their
web site, I told him I will never see anything on the site until they
drop the ActiveX requirement. ActiveX is a security risk, and I'm not
going to risk it just to view a badly-designed web page.
-A
Bart Lateur <ba*********@pandora.bewrote:
Stephen wrote:
>>On 17 Jul 2006 15:03:37 GMT, Ben Bacarisse in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html wrote:
>>>Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
Here's a nice example of an RIA;
<http://www.asfusion.com/apps/homelocator/>
>>>Is that a joke? I see a blank screen and nothing else. I would be
less antagonistic to so called "rich" interfaces if they worked more
often.
It only shows anything other than a blank greenish screen, if you have
Javascript enabled.
I have JS enabled (at the moment). I have not yet decided if browsing
with it on or off gives the better indication of clueless design.
--
Ben.
In <sl****************************@sweetpig.dyndns.or gon 22 Jul
2006 17:08:34 +0200, Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
>I'm done with you grasshopper, discuss this with yourself, if you must.
JOB#1234-B48
Item 1 : Writes like a pompous arsehole.
Item 2 : Responds to disgreement like a pompous arsehole.
Item 3 : Justifies its pompous arseholery like a pompous arsehole.
Conclusion : It's a pompous arsehole.
Appropriate action : Consign to killfile.
JOB END
--
DG
Dick Gaughan wrote:
In <sl****************************@sweetpig.dyndns.or gon 22 Jul
2006 17:08:34 +0200, Stephen <St*************@gmail.comwrote:
I'm done with you grasshopper, discuss this with yourself, if you must.
JOB#1234-B48
Item 1 : Writes like a pompous arsehole.
Item 2 : Responds to disgreement like a pompous arsehole.
Item 3 : Justifies its pompous arseholery like a pompous arsehole.
Conclusion : It's a pompous arsehole.
Appropriate action : Consign to killfile.
JOB END
ROTFLMAO!.
That's the best post I have read all day.
That's a job well done, give yourself a pat on the back.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
Well, since I started this mess, let me say this. The important
point here is: if you set up a web site that WILL NOT WORK
unless a user has flash, or even worse a particular version of flash,
you're doing it wrong. If you want to use flash, that's fine, just
don't make it a show stopper.
If a businessman hired you to do advertising for his store, would
you consider it part of the service to stand at the doorway of
his shop and stop 1 out of every 10 people trying to get in, saying
"hey buddy, we don't want your kind here!". I don't think so. po*********@yahoo.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.
This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
