Flash Loons

[Rik]

Re: Flash Loons

Eric Lindsay wrote:

In article <slrnebn0j6.mpd .Stephen.D.Alle n@sweetpig.dynd ns.org>,
Stephen <Stephen.D.Alle n@gmail.comwrot e:
>

>Here's a nice example of an RIA;
><http://www.asfusion.co m/apps/homelocator/>

>
A totally blank, invalid page that accomplishes nothing is a nice
example?

No, the fact that it takes 45 seconds to load with my connection, allthough
my connection is certainly not slow...

And the fact that only after that loadperiod it states I should use Flash
Player 9, would you like to install? Nope....

Grtz,
--
Rik Wasmus

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: Flash Loons

Rik wrote:

Eric Lindsay wrote:

> Stephen <Stephen.D.Alle n@gmail.comwrot e:
>>

>>Here's a nice example of an RIA;
>><http://www.asfusion.co m/apps/homelocator/>

>>
>A totally blank, invalid page that accomplishes nothing is a nice
>example?

>
No, the fact that it takes 45 seconds to load with my connection,
allthough my connection is certainly not slow...

Turn off JavaScript, and it is a blank page. Double Trouble.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[Rik]

Re: Flash Loons

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Rik wrote:
>

>Eric Lindsay wrote:

>> Stephen <Stephen.D.Alle n@gmail.comwrot e:
>>>
>>>Here's a nice example of an RIA;
>>><http://www.asfusion.co m/apps/homelocator/>
>>>
>>A totally blank, invalid page that accomplishes nothing is a nice
>>example?

>>
>No, the fact that it takes 45 seconds to load with my connection,
>allthough my connection is certainly not slow...

>
Turn off JavaScript, and it is a blank page. Double Trouble.

Yup, it does load faster though :-)

Grtz,
--
Rik Wasmus

[Matt]

Re: Flash Loons

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:32:57 +0100, Jack wrote:

Stephen wrote:

>>
>You have no idea how scientific this business is.

>
You don't seem to know what "science" is.

Perhaps 'method' would be better

>Add to that a healthy dose of actuarial science. Lets call it what it
>is, propaganda, and some types of it are very effective.

>
Propaganda, hype, whatever. Everyone knows that suckers exist; there are
plenty of them, so it's said ("one born every minute"). The question isn't
whether marketer's hype works (FSVO "works"); obviously it does. The
question is whether some particular kind of hype works as well as its
proponents claim.
>
I'm saying that Macromedia Flush probably doesn't work as well as you
believe.

The irony is someone's fallen for Macromedia's advertising here...

--
Matt

[Stephen]

Re: Flash Loons

On 17 Jul 2006 15:03:37 GMT, Ben Bacarisse in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:

>Stephen <Stephen.D.Alle n@gmail.comwrot e:

>>
>Here's a nice example of an RIA;
><http://www.asfusion.co m/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 ? If you don't have
current plugins update them !

[Stephen]

Re: Flash Loons

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:32:57 +0100, Jack in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:

>Stephen wrote:

>>
>You have no idea how scientific this business is.

>You don't seem to know what "science" is.

>Add to that a healthy dose of actuarial science. Lets call it what it
>is, propaganda, and some types of it are very effective.

>Propaganda, hype, whatever. Everyone knows that suckers exist; there are
>plenty of them, so it's said ("one born every minute"). The question
>isn't whether marketer's hype works (FSVO "works"); obviously it does.
>The question is whether some particular kind of hype works as well as
>its proponents claim.

>I'm saying that Macromedia Flush probably doesn't work as well as you
>believe.

>And I cite *your* reference:
>http://www.asfusion.com/apps/homelocator/

>Try it on a browser without Flush support.

Bzzt We are disucssing Flash in the RIA context in this thread. So of
course you need Flash. Please stop behaving like a twit, you've lost all
credibility with moi -- Goodbye !

If you don't care to use Flash fine, but don't critique what you have no
clue of.

[Stephen]

Re: Flash Loons

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:47:21 +0100, Matt in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:

>The irony is someone's fallen for Macromedia's advertising here...

LOL Whatever floats yer boat !

[Stephen]

Re: Flash Loons

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 06:19:17 +1000, Eric Lindsay in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:

>In article <slrnebn0j6.mpd .Stephen.D.Alle n@sweetpig.dynd ns.org>,
Stephen <Stephen.D.Alle n@gmail.comwrot e:

>Here's a nice example of an RIA;
><http://www.asfusion.co m/apps/homelocator/>

>A totally blank, invalid page that accomplishes nothing is a nice
>example?

Well son, that's because you have to stop behaving like a luddite, and
use the Flash plugin -- You know like most normal people.

I suppose you don't have JRE installed either.

You guys are quite fun to watch. LOL

[Stephen]

Re: Flash Loons

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:38:49 +0200, Rik in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:

>Eric Lindsay wrote:

>In article <slrnebn0j6.mpd .Stephen.D.Alle n@sweetpig.dynd ns.org>,
> Stephen <Stephen.D.Alle n@gmail.comwrot e:
>>

>>Here's a nice example of an RIA;
>><http://www.asfusion.co m/apps/homelocator/>

>>
>A totally blank, invalid page that accomplishes nothing is a nice
>example?

>No, the fact that it takes 45 seconds to load with my connection, allthough
>my connection is certainly not slow...

>And the fact that only after that loadperiod it states I should use Flash
>Player 9, would you like to install? Nope....

Well, that's your choice, but of course to view Flash content you need
the Flash plugin. If you don't ever upgrade your browser than I can
understand your reluctance to upgrade Flash, but if you often do update your
browser, updating your Flash plugin isn't any different.

It seems many of you dislike Flash because of philosophical
reasons. That's fine, but cutting off your nose to spite your face
is a choice. I definitely wouldn't hire a developer that had such
a view on life.

[Stephen]

Re: Flash Loons

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:47:56 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:

>Rik wrote:

>Eric Lindsay wrote:

>> Stephen <Stephen.D.Alle n@gmail.comwrot e:
>>>
>>>Here's a nice example of an RIA;
>>><http://www.asfusion.co m/apps/homelocator/>
>>>
>>A totally blank, invalid page that accomplishes nothing is a nice
>>example?

>>
>No, the fact that it takes 45 seconds to load with my connection,
>allthough my connection is certainly not slow...

>Turn off JavaScript, and it is a blank page. Double Trouble.

So what ? No one of any importance surfs with javascript disabled these
days. You think I'm going to lose sleep over the 5 that do ?

Come one man, give your head a shake. Accessiblity isn't the end all be
all. Usability trumps it. And don't argue that Flash isn't usable --
That's entirely up to the designer and the designer's expertise.

[Rik]

Re: Flash Loons

Stephen wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:38:49 +0200, Rik in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:
>

>Eric Lindsay wrote:

>>In article <slrnebn0j6.mpd .Stephen.D.Alle n@sweetpig.dynd ns.org>,
>> Stephen <Stephen.D.Alle n@gmail.comwrot e:
>>>
>>>Here's a nice example of an RIA;
>>><http://www.asfusion.co m/apps/homelocator/>
>>>
>>A totally blank, invalid page that accomplishes nothing is a nice
>>example?

>

>No, the fact that it takes 45 seconds to load with my connection,
>allthough my connection is certainly not slow...

>

>And the fact that only after that loadperiod it states I should use
>Flash Player 9, would you like to install? Nope....

>
Well, that's your choice, but of course to view Flash content you need
the Flash plugin. If you don't ever upgrade your browser than I can
understand your reluctance to upgrade Flash, but if you often do
update your browser, updating your Flash plugin isn't any different.

I do update my browser. Security issues you know.
I do have Flash 8 installed, but it seems the rule 'everything will have to
degrade with keeping as much functionality as possible' doesn't apply to
(this particular) Flash design?

If we're talking user-friendly, if Flash is installed, but has a to low
version, give as much functionality as possible & inform them they can get
more if they upgrade.

Now, I know when I see a message I should upgrade Flash, I can more or less
trust it, but will go their page itself to download & install it. Lesson 101
of less experienced users is that when a webpage sais: "would you like to
install?" the answer is "no" almost every time. They are afraid of
virusses/spyware and the like (and should be :-), so will navigate away if
they don't trust the maker of that website enough. This is good practice.

It seems many of you dislike Flash because of philosophical
reasons.

Philosophical? It's a highly undependable. For instance, if I used MSIE 4,
I'm sure a lot of added functionality on websites doesn't really work. On a
good page, I can get the bluk of the information though. Without requiring
an upgrade to display anything. I don't mind Flash persé, just think it
generally doesn't really add to the content and is a lot bulkier then a page
with the same information in HTML/CSS. A nice degrade for versions and an
alternative are requirements though, not optional.

That's fine, but cutting off your nose to spite your face
is a choice. I definitely wouldn't hire a developer that had such
a view on life.

Huh? Why would I want to spite my face? Plugging up my nose when eating
something really filthy on the other hand. Why do that when I just as well
avoid eating it at all?

Grtz,
--
Rik Wasmus

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Flash Loons

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. Yet I've lost count of the number of
flash sites that have bawled me out, even right after an update to the
latest version, that I don't have the latest version and so they won't
even try to send me anything (or words to that effect).

Since they won't send me anything, the Flasblock button never appears,
so I never get the chance to click on it and view their stuff.

Are they deliberately trying exclude those of us who make a choice, or
are they just too dumb to be let loose with flash?

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.

And don't ever forget that there are whole armies of potential readers
who don't get a choice: their brower is installed for them by the
corporate I.T department, or by the student cluster controller -
whatever, and they must use it as they find it: attempting to install
extra software could get them thrown out, and rightly so. Flaming
them because they haven't installed the author's favourite extra is
not only rude, but pointless and silly, and shows just how little the
author comprehends of the web "in the wide".

ttfn

[Stephen]

Re: Flash Loons

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:09:17 +0100, Alan J. Flavell in
comp.infosystem s.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. Yet I've lost count of the number of
>flash sites that have bawled me out, even right after an update to the
>latest version, that I don't have the latest version and so they won't
>even try to send me anything (or words to that effect).

I can't comment, haven't seen an example of what you're referring to.

>Since they won't send me anything, the Flasblock button never appears,
>so I never get the chance to click on it and view their stuff.

Well doesn't it allow you to disable it on a per site basis ? If not
then that Flashblock extension is seriously flawed in my view.

>Are they deliberately trying exclude those of us who make a choice, or
>are they just too dumb to be let loose with flash?

I've heard some do, but don't know how wide scale it is.

>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
>specificatio n-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.

Not many people are willing to accept the WWW as it was
originally intended -- As simply a medium to exchange scientific
papers/research. That was why HyperTextMarkup Language was developed, as
you probably know.

So sorry, I don't' accept the premise that such technologies should
remain stagnant. HTML was never designed for the purposes it's often
used today -- Therefore Designer/Developers like moi, are happy to
accept technologies that give a richer experience. People want that
experience on the whole.

## In answer to what's so wonderful about the latest version:

There were security issues with Flash Player <8. It's suggested that
people upgrade for that reason alone, from version 7 and prior.

Adobe has made major changes in the text rendering engine, and video
capabilities. Flash is increasingly used for video presentation, and
regardless what people think about the skateboarder anime types, the way
Flash compresses and delivers video is superior to any other method in
use now. Now I don't need to produce Quick Time for MacHeads and
Media Player for Windoze -- I use one Flash video.

I think it's testament to the fact that Google uses Flash for their
video delivery.

I realize that most here are Luddites, but surely even the most die hard
Luddite occasionally wishes to watch video online. 8-)

For a comprehensive list of changes, might I suggest you visit Adobe's
site ?

>And don't ever forget that there are whole armies of potential readers
>who don't get a choice: their brower is installed for them by the
>corporate I.T department, or by the student cluster controller -
>whatever, and they must use it as they find it: attempting to install
>extra software could get them thrown out, and rightly so. Flaming
>them because they haven't installed the author's favourite extra is
>not only rude, but pointless and silly, and shows just how little the
>author comprehends of the web "in the wide".

Of course, those folks exist,(not whole armies of course) and I guess
they'll just have to wait until they get home from work -- They
shouldn't
be stealing company time anyway. ;)

BTW The poster who was saying "I don't have Flash installed" presumably is a
multi-media developer, being that this is an HTML newsgroup -- I don't
know many such companies that restrict such access to their developers.
<shrugIf they didn't know that in a Flash discussion on RIAs, they may
be visiting a Flash example, shows a lack of foresight on their part, not
mine. I surely wasn't the first to post such an example. I guess I
could have mentioned that this was a prototype done requiring Flash
Player 9, but I seem to recall it was mentioned on the same web page. (I
could be wrong about that though)

In terms of understanding the web, I probably understand it as well as
anyone in this group. Z<shrug>

Have a good day.

[Stephen]

Re: Flash Loons

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:38:20 +0200, Rik in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:

>Stephen wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:38:49 +0200, Rik in
>comp.infosyste ms.www.authoring.html wrote:
>>

>>Eric Lindsay wrote:
>>>In article <slrnebn0j6.mpd .Stephen.D.Alle n@sweetpig.dynd ns.org>,
>>> Stephen <Stephen.D.Alle n@gmail.comwrot e:
>>>>
>>>>Here's a nice example of an RIA;
>>>><http://www.asfusion.co m/apps/homelocator/>
>>>>
>>>A totally blank, invalid page that accomplishes nothing is a nice
>>>example?

>>

>>No, the fact that it takes 45 seconds to load with my connection,
>>allthough my connection is certainly not slow...

>>

>>And the fact that only after that loadperiod it states I should use
>>Flash Player 9, would you like to install? Nope....

>>
>Well, that's your choice, but of course to view Flash content you need
>the Flash plugin. If you don't ever upgrade your browser than I can
>understand your reluctance to upgrade Flash, but if you often do
>update your browser, updating your Flash plugin isn't any different.

>I do update my browser. Security issues you know.
>I do have Flash 8 installed, but it seems the rule 'everything will have to
>degrade with keeping as much functionality as possible' doesn't apply to
>(this particular) Flash design?

No. With Flash 8, Adobe made major changes under the hood, for upcoming
technologies to be leveraged, completely rewrote the text engine, and
improved the video capabilities. So if one is using the new features
such as text filters in Flash 8, then that's not possible. But it's a
worthwhile upgrade. Flash 8 professional is becoming an IDE, and there
is far more to Flash now, than it being just an animation application.

>If we're talking user-friendly, if Flash is installed, but has a to low
>version, give as much functionality as possible & inform them they can get
>more if they upgrade.

Nod.

>Now, I know when I see a message I should upgrade Flash, I can more or less
>trust it, but will go their page itself to download & install it. Lesson 101
>of less experienced users is that when a webpage sais: "would you like to
>install?" the answer is "no" almost every time. They are afraid of
>virusses/spyware and the like (and should be :-), so will navigate away if
>they don't trust the maker of that website enough. This is good practice.

Actually this is a problem with all plug-ins, <ieQuickTime etc. That's
were usability enters the picture. Depending on the audience, it
generally accepted that before a plugin reaches critical adoption, a
blurb from the developer on the site, about requiring * version is
appropriate under the circumstances. I don't have a problem with that.

>It seems many of you dislike Flash because of philosophical
>reasons.

>Philosophica l? It's a highly undependable. For instance, if I used MSIE 4,
>I'm sure a lot of added functionality on websites doesn't really work. On a
>good page, I can get the bluk of the information though. Without requiring
>an upgrade to display anything. I don't mind Flash persé, just think it
>generally doesn't really add to the content and is a lot bulkier then a page
>with the same information in HTML/CSS. A nice degrade for versions and an
>alternative are requirements though, not optional.

Right, seriously, developing a website with Flash in it, is no
different than HTML development. You design for your audience. If
they're using IE 4, then develop with that in mind. I'm not denying this, nor
have I ever in this discussion. I know that not many people are using
that browser, but I understand where you're coming from.

In terms of Flash not adding value to the content -- That's a
design/designer problem, not a Flash one.

>That's fine, but cutting off your nose to spite your face
>is a choice. I definitely wouldn't hire a developer that had such
>a view on life.

>Huh? Why would I want to spite my face? Plugging up my nose when eating
>something really filthy on the other hand. Why do that when I just as well
>avoid eating it at all?

In this case it won't hurt you at all.

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Flash Loons

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Stephen wrote:

[of Flashblock:]

Well doesn't it allow you to disable it on a per site basis ?

Sure: it can be turned off on a per-instance basis, and sites can be
added to a whitelist if one wishes to.

However, at this point in the proceedings, I'm at a new, unknown and
as-yet untrusted web site. Seeing that they couldn't even get the
first bit right, would I *really* want to go to the trouble of
unblocking them? I'm more likely to return to the search engine, and
try one of their competitors.

And apropos search engines: the sites are right there on the record
which were stupid enough to flame the indexing bot for not having the
right version of Flash installed.

Not many people are willing to accept the WWW as it was
originally intended

Have you any *idea* how the WWW was originally intended?

One of the early browsers (Viola) had a kind of client-side scripting,
and used a kind of stylesheet for presentation, and had interactive
objects which could be incorporated into web pages. This repeated
myth that the web was purely a textual medium is really that, a myth.

-- As simply a medium to exchange scientific papers/research.

No-no, not only. Meetings, engineering designs, clubs, canteen menus,
all kinds of activities, many of them *associated* with the science,
and many of them just part of real life ;-)

That was why HyperTextMarkup Language was developed, as you probably
know.

Sure - I was at CERN, off and on, around that time, and following
developments with close interest.

So sorry, I don't' accept the premise that such technologies should
remain stagnant.

Who ever suggested that they should? An appropriate degree of version
compatibility and graceful fallback is *still* beneficial.

What we're talking about here is welcoming the new visitor with the
content that they need, for deciding whether this is a site they would
like to use, and offering them the various other media which are on
offer, *whatever* those may be.

What we're arguing against is an entry screen which has nothing of
value on it, except for those who consented to the author's favourite
media beforehand.

enough.