Flash Loons

[Wÿrm]

Re: Flash Loons


"Stephen" <Stephen.D.Alle n@gmail.comkirj oitti
viestissä:slrne bpoqg.bdj.Steph en.D.Allen@swee tpig.dyndns.org ...
<snip>

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 ?

In these times anyone with a clue won't surf to "unknown" sites with
JavaScript on. You have heard about Cross Site Scripting (XSS)surely?

[Andy Mabbett]

Re: Flash Loons

In message <slrnebqcno.dqf .Stephen.D.Alle n@sweetpig.dynd ns.org>, Stephen
<Stephen.D.Alle n@gmail.comwrit es

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

They seem to manage without it, for everything else...
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata .org.uk>

[Andy Mabbett]

Re: Flash Loons

In message <slrnebscrt.4vi .Stephen.D.Alle n@sweetpig.dynd ns.org>, Stephen
<Stephen.D.Alle n@gmail.comwrit es

>There is a telephone for people that have accessibility issues.

Are you being deliberately offensive, or are you just stupid by default?
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata .org.uk>

[Bart Lateur]

Re: Flash Loons

Stephen wrote:

>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.

It only shows anything other than a blank greenish screen, if you have
Javascript enabled.

Bad form.

>Do you actually keep your flashplayer up-to-date ? If you don't have
>current plugins update them !

Well, it tells me it requires Flash 9, I declined, and since then it
keeps hanging (several minutes already) trying to load something off
Macromedia's website.

If there's anything I hate more than useless Flash, it's the rush to
newer and newer versions. I can't count the times I've upgraded Flash
already, it must be once every few months, and it doesn't seem to want
to slow down.

I'm sick of upgrading Flash.

--
Bart.

[Eric Lindsay]

Re: Flash Loons

In article <1153301558.492 939.301240@m79g 2000cwm.googleg roups.com>,
"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesm iths.comwrote:

Eric Lindsay wrote:

Statute law and case law both say disabled people must be able
to access your web pages.

>
If you ever find linkable resources to actual case law on this, I for
one would appreciate the links.

The best known case law in Australia was Maguire vs. SOCOG, in which a
blind activist asked for access to the Olympic Games site. After he won,
SOCOG ignored a court ruling, and was subsequently fined A$20,000.

There is a very nice summary at http://www.contenu.nu/socog.html however
the Attorney General department seem to be busily removing all case law
judgements from their site at the moment. The summary judgement is
probably available at an alternative site like

http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2000/1

112.html?query= Maguire%20vs.%2 0SOCOG via http://www.auslii.edu.au
however Auslii are doing all their support on a shoestring and IANAL so
I don't do a great job on searches there.

Here in the UK there seems to be a vast gulf betweeen legal
requirements (almost entirely ignored) and real hard evidence of cases
enforcing them. As a result there's not much you can say to a project
manager with a "Stuff acccessibility, do it in Flash" attitude.

One reason I know about that case law is I used it to help persuade a
small business wanting a web site to allow me to make it accessible to
the disabled. I didn't emphasise the matter, but disabled access is very
similar to SEO. I did point out I would get them much better search
engine positioning if they let me do it my way. After they got enquiries
from people they didn't think they were targeting, they let me have my
way.

--

http://www.ericlindsay.com

[Chris Morris]

Re: Flash Loons

"Wÿrm" <nomailstodrago n@north.invalid writes:

"Stephen" <Stephen.D.Alle n@gmail.comkirj oitti
viestissä:slrne bpoqg.bdj.Steph en.D.Allen@swee tpig.dyndns.org ...
<snip>

So what ? No one of any importance surfs with javascript disabled these
days.

What a bizarre definition of 'importance'.

You think I'm going to lose sleep over the 5 that do ?

>
In these times anyone with a clue won't surf to "unknown" sites with
JavaScript on. You have heard about Cross Site Scripting (XSS)surely?

The XSS risk is more about whether an arbitrary person can insert
their own JS or HTML [1] code into a page, so becoming able to steal
information from you, rather than whether the site author did so. So
there it's a question of trust in the site author to have coded their
pages securely, which surely applies equally well to "known" sites.

My reasons for turning off Javascript unless a particular site needs
it are (in order):
- blocks a large proportion of adverts.
- security (XSS and browser bugs)
- improves privacy vs web stats pixels
- speed (some JS does nothing especially useful but all the
additional image loads can hurt)
- none of the sites I use regularly, which vary from the largest
sites on the web to some very minor ones use JS for anything other
than optional enhancements or minor features. My browser
unfortunately doesn't have a feature to selectively enable JS for
particular sites only, so it stays off by default.

[1] XSS attacks, despite the name, need not always use scripting.
Inserting HTML at the correct point to redirect a form or a link can
be sufficient to steal some sensitive information. Most of the common
ones use scripting simply because it's easier and potentially more
powerful, of course.

--
Chris

[Andy Dingley]

Re: Flash Loons

Stephen wrote:

PDAs are another story. Flash has to be written a little differently for
PDAs,

_That's_ why Flash is bad. You have to author in a
reader-context-sensitive manner.
That breaks the whole underlying notion of the web as being
reader-independent.

[Stephen]

Re: Flash Loons

On 19 Jul 2006 07:58:05 -0700, Andy Dingley in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:

>Stephen wrote:

>In that case, why not save all the website costs and go to
>telephone-only sales?

Because the vast majority of people don't have visual handicaps. We
cater to them being that we're primarily a visual medium now-a-days.

>Tell you what - you preserve yourr Dezyner Ethics, Stylistic Purity and
>no doubt your Hoxton Fin too. In the meantime we'll take the money of
>the people who can use our site but not yours.

LOL such an old argument -- I guarantee you, that when developing such
sites come out of the micro-niche category, my firm will be doing it quite
successfully.

Until then, I'll be pragmatic. There is still 4 billion people that need
to get on the Internet, the majority of which don't have visual
handicaps.

[Stephen]

Re: Flash Loons

On 20 Jul 2006 02:59:47 -0700, Andy Dingley in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:

>Stephen wrote:

>PDAs are another story. Flash has to be written a little differently for
>PDAs,

>_That's_ why Flash is bad. You have to author in a
>reader-context-sensitive manner.
>That breaks the whole underlying notion of the web as being
>reader-independent.

Nope. It's a problem with PDAs not Flash.

[Matt]

Re: Flash Loons

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:08:43 +0200, Stephen wrote:

On 19 Jul 2006 07:58:05 -0700, Andy Dingley in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:
>

>>Stephen wrote:

>

>>In that case, why not save all the website costs and go to telephone-only
>>sales?

>
Because the vast majority of people don't have visual handicaps. We cater
to them being that we're primarily a visual medium now-a-days.

The vast majority of people have two legs and can walk. I don't think I'll
bother putting lifts/elevators in my new building, it needn't be
accessible to them. Everyone will have to take the stairs.

Until then, I'll be pragmatic. There is still 4 billion people that need
to get on the Internet, the majority of which don't have visual
handicaps.

The majority of them don't have computers, so maybe you /should/ stick
with phone sales?

--
Matt

[Chaddy2222]

Re: Flash Loons


Stephen wrote:

On 19 Jul 2006 07:58:05 -0700, Andy Dingley in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:
>

Stephen wrote:

>

In that case, why not save all the website costs and go to
telephone-only sales?

>
Because the vast majority of people don't have visual handicaps.

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.

cater to them being that we're primarily a visual medium now-a-days.

You must design sites for 5 year olds. They are about the only people
who would be amused by the majority of eye candy designs.
Though I think even children would get board and just find something
else.

>

Tell you what - you preserve yourr Dezyner Ethics, Stylistic Purity and
no doubt your Hoxton Fin too. In the meantime we'll take the money of
the people who can use our site but not yours.

>
LOL such an old argument -- I guarantee you, that when developing such
sites come out of the micro-niche category, my firm will be doing it quite
successfully.
>
Until then, I'll be pragmatic. There is still 4 billion people that need
to get on the Internet, the majority of which don't have visual
handicaps.

WTF!?
Who said anything about people with a Vision impairment.
By the way, there are a lot of other reasons for accessibility, think
about (people who have poor movement with their hands) as an example.
Arthritice (however you spell it) comes to mind as well.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

[Jack]

Re: Flash Loons

Stephen wrote:

On 20 Jul 2006 02:59:47 -0700, Andy Dingley in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:

>Stephen wrote:

>

>>PDAs are another story. Flash has to be written a little
>>differently for PDAs,

>

>_That's_ why Flash is bad. You have to author in a
>reader-context-sensitive manner. That breaks the whole underlying
>notion of the web as being reader-independent.

>
Nope. It's a problem with PDAs not Flash.

Really? It sounds as if you regard everyone as being out of step except
you and your Flash.

I don't really care much; I don't see Macromedia Flash taking over from
standards-based web technologies. As far as I'm concerned it's just
another browser plugin, primarily of interest to pushy advertisers.
Since I'm extremely (abnormally) resistant to pushy marketing, not
having Flash installed serves me rather well.

People who want to push moving ads at me therefore have to resort to
old-fashioned TV ad-slots. However my TV is also computerised, and my
viewing is largely pre-recorded; it takes me a couple of clicks and a
few seconds to skip an ad-break.

Why you think anyone wants to view flashy advertising beats me; my
belief is that if everyone knew how to get rid of it, that's just what
they'd do. So while I wish you no ill personally, I hope your career
becomes redundant.

Anyway, I'm now butting out of this off-topic thread.

--
Jack.

[Andy Dingley]

Re: Flash Loons

Stephen wrote:

On 20 Jul 2006 02:59:47 -0700, Andy Dingley in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:

Stephen wrote:

>

PDAs are another story. Flash has to be written a little differently for
PDAs,

>

_That's_ why Flash is bad. You have to author in a
reader-context-sensitive manner.
That breaks the whole underlying notion of the web as being
reader-independent.

>
Nope. It's a problem with PDAs not Flash.

So this

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.infosystems.www.browsers.mac/browse_frm/thread/a3208250454cc313/5615ab681cac0d0b?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#5615ab681cac0d0b

is really a problem with Macs ?

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

Re: Flash Loons

On 2006-07-20, Stephen wrote:

On 19 Jul 2006 07:58:05 -0700, Andy Dingley in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:
>

>>Stephen wrote:

>

>>In that case, why not save all the website costs and go to
>>telephone-only sales?

>
Because the vast majority of people don't have visual handicaps. We
cater to them being that we're primarily a visual medium now-a-days.

Why exclude those who do (which is probably a much larger
percentage than you think) when it is no more work to make it
accessible?

--
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

[Stephen]

Re: Flash Loons

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:41:48 +0100, Matt in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:08:43 +0200, Stephen wrote:

>On 19 Jul 2006 07:58:05 -0700, Andy Dingley in
>comp.infosyste ms.www.authoring.html wrote:

>Because the vast majority of people don't have visual handicaps. We cater
>to them being that we're primarily a visual medium now-a-days.

>The vast majority of people have two legs and can walk. I don't think I'll
>bother putting lifts/elevators in my new building, it needn't be
>accessible to them. Everyone will have to take the stairs.

Silly example.

That's totally different, as there is no other readily available
mechanism to arrive at the upper/lower floors, that wouldn't be
potentially dangerous to ones health. Accessibility on the Internet isn't
a life/death or safety issue.

Since this is a visual medium, people with sight disabilities should use
another method, which is readily available to them <ietelephone etc.,
or get by with the existing Web, with what's available to them. I'm not
going to advise my clients to worry about a market that isn't relevant,
until we know that a critical mass of their clients are sight disabled,
and are using the Internet to access given clients website. Again, that's
were good accurate marketing research comes in. But to do it
carte-blanche, no.

I don't believe it's the place to be Political Correct about every
disability known to man. Business caters to their market, whatever that
may be. If one is producing a website that is known to cater to people
of disabilities primarily, then by all means, but otherwise it's a
non-starter for me and many other developers.

In terms of 3rd world countries -- It's not an issue, since most of
their citizens aren't on the 'Net' yet.

>Until then, I'll be pragmatic. There is still 4 billion people that need
>to get on the Internet, the majority of which don't have visual
>handicaps.

>The majority of them don't have computers, so maybe you /should/ stick
>with phone sales?

See above. I'll stick to serious discussion, and not what is
essentially an exercise which isn't relevant to 99% of Internet surfers.

Bye.