"Kurgan Gringioni" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
>
> Sabine wrote:
>> Dipshit,
>>
>> I didnt say stuff that moves sucks.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> You said that flash sites suck.
>
> The fundamental functional difference between flash and html is: one is
> static, the other is not.
Except when you choose to play with CSS and Javascript.
Flash started out being a container for vector graphics in a web page, and
it does that fairly well. It then became the does-everything monster it now
is, and had sufficiently clever developers that it doesn't break too
obviously. But there are problems, like the fact that it exposes text to a
screenreader very badly (you'll get a reading of whatever is currently
visible, in some near-random order, and it won't read anything that changes:
so most Flash stuff is useless if you're blind). And like a flash movie
being too big for a small screen, and a little annoying blob in the middle
of a big screen where you'd like to be able to use the extra space to see
more text. Whereas HTML pages will adjust the layout to deal with that, as
long as you don't write stupid code.
Plus, badly written Flash is a lot more of a pain than badly written HTML.
Peter