Paola Giacomelli



Oh puuuleaze. As Magilla would say, those flash sites are gay. I don't
care how fast or cute the cyclist is on them, I aint linking to that
noise.

Sabine
 
"Sabine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Oh puuuleaze. As Magilla would say, those flash sites are gay. I don't
> care how fast or cute the cyclist is on them, I aint linking to that
> noise.
>
> Sabine


True, that most of flash sites are a pain for all the hoopla. Navigation is
tricky at times, and I hate some of layers involved. Many of Top women use
Flash, probably on the recommendations from their web designers and because
they think it is the coolest thing. I think the most functional sites are
simple and straight forward html. :)
 
Sabine wrote:
> Oh puuuleaze. As Magilla would say, those flash sites are gay. I

don't
> care how fast or cute the cyclist is on them, I aint linking to that
> noise.





Dumbass -


You are correct. Stuff that moves sucks.

That's why I like looking at photos instead of watching TV or going to
the movies. Video is so gay.

thanks,
K. Gringioni.

ps. scrabble is better than playstation any day.
 
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.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
"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
 
Peter Allen wrote:
> 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 all the normal browser controls such as for enlarging text etc dont't
work.
Plus it breaks the REST paradigm which amongst other disadvantages means
you can't link to individual resources in the site.
Plus, worst of all its proprietary.
 
"Donald Munro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> Peter Allen wrote:
>> 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 all the normal browser controls such as for enlarging text etc dont't
> work.


True.

> Plus it breaks the REST paradigm which amongst other disadvantages means
> you can't link to individual resources in the site.


Not strictly true, but it's a pain to do it (pass parameters as XML from
server side scripting works, IIRC).

> Plus, worst of all its proprietary.


I really don't see a problem here. It's not as if people have to pay to be
able to use the output file.

Peter
 
Donald Munro wrote:
>> Plus it breaks the REST paradigm which amongst other disadvantages means
>> you can't link to individual resources in the site.


Peter Allen wrote:
> Not strictly true, but it's a pain to do it (pass parameters as XML from
> server side scripting works, IIRC).


Having addressable resources is not quite the same thing as being able to
pass parameters
(http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm or
http://webservices.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2002/02/06/rest.html for a summary)

>> Plus, worst of all its proprietary.

>
> I really don't see a problem here. It's not as if people have to pay to
> be able to use the output file.


Its not an open standard so browser authors are dependent on Macromedia
producing a plugin for their browser (and they can start charging at some
time in the future, much like Micro$hit could start charging as much as
they wanted for Windows once they had established a monopoly). At least
the w3c standards for SVG and SMIL are open, and not bound to plugins like
flash is.
 
"Donald Munro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> Donald Munro wrote:
>>> Plus it breaks the REST paradigm which amongst other disadvantages means
>>> you can't link to individual resources in the site.

>
> Peter Allen wrote:
>> Not strictly true, but it's a pain to do it (pass parameters as XML from
>> server side scripting works, IIRC).

>
> Having addressable resources is not quite the same thing as being able to
> pass parameters
> (http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm or
> http://webservices.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2002/02/06/rest.html for a summary)


Sorry - agree it breaks REST, but not the specific thing you mentioned. If
you have a site which is all stuck in one .swf object (with 'click here to
see pretty piccy' Flash button which changes what is visible in the flash
movie, instead of HTML hyperlink to another page, etc.) then you can give a
URL which links directly to the pretty piccy 'page' instead of directing
someone to the index page and asking them to click on the Flash button.
Checking this reminds me that you don't really need to do it by server side
scripting, either - you can put a dynamic text with variable name 'linkto'
in your flash, which is always hidden, and link to
flash.swf?linkto=prettypic. Then put some onload actionscript in the Flash
to read the value in the linkto textbox, which will be 'prettypic' in this
case, and go to the appropriate Flash-page.

I'm not claiming this is a good way to do things...

Peter
 
Donald Munro wrote:
> Peter Allen wrote:
>


> Plus it breaks the REST paradigm which amongst other disadvantages means
> you can't link to individual resources in the site.


My most hated Flash shortcoming.

> Plus, worst of all its proprietary.
>


If by Proprietary you mean owned by Macromedia you are incorrect. SWF
files are what you view in web pages and the SWF format is "open" (SWFs
are not Flash). There and many commercial and open source tools for
creation and editing of SWF files. Flash is the authoring environment
developed and owned by Macromedia for creation of SWF's.
 
Grafis wrote:
> If by Proprietary you mean owned by Macromedia you are incorrect. SWF
> files are what you view in web pages and the SWF format is "open" (SWFs
> are not Flash). There and many commercial and open source tools for
> creation and editing of SWF files. Flash is the authoring environment
> developed and owned by Macromedia for creation of SWF's.


Kind of open (http://odfi.org/archives/000022.html).
 
"Pretty cute if you click your way into the site. Now, can she race
worth a
darn? "

Does it matter?

-k
 
"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 "

WORD Brother, WORD!!!

-Ken "FLASH SUCKS" Pappy.
 
I said that useless flash sucks.

But, what the hell would I know about creating a good women's cycling
site?

Sabine
 
"k.papai" wrote:
>
> "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 "
>
> WORD Brother, WORD!!!
>
> -Ken "FLASH SUCKS" Pappy.



BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

THIS IS A BIKE RACING NEWSGROUP!!!!!!!!!!!!

**** OR GET OFF THE POT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Sabine wrote:
> I said that useless flash sucks.





Dumbass -

What's the difference between bad flash and bad html?

Why single out flash?

Does sucky stuff that moves suck more than sucky stuff that is static?
thanks,


K. Gringioni.
 
Henry:

There's a lot to be said for a pretty face, but if I am looking for
someone to get my house clean, I'll call the cleaning lady. If I am
looking to find information, I'd prefer a Web site without gimmicks
that make me jump through a couple of hoops in order to get to the
information. Too often Web design gimmicks get in the way of
fulfilling the purpose of the site.

Take a look at www.hincapiesports.com. It has all sorts of cutesy
little fluff that distract the customer from getting a good look at the
clothes. I had to mute the speakers just so I could stand to look at
the product.

**** Durbin
 
Hey Greg, give it a rest. You always bite the F-ing hand that feeds
you anyway. Do you too have no friends?
Go bother that Lafferty. He needs more acknowledgement.

-Ken
 
Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
> Does sucky stuff that moves suck more than sucky stuff that is static?


Yes. Way more.

It is a challenge to write bad html that sucks as badly as
most flash.

The amount of flash that sucks is a much higher percentage
of the total body of work than that for html.

People write flash for the same reason dogs lick their
penises. Because they can.

Bob Schwartz
[email protected]