> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:51:14
> GMT Chaddy2222 scribed:
>> On Jul 29, 5:02 pm, Neredbojias <monstersquas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 29 Jul 2007
>>> 04:22:06 GMT Onideus Mad Hatter scribed:
>>>> The W3C's doc types are meant more as general guidelines than
>>>> anything, they try to promote good programming practices, but
>>>> really, if you're going to use an HTML based code you need to
>>>> actually check and make sure that each element not only works on
>>>> ALL major browsers but that it also works on ALL major browsers on
>>>> ALL major operating systems...of course, why bother with that
>>>> stupidity when you can simply code your sites in Flash, which takes
>>>> all the guess work out of it.
>>> I actually somewhat agree with your opinion here, but the trouble
>>> with Flash is that it (often) limits the visitor's ability to control
>>> when I randomly hit a Flash site and am surprised if it happens not
>>> to do anything I don't want it to do.
>> Hmmm well yes, I could see Hatters point as well. But until Flash has
>> a way of becomeing more accessible (by users with adaptive
>> technology) I probably won't be designing entire websites with it. In
>> a lot of cases good old HTML with some CSS for styleing works fine and
>> means you end up with a site with a consistent look and feel, even if
>> that "look" is not quite the same in all browsing environments.
>> The thing is though, even if the site does look the same in all
>> browsers (as in all visual browsers) through the use of flash, then it
>> still means that it won't work for those of us useing aural browsers
>> (so some kind of alternative still needs to be provided.
>> This means that you then need to update two sites with the same
>> content, which is why I like the CSS method, as you can keep all the
>> visual style seprat from the rest of the content makeing it easier for
>> SE bots and screen readers and visitors to access the content. This
>> also means that all visual
>> branding is kept in tact.
>> Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
> Yes, you make many good points. I think the conclusion is that Flash has
> to be improved, as does html/css, etc. -And the browsers. It's just
> that sometimes I get a little sick of all the things that _don't_ work
> under "normal" html auspices. Yesterday I found a beauty of a bug in
> Firefox. Reload a page of thumbs and the first one disappears... Oh,
> I'm sure there are conditions. I think the thumb has to be bigger than a
> certain size, and perhaps centering plays a part, but it's definitely a
> bug - for something as simple as that. (Probably relates to the cache
> because it only happens online.) Geesh, will they ever get it right?
Yes and no. Flash CS3 (AS3) is a quantum leap in technology as far as
online multimedia goes, so it is down to developers & designers getting
to grips with it rather than any particular flaws in the technology
itself. Of course, Flash is not perfect, but we're FAR from close to
exploring the limits of the sort of experiences AS3 allows us to create.
And because the world is moving fast, of course... we'll never get it
right. There's always something new and untested, some new technology
that is 1st generation or some new way of rendering content. Personally
I think HTML is going to become less and less important. We live in a
multimedia world, and the top-down "page" metaphor has a limited future;
video, interaction, graphics, different ways of exploring information
and content, completely new metaphors for describing content; these are
things HTML is terrible at. Adobe Flash CS3 (Flash 9 with AS3) and
Microsoft's WPF are a step into the sort of platforms we should be
developing for online.
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com