Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
a lot of you would be interested.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
> Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
> a lot of you would be interested. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
Time to drag every page over to http://wave.webaim.org/index.jsp then.
Phil Payne wrote:
> > Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
> > a lot of you would be interested. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
>
> Time to drag every page over to http://wave.webaim.org/index.jsp then.
Yes, I have been doing that with my own sites for quite some time.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
Chaddy2222 wrote:
> Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
> a lot of you would be interested.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
> --
> Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
>
OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I presume
w3 must be having something.
Are alt and title tags enough? Or something more is needed?
Given the number of bugs in IE, are there disability related bugs in IE?
If yes, how about a lawsuit on IE for not rendering these
disabled-accessibility features properly?
Animesh K
@agate.berkeley.edu:
> Chaddy2222 wrote:
>> Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
>> a lot of you would be interested.
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
>> --
>> Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
>>
>
> OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I
presume
> w3 must be having something.
A quick Googling could have answered that question. ;-)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
Another good source for into: http://www.webaim.org
>
> Are alt and title tags enough? Or something more is needed?
Not even close.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
> Given the number of bugs in IE, are there disability related bugs in
IE?
The "bugs" most often encountered in IE most often have to do with
security and support for web standards. The interface to IE is actually
pretty accessible.
> If yes, how about a lawsuit on IE for not rendering these
> disabled-accessibility features properly?
User agent manufacturers are not to blame for accessibility problems
created by web authors.
Generally speaking, the software on the user's computer will be far more
accessible than the content they encounter on the Web. That's not to say
that desktop software is immune to accessibility problems, but rather
that accessible software is far easier to come by than accessible
websites.
--
Karl Groves
http://www.WebAccessStrategies.com
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:48:11 -0700, Animesh K
wrote:
>OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I presume
>w3 must be having something.
You presume wrongly, sad to say. The W3C efforts here have been
pitiful.
The best resource is Joe Clark's site, and his excellent accessibility
book. This both puts the case for it, and explains the techniques to
achieve it. Best of all, the full text is online for free
http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/
In article
Andy Dingley
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:48:11 -0700, Animesh K
> wrote:
>
> >OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I presume
> >w3 must be having something.
>
> You presume wrongly, sad to say. The W3C efforts here have been
> pitiful.
>
> The best resource is Joe Clark's site, and his excellent accessibility
> book. This both puts the case for it, and explains the techniques to
> achieve it. Best of all, the full text is online for free
> http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/
Good one. Out of the many positive things which speak for
themselves, I was reminded of something that is an irritating
design fault, which this url is a very very mild case of. It is
tiresome to be having to click next buttons when you want to
simply read a lot of an article on line. It is a mild case
becaiuse to be fair to the designer, he provides a fair chunk.
Sites like How Stuff Work are infuriating in this regard, and
there are many others as bad or worse. I can understand placing
limits for bandwidth where there are a lot of pictures.
Basically, with text articles there should be more generous
limits before user *has* to press buttons. There are some very
useful devices I use to go up and down, scroll wheels, up and
down arrows on keyboard, page up and down buttons. Easier than
the *interruptions* from locating visual buttons and clicking.
At the very least, authors might consider providing a facility
where the whole of an article can be read on line by simple
scrolling. Authors often provide a print version, they might
consider more often providing a "continuous" online version for
those who would like such.
(I have not read the URL here completely, I do not know if author
raises this matter? As I say, his is a very minor irritation, I
might be a little unusual in this regard? But thegeneral point I
make is good.)
--
dorayme
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:28:26 +1000, dorayme
>Basically, with text articles there should be more generous
>limits before user *has* to press buttons.
Have a read of the JAIC site (Journal of the American Institute for
Conservation). Fascinating content, I wish they had newer stuff on-line
too, and you might like how they've done navigation. Articles are
duplicated: they're up as both page per section, and also a simple
linear format of the whole article as one. HTML too, not PDF !
http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/
In article
Andy Dingley
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:28:26 +1000, dorayme
>
>
> >Basically, with text articles there should be more generous
> >limits before user *has* to press buttons.
>
> Have a read of the JAIC site (Journal of the American Institute for
> Conservation). Fascinating content, I wish they had newer stuff on-line
> too, and you might like how they've done navigation. Articles are
> duplicated: they're up as both page per section, and also a simple
> linear format of the whole article as one. HTML too, not PDF !
>
> http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/
Yes, that's the way! An "entire article" button.
--
dorayme
Andy Dingley wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:48:11 -0700, Animesh K
> wrote:
>
>> OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I presume
>> w3 must be having something.
>
> You presume wrongly, sad to say. The W3C efforts here have been
> pitiful.
>
> The best resource is Joe Clark's site, and his excellent accessibility
> book. This both puts the case for it, and explains the techniques to
> achieve it. Best of all, the full text is online for free
> http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/
Thanks Andy and Karl! I will look into both the links at leisure. It
sounds like fun to be accessible to a blind without actually talking
with him.
On Oct 4, 11:48 am, Chaddy2222
> Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
> a lot of you would be interested.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_ blind_dc_4
In a strictly legal sense this is really nothing. All it means is
that they will go to trial. But Target will end up losing in the
socialistic courts of California, and we will move one step closer to
a bland vanilla world where there is no incentive to draw with color.
You know, if they put a cap on the amount of money trial lawyers could
make this lawsuit (as well as thousands of others) would disappear in
about a second.
Or better yet, how about if you sue someone and lose then both the
plaintiff and the lawyer are equally responsible for the defendant's
leagal fees, expenses, and a little punitive money. THAT would put an
end to some of this bullshit.
On Oct 4, 2:54 pm, Karl Groves
> Not even close.http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
"These guidelines do not discourage content developers from using
images, video, etc., but rather explain how to make multimedia content
more accessible to a wide audience."
"etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the web.
> "etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
> Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the web.
Quite the reverse. Thay make the innovation of handheld browsers MUCH
more accessible.
A million iPhones sold? How many Blackberrys? How many Nokia
Communicators?
And these devices are being used by people in the right demographics,
with high disposable incomes. Most of the guidelines for making web
sites accessible also make them handheld friendly.
Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
actually disabled on this machine.
I just tried to get an HPI check on a car using a handheld while
standing on a dealer's forecourt. Can't do it - browser NEEDS Flash.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. HPI's business went to Halfords instead.
On Oct 5, 11:07 am, Phil Payne
> > "etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
> > Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the web.
>
> Quite the reverse. Thay make the innovation of handheld browsers MUCH
> more accessible.
>
> A million iPhones sold? How many Blackberrys? How many Nokia
> Communicators?
>
> And these devices are being used by people in the right demographics,
> with high disposable incomes. Most of the guidelines for making web
> sites accessible also make them handheld friendly.
>
> Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
> actually disabled on this machine.
That's an extremely ignorant statement.
Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
statement.
> That's an extremely ignorant statement.
> Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
> fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
> statement.
This is from IPSOS over a year ago:
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3049
"Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners worldwide
have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
at the end 2004. Interestingly, growth in this behavior for 2005 was
driven by the older users (age 35+), indicating that surfing the
Internet on a mobile phone is emerging as a mainstream activity, no
longer dominated by the traditional early adopter segment - young
males - typical of many new consumer technologies."
Since then we've had Apple weigh with the iPhone and a whole raft of
other suppliers bring other products to market. The vast,
overwhelming majority of handsets currently sold have some sort of
browser embedded and often a better one available for download.
Openwave, Opera, Safari, etc.
http://www.operamini.com/beta/features/ - find where it mentions
Flash.
Flash is just form over function - it sells because it's pretty and
that fools many site creator's clients.
>From the Webmaster Guidelines:
"If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
able to view that content either."
Now take another look at the growth of the browser-capable handset
market.
On Oct 5, 9:19 pm, Phil Payne
> > That's an extremely ignorant statement.
> > Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
> > fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
> > statement.
>
> This is from IPSOS over a year ago:
>
> http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3049
>
> "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners worldwide
> have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
> at the end 2004. Interestingly, growth in this behavior for 2005 was
> driven by the older users (age 35+), indicating that surfing the
> Internet on a mobile phone is emerging as a mainstream activity, no
> longer dominated by the traditional early adopter segment - young
> males - typical of many new consumer technologies."
>
> Since then we've had Apple weigh with the iPhone and a whole raft of
> other suppliers bring other products to market. The vast,
> overwhelming majority of handsets currently sold have some sort of
> browser embedded and often a better one available for download.
> Openwave, Opera, Safari, etc.
>
> http://www.operamini.com/beta/features/- find where it mentions
> Flash.
>
> Flash is just form over function - it sells because it's pretty and
> that fools many site creator's clients.
>
> >From the Webmaster Guidelines:
>
> "If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
> can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
> remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
> browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
> able to view that content either."
>
> Now take another look at the growth of the browser-capable handset
> market.
This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
frequently on their mobile devices.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
On 5 Oct, 12:58, Chaddy2222
wrote:
> This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
> I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
> frequently on their mobile devices.
Why? It's already happening in South Africa, and they've got equal
distances, equally low technical-population densities, and far less
money to do it with.
SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Oct 5, 11:07 am, Phil Payne
>>> "etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
>>> Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the web.
>> Quite the reverse. Thay make the innovation of handheld browsers MUCH
>> more accessible.
>>
>> A million iPhones sold? How many Blackberrys? How many Nokia
>> Communicators?
>>
>> And these devices are being used by people in the right demographics,
>> with high disposable incomes. Most of the guidelines for making web
>> sites accessible also make them handheld friendly.
>>
>> Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
>> actually disabled on this machine.
>
> That's an extremely ignorant statement.
>
> Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
> fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
> statement.
>
Don't you know that any technology you don't like is obsolete?
What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.
also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he needs
to get an updated one.
I agree flash use is growing. In fact, I want some flash on one of my
sites (no, not the home page! - an interactive demo). But I'm not the
graphics types. Gotta find a designer I can afford to sub to who can do
this :-)
Flash is overused in some cases, IMHO. But it is necessary for some things.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
On Oct 5, 12:19 pm, Phil Payne
> > That's an extremely ignorant statement.
> > Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
> > fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
> > statement.
> Since then we've had Apple weigh with the iPhone and a whole raft of
> other suppliers bring other products to market. The vast,
> overwhelming majority of handsets currently sold have some sort of
> browser embedded and often a better one available for download.
> Openwave, Opera, Safari, etc.
>
> http://www.operamini.com/beta/features/- find where it mentions
> Flash.
>
> Flash is just form over function - it sells because it's pretty and
> that fools many site creator's clients.
Statements like this demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the
technology itself.
> "If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
> can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
> remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
> browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
> able to view that content either."
Search engines are machines. Bits of software. People are emotional,
generally visual creatures, unlike search engine. A search engine
understands text, based on rules. People understand colour, layout,
motion and have emotional responses to these things. I would hope that
designers build sites for people, not for search engines. A search
engine is a means to an end (indexing, accessing a market I suppose),
but once you have that precious visitor on your site that's when
everything else becomes important.
Flash is one way of presenting the sort of Rich Media that enables
these "human" sites; there's nothing evil or irrelvant about Flash -
it's just a tool. Just like HTML, or JPEG images, or AJAX or XML...
Classing Flash as some sort of "bells and whistles" toy though is
really to completely misunderstand the platform that it provides. This
is not that unexpected - Flash has been really abused over the years,
but over the last 18 months has really come into its own. Flash itself
is a web browser. It's also a virtual machine, we an extremely
powerful programming language at its core. It leverage's the kind of
functionality that can only be dreamed of with JS and traditional
HTML.
Here's the caveat though; Like any tool, you select what's best for
the job at hand. Flash is not idea for all projects. Flash generally
is not good for mobile platforms (yet) as they lack the horsepower to
run the full version of Flash. In other words it's better to do it
other ways.
Also, you have to think how people use the WWW; it's a VERY big place,
and there are a lot of differing browsers and technologies. While you
should always make your content available to the largest numbers of
people possible, focusing your projects on particular audiences is far
more effective. In specific markets, Flash has almost 100% penetration
(specifically, younger markets with money to spend), they are more
likely to have Flash enabled, a broadband connection and be impressed/
interested in rich content (video, animation, sound) - think online
magazines, games sites, sites for bands.
So... form over function? If that "form" provides a more relevant
interface to your functionality, writing it off as irrelevant is
seriously restricting the way you communicate with your audience.
You can have the most functional web site on the planet, and it can
fail because of band branding, or poor layout, or a competitor with a
nicer looking site.
It's dangerously naive to think that these things don't matter.
> Now take another look at the growth of the browser-capable handset
> market.
BTW.... most smartphones support Flash.
On Oct 5, 12:58 pm, Chaddy2222
> On Oct 5, 9:19 pm, Phil Payne
>
> > > That's an extremely ignorant statement.
> > > Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
> > > fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
> > > statement.
>
> > This is from IPSOS over a year ago:
>
> >http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3049
>
> > "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners worldwide
> > have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
> > at the end 2004. Interestingly, growth in this behavior for 2005 was
> > driven by the older users (age 35+), indicating that surfing the
> > Internet on a mobile phone is emerging as a mainstream activity, no
> > longer dominated by the traditional early adopter segment - young
> > males - typical of many new consumer technologies."
>
> > Since then we've had Apple weigh with the iPhone and a whole raft of
> > other suppliers bring other products to market. The vast,
> > overwhelming majority of handsets currently sold have some sort of
> > browser embedded and often a better one available for download.
> > Openwave, Opera, Safari, etc.
>
> >http://www.operamini.com/beta/features/-find where it mentions
> > Flash.
>
> > Flash is just form over function - it sells because it's pretty and
> > that fools many site creator's clients.
>
> > >From the Webmaster Guidelines:
>
> > "If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
> > can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
> > remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
> > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
> > able to view that content either."
>
> > Now take another look at the growth of the browser-capable handset
> > market.
>
> This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
> I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
> frequently on their mobile devices.
The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
On Oct 5, 1:21 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 11:07 am, Phil Payne
> >>> "etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
> >>> Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the web.
> >> Quite the reverse. Thay make the innovation of handheld browsers MUCH
> >> more accessible.
>
> >> A million iPhones sold? How many Blackberrys? How many Nokia
> >> Communicators?
>
> >> And these devices are being used by people in the right demographics,
> >> with high disposable incomes. Most of the guidelines for making web
> >> sites accessible also make them handheld friendly.
>
> >> Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
> >> actually disabled on this machine.
>
> > That's an extremely ignorant statement.
>
> > Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
> > fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
> > statement.
>
> Don't you know that any technology you don't like is obsolete?
Apparently!
> What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.
yes. And that many smart phone are actually Flash enabled too.
> also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he needs
> to get an updated one.
>
> I agree flash use is growing. In fact, I want some flash on one of my
> sites (no, not the home page! - an interactive demo). But I'm not the
> graphics types. Gotta find a designer I can afford to sub to who can do
> this :-)
>
> Flash is overused in some cases, IMHO. But it is necessary for some things.
Flash is still really abused, but it's coming of age I think. Some of
the things we've seen here (at our studio) over the past year are
really... astonishing. They can totally change the way you behave
online, and make it a much more pleasant & rewarding experience. Flash
is not some great panacea. Give it another year.
Chaddy2222 wrote:
> This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
> I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
> frequently on their mobile devices.
Twenty years ago most people probably wouldn't have believed the amount
of money we spend each month for cell phones instead of just using a pay
phone or waiting till we got home, or that we'd spend US$400 on a device
to carry music around with us instead of just carrying a pocket radio.
On Oct 5, 10:58 pm, Harlan Messinger
> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> > This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
> > I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
> > frequently on their mobile devices.
>
> Twenty years ago most people probably wouldn't have believed the amount
> of money we spend each month for cell phones instead of just using a pay
> phone or waiting till we got home, or that we'd spend US$400 on a device
> to carry music around with us instead of just carrying a pocket radio.
Ahh yes, very true. I think it will be another year or three though
before people start browsing the web on their mobile devices
frequently as the prices will need to come down a bit, a bit like what
happend here in Australia when broadband internet was introduced.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
> > Don't you know that any technology you don't like is obsolete?
> Apparently!
(Can we do some more trimming, guys?)
WML/WAP was the exciting technology of the future that would take over
from everything. Now dead.
> > What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.
Five years ago most web surfing was not done on broadband. WiFi was
an unknown technology.
Now you have, e.g., http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/05/bt_fon_wimax/
where BT lets you use other people's private WiFi routers if you open
up your own - so you can walk down the street with your handheld and
surf. Most of the public house chains in the UK have WiFi - Sheffield
City Council (where I live) has a public system covering hte whole of
the City Centre.
> yes. And that many smart phone are actually Flash enabled too.
Flash Lite is to Flash as WML is to XHTML/CSS. And anyway - why do
everything THREE times? Once for the Flash enabled, once for those
who can't use Flash even if they want to (see the original subject of
this thread - it's a LEGAL requirement in the UK to provide an
alternative under the Disability Discrimination Act) and again for
Flash Lite.
Why not do it just once?
> > also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he needs
> > to get an updated one.
He he. I'm in the UK, you idiot.
SpaceGirl wrote:
> The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
> web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
>
??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
undercut text for bandwidth.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On Oct 5, 2:18 pm, Phil Payne
> WML/WAP was the exciting technology of the future that would take over
> from everything. Now dead.
Yep, because the platform changed. Most modern mobile devices can
render full XHTML, so it became irrelevant.
> > > What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.
>
> Five years ago most web surfing was not done on broadband. WiFi was
> an unknown technology.
The world moves on...
> > yes. And that many smart phone are actually Flash enabled too.
>
> Flash Lite is to Flash as WML is to XHTML/CSS. And anyway - why do
> everything THREE times? Once for the Flash enabled, once for those
> who can't use Flash even if they want to (see the original subject of
> this thread - it's a LEGAL requirement in the UK to provide an
> alternative under the Disability Discrimination Act) and again for
> Flash Lite.
Or build web sites the way they should be build. Your application,
data and UI layers are completely separated so it doesn't matter what
presentation technology you use.
> Why not do it just once?
>
> > > also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he needs
> > > to get an updated one.
>
> He he. I'm in the UK, you idiot.
So am I (Scotland)... I have a 3G broadband phone and in a few weeks
an iPhone. The networks here in the UK are ahead of the US, for
example.
On Oct 5, 2:31 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> > The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
> > web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
>
> ??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
> image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
> undercut text for bandwidth.
Very few web sites are just text. Even ones designed for mobile
platforms. Text-only sites are NOT good enough for most people. Fine
for machines (screen readers) and other inhuman devices, but for
emotional creatures like this, reams of unformatted text are... nasty,
uninteresting.
Because very few people use Flash for this yet. The technology is very
new. It wasn't really achievable (realistically) before Flash 9. Flash
contains a full-blown language; you can completely construct a UI
inside it without ANY external graphics, meaning the size is tiny. You
can create a fully working blog in around 5Kb, including graphical
header, a fluid animated UI. It'd work on all computers that have
Flash 9 player installed. Think of all the HTTP & IP overhead (1kb or
more, per file) you are saving alone by serving a single SWF file vs.
lots of small gifs, the page itself, css document and so on.
SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2:31 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
>> SpaceGirl wrote:
>>> The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
>>> web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
>> ??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
>> image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
>> undercut text for bandwidth.
>
> Very few web sites are just text. Even ones designed for mobile
> platforms. Text-only sites are NOT good enough for most people. Fine
> for machines (screen readers) and other inhuman devices, but for
> emotional creatures like this, reams of unformatted text are... nasty,
> uninteresting.
I did not say devoid of style. I am say that in no way a "image" of text
will be smaller then text including the CSS styling.
>
> Because very few people use Flash for this yet. The technology is very
> new. It wasn't really achievable (realistically) before Flash 9. Flash
> contains a full-blown language; you can completely construct a UI
> inside it without ANY external graphics, meaning the size is tiny. You
> can create a fully working blog in around 5Kb, including graphical
> header, a fluid animated UI. It'd work on all computers that have
> Flash 9 player installed. Think of all the HTTP & IP overhead (1kb or
> more, per file) you are saving alone by serving a single SWF file vs.
> lots of small gifs, the page itself, css document and so on.
>
5Kb eh? URL?
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On 2007-10-05, SpaceGirl
[...]
> Flash itself is a web browser. It's also a virtual machine, we an
> extremely powerful programming language at its core.
Isn't its programming language very similar to/the same as JavaScript?
> It leverages the kind of functionality that can only be dreamed of
> with JS and traditional HTML.
Does it leverage anything that can't be dreamed of with JS and HTML plus
SVG?
Travis Newbury wrote:
> You know, if they put a cap on the amount of money trial lawyers could
> make this lawsuit (as well as thousands of others) would disappear in
> about a second.
>
> Or better yet, how about if you sue someone and lose then both the
> plaintiff and the lawyer are equally responsible for the defendant's
> leagal fees, expenses, and a little punitive money. THAT would put an
> end to some of this bullshit.
>
I won't argue, frivolous lawsuits are a serious problem, and I know this
is anecdotal, but to bolster your point here's a first hand experience
(sans a lot of gory details). After I became disabled, a multinational
did something to me and every other disabled employee that was patently
illegal. When I pursued legal remedy I was told more than once, "they
can't do that, but your case will take lots of work, will not produce
piles of money or big headlines, so we can't help you."
Unfortunately, as with most serious problems, there is no single simple
solution. It's already like a game of table stakes poker, the player
who sits down with the biggest stack of chips has the advantage. I
won't say "unfair" advantage, because I truly believe "fair" is a
subjective term. On the other hand, when juries that think that damage
awards are like winning the lottery, that's part of the problem too.
On Oct 5, 2:49 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> > Very few web sites are just text. Even ones designed for mobile
> > platforms. Text-only sites are NOT good enough for most people. Fine
> > for machines (screen readers) and other inhuman devices, but for
> > emotional creatures like this, reams of unformatted text are... nasty,
> > uninteresting.
>
> I did not say devoid of style. I am say that in no way a "image" of text
> will be smaller then text including the CSS styling.
No different than flash. Okay, so for a web page to render you send
strings of text that contains formatting tags. Flash sends strings of
binary. Same thing, even smaller. Flash doesn't store things as
bitmaps inside itself (unless, they are bitmaps!), they're stored as
instructions to redraw the artwork. Flash is vector based.
> > Because very few people use Flash for this yet. The technology is very
> > new. It wasn't really achievable (realistically) before Flash 9. Flash
> > contains a full-blown language; you can completely construct a UI
> > inside it without ANY external graphics, meaning the size is tiny. You
> > can create a fully working blog in around 5Kb, including graphical
> > header, a fluid animated UI. It'd work on all computers that have
> > Flash 9 player installed. Think of all the HTTP & IP overhead (1kb or
> > more, per file) you are saving alone by serving a single SWF file vs.
> > lots of small gifs, the page itself, css document and so on.
>
> 5Kb eh? URL?
Just install Flash, read about AS3.
On Oct 5, 2:58 pm, Ben C
> On 2007-10-05, SpaceGirl
> [...]
>
> > Flash itself is a web browser. It's also a virtual machine, we an
> > extremely powerful programming language at its core.
>
> Isn't its programming language very similar to/the same as JavaScript?
In structure yes - meets the same ECMA standards as JS. The language
itself has a lot of depth, supports E4X as well. It's more like Java
than JavaScript to be honest.
> > It leverages the kind of functionality that can only be dreamed of
> > with JS and traditional HTML.
>
> Does it leverage anything that can't be dreamed of with JS and HTML plus
> SVG?
Yes. SVG is VERY bloated. JS also runs about 1/10th speed of Flash,
and lacks all of the video and graphical capabilities. Remember Flash
contains a state of the art video codec, hardware acceleration, can
talk to a video camera and your sound card, your microphone, can embed
fonts, can render HTML, can parse XML... all internally, across most
platforms, without any add-ins. JS doesn't even come close to this.
SVG lacks any of the animation stuff, and generates huge output.
Neither JS or SVG are cross-platform thanks to each browser rendering
pages a little differently. Neither support video or audio. JS has
almost no graphical functions, let alone an awareness of time an
motion. Etc.
We're talking about different creatures here... it's *extremely* hard
to generate these kinds of rich experience, if not bordering on
impossible, with JS.
Jerry Stuckle
news:BfOdnWH5jYz8sZvanZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 11:07 am, Phil Payne
>>>> "etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
>>>> Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the
>>>> web.
>>> Quite the reverse. Thay make the innovation of handheld browsers
>>> MUCH more accessible.
>>>
>>> A million iPhones sold? How many Blackberrys? How many Nokia
>>> Communicators?
>>>
>>> And these devices are being used by people in the right
>>> demographics, with high disposable incomes. Most of the guidelines
>>> for making web sites accessible also make them handheld friendly.
>>>
>>> Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
>>> actually disabled on this machine.
>>
>> That's an extremely ignorant statement.
>>
>> Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
>> fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
>> statement.
>>
>
> Don't you know that any technology you don't like is obsolete?
>
> What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.
> also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he
> needs to get an updated one.
>
> I agree flash use is growing. In fact, I want some flash on one of my
> sites (no, not the home page! - an interactive demo). But I'm not the
> graphics types. Gotta find a designer I can afford to sub to who can
> do this :-)
>
> Flash is overused in some cases, IMHO. But it is necessary for some
> things.
>
I must've missed a number of these responses, perhaps because I have
Google Groupers blocked.
From my experience, it appears that Flash use for an entire website (UI,
content, the whole thing) has dropped off the face of the earth. The
last time I saw Flash used in that way, it was for some boutique web
design firm, not a real information based website but rather little more
than eye candy.
Instead, I see Flash being used for things like Jerry mentioned:
presentations, Flash video or widgets. I think this is an appropriate
use of Flash in most cases. In these cases, however, Flash is becoming
superceded by its relative: Flex.
--
Karl Groves
http://www.WebAccessStrategies.com
On 5 Oct, 13:41, SpaceGirl
> The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
> web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
Example please.
Followed by a compulsory education program for the multitude of Flash
coders who don't appreciate this.
If Flash is so wonderful and so easy to produce, wwhy is so much of it
so bad?
Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 5 Oct, 13:41, SpaceGirl
>> The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
>> web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
>
> Example please.
>
> Followed by a compulsory education program for the multitude of Flash
> coders who don't appreciate this.
>
>
> If Flash is so wonderful and so easy to produce, wwhy is so much of it
> so bad?
because some websites are being designed by someone other than Spacey?
html is also wonderful and easy to produce, and there are millions upon
millions of shitty sites
seriously
a saw in the hands of a carpenter can produce some wonderful results.
put the same tool in the hands of an accountant.
hmm
SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2:49 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> Just install Flash, read about AS3.
>
What the plugin or the $$$$ development app?
Again, we keep hearing about these wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
flash sites but no examples... Sounds like a Unicorn hunt.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On Oct 5, 6:07 am, Phil Payne
> Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
> actually disabled on this machine.
You're the exception then.
On Oct 5, 7:19 am, Phil Payne
> "If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
> can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
> remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
> browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
> able to view that content either."
Well, Search engines and Flash play fine together now, and slow
connections have nothing to do with well designed flash. So your
statement shows your ignorance.
But your not alone. There is a lot of Flash ignorance. And I have to
admit, most of the flash out there right now is pretty poor examples
of what flash can do. But as more and more developers start using
Flash (opposed to artists) you will see this changing.
On Oct 5, 9:31 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> ??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
> image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
> undercut text for bandwidth.
And we all know how much fun an all text website can be...
On Oct 5, 9:42 am, SpaceGirl
> Very few web sites are just text. Even ones designed for mobile
> platforms. Text-only sites are NOT good enough for most people. Fine
> for machines (screen readers) and other inhuman devices, but for
> emotional creatures like this, reams of unformatted text are... nasty,
> uninteresting.
I think it comes down to what you want to do with the web. If one
uses the web for research and purchasing something then I can see
where you might want to have a very vanilla mostly text kind of web.
But if you like to have fun on the web, then you might want all the
pizazz. the good thing about the latter is that both types of sites
work for you.
I like pizazz
On Oct 5, 11:48 am, Andy Dingley
> On 5 Oct, 13:41, SpaceGirl
>
> > The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
> > web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
>
> Example please.
>
> Followed by a compulsory education program for the multitude of Flash
> coders who don't appreciate this.
>
> If Flash is so wonderful and so easy to produce, wwhy is so much of it
> so bad?
Simple, flash started out as a graphic animation application, and has
evolved over the years into a powerful development environment. The
majority of the crappy flash is done by non-development people.
On Oct 5, 9:58 am, Ben C
> > Flash itself is a web browser. It's also a virtual machine, we an
> > extremely powerful programming language at its core.
> Isn't its programming language very similar to/the same as JavaScript?
It is as similar as C++ is to Javascript.
> Does it leverage anything that can't be dreamed of with JS and HTML plus
> SVG?
Yes. One simple example I can think of is a flash object opened in one
browser can talk to and use methods and data in another flash object
opened in a completely different brand browser, which can do the same
with a Flash object embedded in a desktop application. Any Flash
opened on a computer can talk to any other flash object on that same
computer (cross domain security is included)
On Oct 5, 9:49 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> 5Kb eh? URL?
I created a Flash object (called GenericSlide) which will read XML (or
asp/php/pearl/ any server side process that will return XML)
It will dynamically load images and text, create animated bullets, and
can synchronize the bullets and images to MP3 audio.
It is slightly over your 5K limit weighing in at 5.02 KB (5,150
bytes) If I took out all the comments I would probably be less than
5k
There is no time line in the Flash (something you only see when the
flash developer is a real programmer) Here is the Actionscript that
runs it:
// The Generic Slide
/* Slide Layout
*/
var PlayerSound:Sound = new Sound();
var BulletHolder;
var ThisSlide = _root.CurrentSlide;
var MyInterval:Object = new Object();
var MyXML:GenericXML = new GenericXML();
var SlideHolder:GenericXML = new GenericXML();
var TimingArray:Array = new Array();
///////////////////////
// Remove this
//var CurrentSlide = 1;
///////////////////////
MyXML.ignoreWhite = true;
MyXML.onLoad = function(success){
this.setXML();
var x:Number = 0;
var SlideArray:Array = new Array();
//var CurrentSlide = _root.CurrentSlide;
var CurrentSlide = 5;
// Now search for this record
this.SearchString = "/generic/slide";
SlideArray = this.GetDataArray();
// Now go through all the slides and find the one where the slide
number = the CurrentSlide
for(x=0;x
SlideHolder.SearchString = "/slide/slide_number";
if(SlideHolder.GetData(0) == String(_root.CurrentSlide))
break;
}
// Ok we are there now and we have the right one
CreateSlide(SlideHolder);
}
function CreateSlide(MySlide){
// first lets make the background
this.createEmptyMovieClip("Background",this.getNextHighestDe pth());
SlideHolder.SetXML();
SlideHolder.SearchString = "/slide/image_url";
Background.loadMovie(SlideHolder.GetData(0));
// the sound
PlayerSound.onLoad = function(success){
PlayerSound.start(0);
}
SlideHolder.ReloadXML();
SlideHolder.SearchString = "slide/slide_audio_url";
PlayerSound.loadSound(SlideHolder.GetData(0));
// the title text
SlideHolder.ReloadXML();
SlideHolder.SearchString="slide/slide_title";
this.createTextField("my_txt", this.getNextHighestDepth(),
30,30,600,75);
my_txt.multiline = true;
my_txt.wordWrap = true;
var my_fmt:TextFormat = new TextFormat();
my_fmt.color = 0x000000;
my_fmt.font = "Arial";
my_fmt.size=24;
my_fmt.bold = true;
my_txt.text = SlideHolder.GetData(0);
my_txt.setTextFormat(my_fmt);
// Ok now we create the bullets
SlideHolder.ReloadXML();
SlideHolder.SearchString = "slide/bullet_text/content";
for(x=0;x
this.createTextField("my_txt" + x, this.getNextHighestDepth(), 30,
(50*(x+1)+50),500,50);
eval("my_txt" + x).multiline = true;
eval("my_txt" + x).wordWrap = true;
var my_fmt:TextFormat = new TextFormat();
my_fmt.color = 0x000000;
my_fmt.font = "Arial";
my_fmt.size=18;
my_fmt.bold = true;
my_fmt.bullet = true;
eval("my_txt" + x).text = BulletHolder;
eval("my_txt" + x).setTextFormat(my_fmt);
eval("my_txt" + x)._visible = false;
}
// Get the timing crap
SlideHolder.ReloadXML();
SlideHolder.SearchString = "slide/bullet_text/fade_in_time";
for(x=0;x
}
// Start the audio loop
this.onEnterFrame = FadeLoop;
//MyInterval = setInterval(FadeLoop,500);
}
function FadeLoop(){
var y:Number = 0;
for(y=0;y
eval("my_txt" + y)._visible = true;
}
}
}
MyXML.load("GenericSlide.xml");
-----------------------------------
GenericXML is an AS class I I wrote that parses XML. (AS3 now makes
it obsolete.)
I also wrote a flash based learning management system system for
Siemens that weighs in at an astounding 87K which maintains one
Siemens operating companies online courses, students, teachers, and
scheduling.
I will be more than happy to send you the GenericSlide's SWF and the
FLA if you want it. So spacegirl is correct, flash is very light
weight in the hands of someone that knows how to use it. BUT it takes
good design, which is something that has been lacking in the Flash
development community for years. But is now starting to rear its
head.
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:35:11 -0700, Travis Newbury put finger to
keyboard and typed:
>On Oct 5, 9:42 am, SpaceGirl
>
>> Very few web sites are just text. Even ones designed for mobile
>> platforms. Text-only sites are NOT good enough for most people. Fine
>> for machines (screen readers) and other inhuman devices, but for
>> emotional creatures like this, reams of unformatted text are... nasty,
>> uninteresting.
>
>I think it comes down to what you want to do with the web. If one
>uses the web for research and purchasing something then I can see
>where you might want to have a very vanilla mostly text kind of web.
>But if you like to have fun on the web, then you might want all the
>pizazz. the good thing about the latter is that both types of sites
>work for you.
Another thing to consider is that there are, essentially, two ways of
making money on the web: selling things directly to customers and
selling advertising. As you've already pointed out, people who buy
things tend to like simpler, more textually-based websites. And the
most profitable forms of advertising at the moment are the contextual
systems such as Google Adsense and Overture. These only work
effectively on text-based websites.
>I like pizazz
As a website operator, I like making money. I like making money more
than I like pizazz. So I'll stick with primarily textual sites.
That's not to say that Flash is never appropriate. Within an otherwise
text-based site, Flash is a good mechanism for delivering video
content and will often be the best choice for such purposes. Flash is
also the only serious player in town for interactive web-based games
that behave as if they were running on the client's own computer[1]
rather than accessed via the web. And the biggie loved of graphic
designers, the entirely Flash-based website, can even be appropriate
in cases where the sole purpose is to entertain or advertise, such as
the website of a movie or supporting an advertising campaign, and you
don't care about the fact that the site will never be an income
generator.
When done well, entirely Flash-based sites can be very impressive
indeed - all the pizazz you could ever want. But it's important to
remember that one of the reason these sites are impressive, and win
awards, is because they are a departure from the norm. They bear as
much relationship to everyday web design as my grandfather's prize
marrows do to supermarket greengroceries. Few things are more
impressive than an award-winning Flash-based website. But few things
are more ludicrous than an attempt to use those techniques on an
ecommerce operation. Anyone else remember the original boo.com?
[1] Well, actually, they are, that's how Flash works.
Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Wherever life may take me, I know that it won't break me"
Chaddy2222 wrote:
> On Oct 5, 10:58 pm, Harlan Messinger
>
>> Chaddy2222 wrote:
>>> This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
>>> I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
>>> frequently on their mobile devices.
>> Twenty years ago most people probably wouldn't have believed the amount
>> of money we spend each month for cell phones instead of just using a pay
>> phone or waiting till we got home, or that we'd spend US$400 on a device
>> to carry music around with us instead of just carrying a pocket radio.
> Ahh yes, very true. I think it will be another year or three though
> before people start browsing the web on their mobile devices
> frequently as the prices will need to come down a bit, a bit like what
> happend here in Australia when broadband internet was introduced.
I don't know about Australia, but I use my Treo for Internet access
every day, for a monthly flat rate.
In article
<1191583146.710342.51170@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Phil Payne
> "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners worldwide
> have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
> at the end 2004.
How come I don't know a single person who does this? Sure, be as
cruel as you like...
--
dorayme
In article
<1191599289.530545.100610@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Dingley
> On 5 Oct, 13:41, SpaceGirl
> > The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
> > web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
>
> Example please.
>
> Followed by a compulsory education program for the multitude of Flash
> coders who don't appreciate this.
>
>
> If Flash is so wonderful and so easy to produce, wwhy is so much of it
> so bad?
Dangerous question Andy. If I recall a while back, everyone (not
me) here was saying how easy it was to write good html/css. But
talk about bad non-Flash websites everywhere!
--
dorayme
In article <6443e$47066d6e$40cba7be$6151@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little"
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 2:49 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
>
> > Just install Flash, read about AS3.
> >
>
> What the plugin or the $$$$ development app?
>
> Again, we keep hearing about these wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
> flash sites but no examples... Sounds like a Unicorn hunt.
I do recall someone (I think it might have been Bergamot) putting
a similar and very reasonable question to old Travis a while
back. Travis disappeared for a while, it was the most silent I
have ever heard him be. I think he might have hurried to a
holiday destination the furthest from any computer likely to have
a connection to a ng.
--
dorayme
In article
<1191605468.768652.27210@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury
> On Oct 5, 9:31 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> > ??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
> > image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
> > undercut text for bandwidth.
>
> And we all know how much fun an all text website can be...
Do we?
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article <6443e$47066d6e$40cba7be$6151@NAXS.COM>,
> "Jonathan N. Little"
>
>> SpaceGirl wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 2:49 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
>>> Just install Flash, read about AS3.
>>>
>> What the plugin or the $$$$ development app?
>>
>> Again, we keep hearing about these wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
>> flash sites but no examples... Sounds like a Unicorn hunt.
>
> I do recall someone (I think it might have been Bergamot) putting
> a similar and very reasonable question to old Travis a while
> back. Travis disappeared for a while, it was the most silent I
> have ever heard him be. I think he might have hurried to a
> holiday destination the furthest from any computer likely to have
> a connection to a ng.
>
I'll try post some examples here tomorrow.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
On 2007-10-05, Travis Newbury
> On Oct 5, 9:58 am, Ben C
>> > Flash itself is a web browser. It's also a virtual machine, we an
>> > extremely powerful programming language at its core.
>> Isn't its programming language very similar to/the same as JavaScript?
>
> It is as similar as C++ is to Javascript.
No, it's much more similar than that.
If I understood SpaceGirl it's a superset of ECMA-262 (which _is_
JavaScript) with some new bits bolted on recently that look a bit like
Java.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActionScript:
With ActionScript 2.0, developers could constrain variables to a
specific type by adding a type annotation so that type mismatch
errors could be found at compile-time. ActionScript 2.0 also
introduced class-based inheritance syntax so that developers could
create classes and interfaces, much as they would in class-based
languages such as Java and C++. This version conformed partially to
the ECMAScript Fourth Edition draft specification.
C++ is quite a bit different: it's a machine-oriented language with
mostly value semantics and manual storage management.
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme
118B39.07520506102007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
> In article
><1191583146.710342.51170@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Phil Payne
>
>> "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners
worldwide
>> have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
>> at the end 2004.
>
> How come I don't know a single person who does this? Sure, be as
> cruel as you like...
>
You know me (sort of), and I recently had to do this when I was visiting
friends in Castaic (and had to wipe out their computer). I was
attempting to get the train schedule - I could get it, but it was very
hard to read (the schedule is just badly done, no one but the folks at
Metrolink seem to understand it). I use the Internet on my phone to get
phone numbers instead of calling 411 and getting charged some ridiculous
amount. It's not something that I would want to do all the time.
On a brighter note - the boss called me (whilst on vacation) and
announced that everyone was going to be surfing on their phone, and so I
had to do whatever I could to get the site ready for phones. I called
her back in a few minutes and told her it already was. Then I told her
this was one of the reasons I was such a B---H about valid, semantic
code, and NOT opening off site links in new windows. I said "Wha da ya
gonna do, open up a new PHONE?" Smile. Now, I just have to get her
weaned off IE6.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
In article
Adrienne Boswell
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme
>
> 118B39.07520506102007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
>
> > In article
> ><1191583146.710342.51170@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Phil Payne
> >
> >> "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners
> worldwide
> >> have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
> >> at the end 2004.
> >
> > How come I don't know a single person who does this? Sure, be as
> > cruel as you like...
> >
>
>
> On a brighter note - the boss called me (whilst on vacation) and
> announced that everyone was going to be surfing on their phone, and so I
> had to do whatever I could to get the site ready for phones. I called
> her back in a few minutes and told her it already was. Then I told her
> this was one of the reasons I was such a B---H about valid, semantic
> code, and NOT opening off site links in new windows. I said "Wha da ya
> gonna do, open up a new PHONE?" Smile. Now, I just have to get her
> weaned off IE6.
Try getting her on IE7 as a stepping? No, maybe not, it may seem
even better than IE6 to her and that will that!
Here in Australia, it is not cheap to enable internet on the
mobile phone. I have an internet capable phone but cannot think
of any reason to get it online. I even prefer texting people via
my desktop rather than fiddle with the tiny buttons.
I did load some bits of sites of my own via the usb for off line
viewing and it sort of works but is a very poor experience. I
guess I have a crappy phone. But what you are saying does reminds
me to look into things a bit. But I just don't believe the 28%
figure and I don't know what it means anyway, how the
measurements are made. I suspect there is a lot of hollowness in
the interpretation.
--
dorayme
On Oct 5, 6:29 pm, Travis Newbury
> On Oct 5, 7:19 am, Phil Payne
>
> > "If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
> > can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
> > remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
> > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
> > able to view that content either."
>
> Well, Search engines and Flash play fine together now, and slow
> connections have nothing to do with well designed flash. So your
> statement shows your ignorance.
Not my statement - note the quotes. It's from Google's Quality
Guidelines.
dorayme
118B39.07520506102007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
> In article
> <1191583146.710342.51170@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Phil Payne
>
>> "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners worldwide
>> have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
>> at the end 2004.
>
> How come I don't know a single person who does this?
>
I don't, either. Further, I think "...have browsed the Internet..." is
probably a bit deceiving. As soon as I found out my phone could access the
web, I tried it. It was so painful an experience, I've never done it
again.
--
Karl Groves
http://www.WebAccessStrategies.com
Karl Groves wrote:
> dorayme
> 118B39.07520506102007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
>
>> In article
>> <1191583146.710342.51170@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> Phil Payne
>>
>>> "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners worldwide
>>> have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
>>> at the end 2004.
>> How come I don't know a single person who does this?
>>
>
> I don't, either. Further, I think "...have browsed the Internet..." is
> probably a bit deceiving. As soon as I found out my phone could access the
> web, I tried it. It was so painful an experience, I've never done it
> again.
Certainly *plenty* of people are getting e-mail by phone. That *is* the
Internet, you know. When you say "browse the Internet", you're really
referring specifically to the Web.
It's painful to access many sites, it's true. But Google is fine. Some
sites have good mobile versions--Yahoo and the Washington Post, for
example. The downloadable version of Google Maps for Windows Mobile,
which pulls live data from the Internet, works really nicely on the
Treo. Wikipedia--with several skins available, I'm surprised one hasn't
been designed specifically for handheld devices, but in any event it
works well in IE on Windows Mobile when I set it to use One Column mode.
So I never have to wait till I get home or to the office to look stuff up.
> So I never have to wait till I get home or to the office to look stuff up.
Mobile phones have to be switched off in our local pub quiz. Flying
thumbs looking up Wikipedia.
"Travis Newbury"
| You know, if they put a cap on the amount of money trial lawyers could
| make this lawsuit (as well as thousands of others) would disappear in
| about a second.
|
| Or better yet, how about if you sue someone and lose then both the
| plaintiff and the lawyer are equally responsible for the defendant's
| legal fees, expenses, and a little punitive money. THAT would put an
| end to some of this bullshit.
Putting caps and limits on awards is simply another way to deny access to
the courts.
The insurance industry, especially the health and disability, use the caps
and
limits of ERISA to deny coverage and payment of benefits.
Limiting legal judgment pay out cuts the ability of many to have fair
representation. High cost courts with limited reimbursement for the cost of
the action effective limits access to the courts and by extension justice to
those that have money, i.e. the rich.
For examples do a goodle search on ERISA, disability and medical. Might
also find some info on the practice of 'running the meter.'
Interesting, the B2B legal action is increasing where as the P2B legal
actions are decreasing (a trend over the past 10-15 years) yet the TORT
reform is toward stopping P2B.
Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
> Certainly *plenty* of people are getting e-mail by phone. That *is* the
> Internet, you know. When you say "browse the Internet", you're really
> referring specifically to the Web.
>
Text messaging is not email. A lot of people I know use their phone for
text messaging. No one uses it for email. Those who need a mobile
email device (like my wife) have a blackberry.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 4, 11:48 am, Chaddy2222
>> Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
>> a lot of you would be interested.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_ blind_dc_4
>
> In a strictly legal sense this is really nothing. All it means is
> that they will go to trial. But Target will end up losing in the
> socialistic courts of California, and we will move one step closer to
> a bland vanilla world where there is no incentive to draw with color.
Since you can have an accessible website without discarding the arsenal
of design techniques available to make web browsing a rich experience,
your concern is groundless.
> You know, if they put a cap on the amount of money trial lawyers could
> make this lawsuit (as well as thousands of others) would disappear in
> about a second.
>
> Or better yet, how about if you sue someone and lose then both the
> plaintiff and the lawyer are equally responsible for the defendant's
> leagal fees, expenses, and a little punitive money.
That makes sense for cases that are outrageous, where a judge would hold
that a competent attorney should have known that the case was without
merit. But there isn't any justification for scaring people from filing
lawsuits in good faith. You can't *know* in advance that you'll win your
case.
On Oct 5, 6:27 pm, dorayme
> In article <6443e$47066d6e$40cba7be$6...@NAXS.COM>,
> "Jonathan N. Little"
>
> > SpaceGirl wrote:
> > > On Oct 5, 2:49 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
>
> > > Just install Flash, read about AS3.
>
> > What the plugin or the $$$$ development app?
>
> > Again, we keep hearing about these wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
> > flash sites but no examples... Sounds like a Unicorn hunt.
>
> I do recall someone (I think it might have been Bergamot) putting
> a similar and very reasonable question to old Travis a while
> back. Travis disappeared for a while, it was the most silent I
> have ever heard him be. I think he might have hurried to a
> holiday destination the furthest from any computer likely to have
> a connection to a ng.
>
> --
> dorayme
Provided an example yesterday look for it in this thread.
dorayme wrote:
> Dangerous question Andy. If I recall a while back, everyone (not
> me) here was saying how easy it was to write good html/css. But
> talk about bad non-Flash websites everywhere!
>
Someone once said "The guitar is easy to play, poorly." That may be why
so many are willing to shell out the bucks to hear it played well.
As I once told a boss, "If this job was easy, you wouldn't need me.",
and I told a peer "If everyone was as smart as you, what would make you
so special?"
Having managed some very gifted individuals, I learned it is sometimes
difficult to maintain a line between instilling pride, and discouraging
arrogance.
On 2007-10-06, Harlan Messinger
> Karl Groves wrote:
[...]
> It's painful to access many sites, it's true. But Google is fine. Some
> sites have good mobile versions--Yahoo and the Washington Post, for
> example. The downloadable version of Google Maps for Windows Mobile,
> which pulls live data from the Internet, works really nicely on the
> Treo. Wikipedia--with several skins available, I'm surprised one hasn't
> been designed specifically for handheld devices, but in any event it
> works well in IE on Windows Mobile when I set it to use One Column mode.
> So I never have to wait till I get home or to the office to look stuff up.
As more people start to browse the web on phones (for which it has to
become a bit cheaper, but it will) designers will start testing their
sites more on phone browsers and it will all start to work better.
There is also the argument that in Europe people like to talk to their
friends on their phones, not play games, watch cartoons, or browse the
web. But this argument now falls down as people have started using the
web mainly to talk to their (so-called) friends anyway.
On Oct 5, 4:45 pm, Mark Goodge
wrote:
> >I like pizazz
> As a website operator, I like making money. I like making money more
> than I like pizazz. So I'll stick with primarily textual sites.
Making money sometimes requires pizazz. Would you use Flash if it
made you more money?
I work in the Entertainment and Education/Training world. Plain-ol-
text doesn't cut it there. Flash is currently the most popular method
for producing educational CBTs and WBTs. The reason for this is based
on the way people learn. Flash is also the fastest growing media
provider on the web. I think you would be hard pressed to find any
mainstream entertainment site (TV, Movie, Music, sports including
personallity sites) that does not take advantage of Flash.
Also, Flash and accessibility are not mutually exclusive. Neither are
search engines and Flash. The problem is that most older Flash out
there was garbage and has given Flash a bad name. Evidence of this is
the completely silly things people in this forum say about Flash.
Most people (experts?) in this group haven't a clue what you can do
with Flash. When ever I hear someone saying how bloated, inaccessible,
and useless it is, I know they haven't a clue and are either basing
their opinion on something they remember from years ago, or they just
mindlessly mimic what every they here the ignorant say about Flash not
using their own brain at all. (A lot of that here)
Flash, multimedia, and the web are a marriage made in heaven.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:45:00 GMT
Mark Goodge scribed:
> But it's important to
> remember that one of the reason these sites are impressive, and win
> awards, is because they are a departure from the norm. They bear as
> much relationship to everyday web design as my grandfather's prize
> marrows do to supermarket greengroceries.
Eh? Your grandfather grows edible bone innards?? What next...
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:19:41 GMT
G scribed:
>> If Flash is so wonderful and so easy to produce, wwhy is so much of it
>> so bad?
>
> because some websites are being designed by someone other than Spacey?
>
> html is also wonderful and easy to produce, and there are millions upon
> millions of shitty sites
>
> seriously
>
> a saw in the hands of a carpenter can produce some wonderful results.
> put the same tool in the hands of an accountant.
>
> hmm
The perfect resource-conserving paper-shredder!
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:48:09 GMT
Andy Dingley scribed:
>> The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
>> web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
>
> Example please.
>
> Followed by a compulsory education program for the multitude of Flash
> coders who don't appreciate this.
>
>
> If Flash is so wonderful and so easy to produce, wwhy is so much of it
> so bad?
Probably because it's _not_ that easy to produce and only argumentally
possible in the first place. In one of his more lucid moments, Onideus
sent me to some url (probably Adobe) which had stuff on how to make Flash
"entities". I got dizzy just looking at it. Sure, maybe if I were a kid
just starting out, I might "jump into the fray" so to speak, but it isn't
simple by any means. Furthermore, it's still proprietary no matter how you
sugar-coat it.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:58:45 GMT
Harlan Messinger scribed:
>> This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
>> I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
>> frequently on their mobile devices.
>
> Twenty years ago most people probably wouldn't have believed the amount
> of money we spend each month for cell phones instead of just using a pay
> phone or waiting till we got home, or that we'd spend US$400 on a device
> to carry music around with us instead of just carrying a pocket radio.
Twenty years ago, the 20-year-old dollars spent on a typical home phone
package was actually more than the current dollars spent on a typical
economy-rate country-wide-calling cell phone today.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
On Oct 5, 6:29 pm, dorayme
> In article
> <1191605468.768652.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Travis Newbury
>
> > On Oct 5, 9:31 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> > > ??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
> > > image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
> > > undercut text for bandwidth.
>
> > And we all know how much fun an all text website can be...
>
> Do we?
>
> --
> dorayme
I do
On Oct 6, 4:32 am, Ben C
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActionScript:
> With ActionScript 2.0...
We don't use AS2 any more...
Travis Newbury wrote:
>
>
> Provided an example yesterday look for it in this thread.
>
>
URL? Id didn't see it in any of the postings....
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On Oct 5, 5:52 pm, dorayme
> How come I don't know a single person who does this? Sure, be as
> cruel as you like...
When someone is confronted with beauty such as yours they tend to get
intimidates and run away. Maybe that is why?
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 12:09:04
GMT Karl Groves scribed:
>>> "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners
>>> worldwide have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up
>>> slightly from 25% at the end 2004.
>>
>> How come I don't know a single person who does this?
>>
>
> I don't, either. Further, I think "...have browsed the Internet..."
> is probably a bit deceiving. As soon as I found out my phone could
> access the web, I tried it. It was so painful an experience, I've
> never done it again.
Excuse me for being a bit unknowing since I don't have a cell phone, don't
plan to get one, and never have used one for the Net, but despite how the
site renders, isn't it just a little hard to operate said phone in said
mode with all them little buttons and such? The few times I've used
someone's phone for a call, I've experienced problems with the buttons
reacting to pushing, just hitting the right button you want, and other
micro-anomolia like that.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:00:16
GMT William Gill scribed:
>> You know, if they put a cap on the amount of money trial lawyers
>> could make this lawsuit (as well as thousands of others) would
>> disappear in about a second.
>>
>> Or better yet, how about if you sue someone and lose then both the
>> plaintiff and the lawyer are equally responsible for the defendant's
>> leagal fees, expenses, and a little punitive money. THAT would put
>> an end to some of this bullshit.
>>
>
> I won't argue, frivolous lawsuits are a serious problem, and I know
> this is anecdotal, but to bolster your point here's a first hand
> experience (sans a lot of gory details). After I became disabled, a
> multinational did something to me and every other disabled employee
> that was patently illegal. When I pursued legal remedy I was told
> more than once, "they can't do that, but your case will take lots of
> work, will not produce piles of money or big headlines, so we can't
> help you."
>
> Unfortunately, as with most serious problems, there is no single
> simple solution.
Actually, I think there is.
Does an attorney, like anyone else, deserve to be paid for his work? Of
course. Does he deserve to be paid well? Well, probably, but "doing a
good job" comes into it. Does he deserve to be paid well enough to
compensate for the times he is not paid so well, including "the losers",
so to speak. Mmm, somewhat - the key being "within reason". Certainly
anyone in any profession has good and bad times. Now here comes the
killer - does he deserve a windfall based on his client's
pseudo-windfall? (ie: "I get a third.") Absolutely NOT. Simple. A
_reasonable_ bonus perhaps, but something like $20M+ for less than
one-man-year's worth of work is not what I consider equitable.
Of course, there are some so-called "sports" jocks making more. "The
ignorance of The People knows no bounds."
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme
F05C5E.19280106102007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
> Now, I just have to get her
>> weaned off IE6.
>
> Try getting her on IE7 as a stepping? No, maybe not, it may seem
> even better than IE6 to her and that will that!
No, IE7 conflicts with one of her faxing/scanning/copying toolbars. I'm
gradually introducing Firefox - Opera is just too much for her (at this
point).
>
> Here in Australia, it is not cheap to enable internet on the
> mobile phone. I have an internet capable phone but cannot think
> of any reason to get it online. I even prefer texting people via
> my desktop rather than fiddle with the tiny buttons.
>
> I did load some bits of sites of my own via the usb for off line
> viewing and it sort of works but is a very poor experience. I
> guess I have a crappy phone. But what you are saying does reminds
> me to look into things a bit. But I just don't believe the 28%
> figure and I don't know what it means anyway, how the
> measurements are made. I suspect there is a lot of hollowness in
> the interpretation.
>
You can always use a phone simulator like Openwave
phone, and I can test things on my local machine, without the cost of
the phone.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
news:Xns99C1635EEB7C0nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 06 Oct 2007
> 12:09:04 GMT Karl Groves scribed:
>
>
>>>> "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners
>>>> worldwide have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up
>>>> slightly from 25% at the end 2004.
>>>
>>> How come I don't know a single person who does this?
>>>
>>
>> I don't, either. Further, I think "...have browsed the Internet..."
>> is probably a bit deceiving. As soon as I found out my phone could
>> access the web, I tried it. It was so painful an experience, I've
>> never done it again.
>
> Excuse me for being a bit unknowing since I don't have a cell phone,
> don't plan to get one, and never have used one for the Net, but
> despite how the site renders, isn't it just a little hard to operate
> said phone in said mode with all them little buttons and such? The
> few times I've used someone's phone for a call, I've experienced
> problems with the buttons reacting to pushing, just hitting the right
> button you want, and other micro-anomolia like that.
>
You can use the Openwave Phone Simulator available at
http://developer.openwave.com/dvl/ . Then you don't have to get one,
just test with this.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:16:54 -0000, Travis Newbury put finger to
keyboard and typed:
>On Oct 5, 4:45 pm, Mark Goodge
>wrote:
>> >I like pizazz
>> As a website operator, I like making money. I like making money more
>> than I like pizazz. So I'll stick with primarily textual sites.
>
>Making money sometimes requires pizazz. Would you use Flash if it
>made you more money?
Yes, but I have come across no situations where it would. Can you give
examples of Flash-built sites which are primary money earners?
>I work in the Entertainment and Education/Training world. Plain-ol-
>text doesn't cut it there. Flash is currently the most popular method
>for producing educational CBTs and WBTs.
Not in my field. What's your specialisation?
> The reason for this is based
>on the way people learn. Flash is also the fastest growing media
>provider on the web. I think you would be hard pressed to find any
>mainstream entertainment site (TV, Movie, Music, sports including
>personallity sites) that does not take advantage of Flash.
So? No-one is saying there's anything wrong with using Flash
appropriately. Just like there's nothing wring with using jpegs
appropriately. But that doesn't make it appropriate to present a
website as nothing but jpegs, and it doesn't make it appropriate to
present a website as nothing but Flash.
>Also, Flash and accessibility are not mutually exclusive. Neither are
>search engines and Flash. The problem is that most older Flash out
>there was garbage and has given Flash a bad name. Evidence of this is
>the completely silly things people in this forum say about Flash.
Show us a site that is built entirely in Flash and is also accessible
to screen readers and indexable by search engines, then. Just a URL
will do, thanks.
>Most people (experts?) in this group haven't a clue what you can do
>with Flash.
That may possibly be true. Just like it's true that most Flash
designers don't have a clue what you can do with HTML, CSS and maybe
some Javascript thrown in to add interest.
>When ever I hear someone saying how bloated, inaccessible,
>and useless it is, I know they haven't a clue and are either basing
>their opinion on something they remember from years ago, or they just
>mindlessly mimic what every they here the ignorant say about Flash not
>using their own brain at all. (A lot of that here)
So show us something different then. Let's see a website built
entirely in Flash that has a smaller footprint and is more accessible
than it would have been if written using HTML. Your call.
Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"And when you play you feel all right"
On 06 Oct 2007 16:20:20 GMT, Neredbojias put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:45:00 GMT
>Mark Goodge scribed:
>
>
>> But it's important to
>> remember that one of the reason these sites are impressive, and win
>> awards, is because they are a departure from the norm. They bear as
>> much relationship to everyday web design as my grandfather's prize
>> marrows do to supermarket greengroceries.
>
>Eh? Your grandfather grows edible bone innards?? What next...
That would be green squash, to you. Commonly used in vegetable growing
competitions in the UK.
http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/giants/msg1101403219 162.html
Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Save me from the nothing IÂ’ve become"
Just to wind a few up a bit more - from today's "Register":
http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/10/05/linux_mobile_choice /
"The key development here is that smart mobile devices - and this
increasingly means cellphones - will become the primary method of
accessing the Web. This will mean an explosion of new applications
specifically tailored to mobile devices."
On 2007-10-06, Neredbojias
[...]
> Excuse me for being a bit unknowing since I don't have a cell phone, don't
> plan to get one, and never have used one for the Net, but despite how the
> site renders, isn't it just a little hard to operate said phone in said
> mode with all them little buttons and such?
They have those pens you drag across the screen, like playing a Nintendo
DS. Easier than using a mouse.
Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-10-06, Harlan Messinger
>> Karl Groves wrote:
> [...]
>> It's painful to access many sites, it's true. But Google is fine. Some
>> sites have good mobile versions--Yahoo and the Washington Post, for
>> example. The downloadable version of Google Maps for Windows Mobile,
>> which pulls live data from the Internet, works really nicely on the
>> Treo. Wikipedia--with several skins available, I'm surprised one hasn't
>> been designed specifically for handheld devices, but in any event it
>> works well in IE on Windows Mobile when I set it to use One Column mode.
>> So I never have to wait till I get home or to the office to look stuff up.
>
> As more people start to browse the web on phones (for which it has to
> become a bit cheaper, but it will) designers will start testing their
> sites more on phone browsers and it will all start to work better.
>
> There is also the argument that in Europe people like to talk to their
> friends on their phones, not play games, watch cartoons, or browse the
> web. But this argument now falls down as people have started using the
> web mainly to talk to their (so-called) friends anyway.
Sure, the same is true over here. But web access from a cell phone is slow.
But instant messaging is not using the web. And it has nothing to do
with the internet.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
> > Excuse me for being a bit unknowing since I don't have a cell phone, don't
> > plan to get one, and never have used one for the Net, but despite how the
> > site renders, isn't it just a little hard to operate said phone in said
> > mode with all them little buttons and such?
> They have those pens you drag across the screen, like playing a Nintendo
> DS. Easier than using a mouse.
Neither of my test phones do - the stylus approach is pretty much dead
over here. It's a shame, because I found Palm's "Graffiti" very easy
and quick to use.
Both the Nokia Communicator and the Siemens S65 use a thing a bit like
IBM's TrackPoint. I know the Siemens is very obsolete now - but it's
my "minimal capability" device at only 132 pixel width. The OpenWave
browser is pretty good - I've got a 2GB RS-MMC card in it with several
websites downloaded to it. The Communicator has Opera and a full
QWERTY keyboard, but the Siemens is a pain. Both have superb PC
packages that make effective management of them much easier.
In any group of five young teenagers seen on the street, three will be
texting. In any bus, one-third of the passengers. Most packages
include "free" minutes and "free" text messages - only two or three
offer "free" web access.
The US seems to have gone down the WiFi hotspot and laptop route.
Between here and my local pub (1/4 mile) there are three open WiFi
nets - I just take the Communicator out, open it, and go on the web.
No boot time, 200 hour battery life, fits in a pocket. Also makes
phone calls, sends and receives faxes (theoretically - haven't sent a
fax for years). Receives, edits and returns Word, Excel, Powerpoint,
etc.
On 2007-10-06, Jerry Stuckle
> Ben C wrote:
[...]
>> As more people start to browse the web on phones (for which it has to
>> become a bit cheaper, but it will) designers will start testing their
>> sites more on phone browsers and it will all start to work better.
>>
>> There is also the argument that in Europe people like to talk to their
>> friends on their phones, not play games, watch cartoons, or browse the
>> web. But this argument now falls down as people have started using the
>> web mainly to talk to their (so-called) friends anyway.
>
> Sure, the same is true over here.
Wherever over there is... It's in Japan that some of that gimmicky stuff
on phones actually caught on.
> But web access from a cell phone is slow. But instant messaging is
> not using the web. And it has nothing to do with the internet.
I was thinking of things like FaceBook, not instant messaging. Part of
what "Web 2.0" consists of is porting good old internet things, like
email, instant messaging and discussion groups, to the web.
Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:00:16
> GMT William Gill scribed:
>> Unfortunately, as with most serious problems, there is no single
>> simple solution.
>
> Actually, I think there is.
>
> Does an attorney, like anyone else, deserve to be paid for his work? Of
> course. Does he deserve to be paid well? Well, probably, but "doing a
> good job" comes into it. Does he deserve to be paid well enough to
> compensate for the times he is not paid so well, including "the losers",
> so to speak. Mmm, somewhat - the key being "within reason". Certainly
> anyone in any profession has good and bad times. Now here comes the
> killer - does he deserve a windfall based on his client's
> pseudo-windfall? (ie: "I get a third.") Absolutely NOT. Simple. A
> _reasonable_ bonus perhaps, but something like $20M+ for less than
> one-man-year's worth of work is not what I consider equitable.
>
> Of course, there are some so-called "sports" jocks making more. "The
> ignorance of The People knows no bounds."
>
I agree with everything you say, but I don't see the "single simple
solution."
"Equitable", "within reason", or like the ADA says "reasonable
accommodations", are as subjective as "common sense." BTW expenses come
off the top, before "a third" is calculated.
Having dealt with many contracts, laws, lawyers,and judges over the
years I have developed a deep respect for the law of unintended
consequences. The hair on the back of my neck stands up whenever I hear
"that will be easy to fix."
Companies hire actuaries all the time to calculate their "exposures."
Some decide it's cheaper to produce an unsafe product, or skirt a law,
than it is to fix or prevent a problem. It's a numbers game, and
lawyers play it too. Assume for purposes of discussion, that we are
able to define "reasonable" attorney compensation. If a lawyer knows
he/she can make X dollars on one case or the same X dollars on another,
but the second will take more time and effort, which one do you think
he/she will take? Companies have lawyers; they know the kinds of cases
others will shy away from. Are you ready to grant them license to
disregard any laws that don't "cost" them, because no one can or will
"prove it?"
Let's put the principle in another context. I have a couple million
dollars. I can put it in a bank and it will produce a nice safe return,
or I can invest it in a business where, if I'm successful, I can make a
nice profit, and BTW create a few jobs. I could lose everything, but if
I COULD make enough to chance it, I might. Now someone says "hold on a
minute, you're not paying your fair share of taxes." Will that change
the equation, and possibly my mind? What about those people who needed
those jobs?
Elsewhere in this thread, someone suggests putting it all in the hands
of judges to throw out the "unreasonable." Though they can and do do
this now, I'm not sure I want all that power solely their hands, and if
you had seen SOME of the judges I have seen, you wouldn't want any of it
in their hands.
Bottom line, I think we agree in principle, but I'm more cautious about
the solution. I believe in asking "If it's so easy to fix, why hasn't
someone already fixed it?" The answer may be "No one has tried." or it
could be "This is how we fixed it!"
Ben C wrote:
> If I understood SpaceGirl it's a superset of ECMA-262 (which _is_
> JavaScript) with some new bits bolted on recently that look a bit like
> Java.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActionScript:
>
> With ActionScript 2.0, developers could constrain variables to a
> specific type by adding a type annotation so that type mismatch
> errors could be found at compile-time. ActionScript 2.0 also
> introduced class-based inheritance syntax so that developers could
> create classes and interfaces, much as they would in class-based
> languages such as Java and C++. This version conformed partially to
> the ECMAScript Fourth Edition draft specification.
AS2 has been superseded. AS3 is a very strict/typed language, properly
structured and consistent. It feels a lot more like Java than JavaScript
(especially when when using classes, and the way you use objects).
> C++ is quite a bit different: it's a machine-oriented language with
> mostly value semantics and manual storage management.
To an extent AS3 is like this, although you are abstracted from memory
management and direct hardware calls - you can only work within the API
that AVM2 (the Flash Virtual Machine, inside Flash Player 9) so you are
restricted in that respect.
On the other hand... I'm not a programmer. I know AS3 and AS2 fairly
well because I want to create environments that cannot be achieved
through PhotoShop and Illustrator alone... I hate programming! But I
really like the logic layout of AS3. I know a couple of other languages
(ASP classic, a little PHP, a little Java) and AS3 is almost perfect for
me! It's focused on creating user experiences, and lacks the bloat of
Java. It's fast and small and fairly easy to learn, and works the same
(mostly) on all platforms.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
In article
Karl Groves
> dorayme
> 118B39.07520506102007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
>
> > In article
> > <1191583146.710342.51170@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Phil Payne
> >
> >> "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners worldwide
> >> have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
> >> at the end 2004.
> >
> > How come I don't know a single person who does this?
> >
>
> I don't, either. Further, I think "...have browsed the Internet..." is
> probably a bit deceiving. As soon as I found out my phone could access the
> web, I tried it. It was so painful an experience, I've never done it
> again.
It is a 'novelty experience'. I can see its use for train
time-tables and a few things I guess. But I doubt that most sites
are the sort that people would be bothered with on the train or
while waiting for the bus. I imagine human's are getting worse
eyesight over time these days, just as males are getting lower
sperm counts. This trend, if it is one, is sure to help the
process along.
(Travis! Boji! I am saying squinting at tiny screens will
accelerate poor eyesight, not lower your sperm count. Get a grip
will you please! Sorry Karl, I have taken these lads under my
wing and have to steer them at various stages.)
--
dorayme
On 2007-10-06, SpaceGirl
> Ben C wrote:
>
>> If I understood SpaceGirl it's a superset of ECMA-262 (which _is_
>> JavaScript) with some new bits bolted on recently that look a bit like
>> Java.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActionScript:
>>
>> With ActionScript 2.0, developers could constrain variables to a
>> specific type by adding a type annotation so that type mismatch
>> errors could be found at compile-time. ActionScript 2.0 also
>> introduced class-based inheritance syntax so that developers could
>> create classes and interfaces, much as they would in class-based
>> languages such as Java and C++. This version conformed partially to
>> the ECMAScript Fourth Edition draft specification.
>
> AS2 has been superseded. AS3 is a very strict/typed language, properly
> structured and consistent. It feels a lot more like Java than JavaScript
> (especially when when using classes, and the way you use objects).
For better or for worse. I like JavaScript more than either Java or C++.
Static typing and excessive object-orientation are over-rated-- they're
not the silver bullets they're sold as that automatically make programs
more robust and easier to maintain.
>> C++ is quite a bit different: it's a machine-oriented language with
>> mostly value semantics and manual storage management.
>
> To an extent AS3 is like this, although you are abstracted from memory
> management and direct hardware calls - you can only work within the API
> that AVM2 (the Flash Virtual Machine, inside Flash Player 9) so you are
> restricted in that respect.
Those are both good restrictions though.
In article <1191685585.333485.3580@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury
> On Oct 5, 6:27 pm, dorayme
> > In article <6443e$47066d6e$40cba7be$6...@NAXS.COM>,
> > "Jonathan N. Little"
> > > Again, we keep hearing about these wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
> > > flash sites but no examples... Sounds like a Unicorn hunt.
> >
> > I do recall someone (I think it might have been Bergamot) putting
> > a similar and very reasonable question to old Travis a while
> > back. Travis disappeared for a while, it was the most silent I
> > have ever heard him be. I think he might have hurried to a
> > holiday destination the furthest from any computer likely to have
> > a connection to a ng.
> >
> > --
> > dorayme
>
> Provided an example yesterday look for it in this thread.
I did notice a huge hunk of impressive looking code from you soon
after I posted. This is a "wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
flash site"?
Seriously, I am sure it is something; but an example of a site
site it is not.
--
dorayme
In article
William Gill
> dorayme wrote:
>
> > Dangerous question Andy. If I recall a while back, everyone (not
> > me) here was saying how easy it was to write good html/css. But
> > talk about bad non-Flash websites everywhere!
> >
>
> Someone once said "The guitar is easy to play, poorly." That may be why
> so many are willing to shell out the bucks to hear it played well.
>
> As I once told a boss, "If this job was easy, you wouldn't need me.",
> and I told a peer "If everyone was as smart as you, what would make you
> so special?"
>
> Having managed some very gifted individuals, I learned it is sometimes
> difficult to maintain a line between instilling pride, and discouraging
> arrogance.
Yes... I handle the situation by swinging violently between
exhibiting pride and arrogance. I have studied Aristotle's
Doctrine of the Mean intensely but it has not helped. It is
easier to give vent to both emotions at their extreme, now one,
now the other.
--
dorayme
In article
<1191688677.951356.316570@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury
> On Oct 5, 6:29 pm, dorayme
> > In article
> > <1191605468.768652.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Travis Newbury
> >
> > > On Oct 5, 9:31 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> > > > ??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
> > > > image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
> > > > undercut text for bandwidth.
> >
> > > And we all know how much fun an all text website can be...
> >
> > Do we?
> >
> > --
> > dorayme
>
> I do
Here is a little "website", I made an index especially for you
Travis, use your back button between reads and tell me honestly
if you did not absolutely split your sides for minutes on end:
http://dorayme.150m.com/jokes/jokesIndex.html
--
dorayme
> It is a 'novelty experience'. I can see its use for train
> time-tables and a few things I guess.
Current implementations use either SMS or WAP. One example:
http://www.travelsouthyorkshire.com/your_travel/buses/YourNe xtBus+On+Your+Mobile+Phone.htm
Here on my bus routes that's real time information - the buses carry
GPS transponders. If a bunch of kids walk up to a bus stop, one at
least will send in a text enquiry. This was a year ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5358784.stm
> But I doubt that most sites are the sort that people would be
> bothered with on the train or while waiting for the bus.
No, because they're not designed for it. When JANET was connected to
ARPANET byy that 4800-baud transatlantic link no-one predicted
MySpace, YouTube or eBay. Don't judge the future either by what or
how current sites offer or by the capabilities of handsets either to
display or transfer.
Modern people (kids especially) don't want to put their lives on hold
just because there isn't a power socket nearby. There are
sociological implications - they don't need to be at home to make (or
especially receive) phone calls - soon they won't need to go home for
information either.
In article
Adrienne Boswell
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme
>
> F05C5E.19280106102007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
>
> > Now, I just have to get her
> >> weaned off IE6.
> >
> > Try getting her on IE7 as a stepping? No, maybe not, it may seem
> > even better than IE6 to her and that will that!
>
> No, IE7 conflicts with one of her faxing/scanning/copying toolbars. I'm
> gradually introducing Firefox - Opera is just too much for her (at this
> point).
>
> >
> > Here in Australia, it is not cheap to enable internet on the
> > mobile phone. I have an internet capable phone but cannot think
> > of any reason to get it online. I even prefer texting people via
> > my desktop rather than fiddle with the tiny buttons.
> >
> > I did load some bits of sites of my own via the usb for off line
> > viewing and it sort of works but is a very poor experience. I
> > guess I have a crappy phone. But what you are saying does reminds
> > me to look into things a bit. But I just don't believe the 28%
> > figure and I don't know what it means anyway, how the
> > measurements are made. I suspect there is a lot of hollowness in
> > the interpretation.
> >
>
> You can always use a phone simulator like Openwave
>
> phone, and I can test things on my local machine, without the cost of
> the phone.
Openwave® Phone Simulator 7.0, Version 7.0.107, is a
Windows-based application. And, for my Mac, thar's the rub. But I
suppose I could look to installing it on a Win box I have. Thanks
for this. I have it bookmarked.
I hope this software does not lull users into error by allowing
much bigger and better screens and button controls than are to be
found on real life mobiles that most people can afford?
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> Yes... I handle the situation by swinging violently between
> exhibiting pride and arrogance. I have studied Aristotle's
> Doctrine of the Mean intensely but it has not helped. It is
> easier to give vent to both emotions at their extreme, now one,
> now the other.
>
Been there, done that!
In article
<1191711695.923015.181570@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
Phil Payne
> Don't judge the future either by what or
> how current sites offer or by the capabilities of handsets either to
> display or transfer.
You are right.
The knockout future development might be when someone can have a
mobile with a really decent screen: connected rolled up
"electronic paper"? Or perhaps more feasible, on glasses that
your wear, everything looking big.
--
dorayme
Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-10-06, SpaceGirl
>> Ben C wrote:
>>
>>> If I understood SpaceGirl it's a superset of ECMA-262 (which _is_
>>> JavaScript) with some new bits bolted on recently that look a bit like
>>> Java.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActionScript:
>>>
>>> With ActionScript 2.0, developers could constrain variables to a
>>> specific type by adding a type annotation so that type mismatch
>>> errors could be found at compile-time. ActionScript 2.0 also
>>> introduced class-based inheritance syntax so that developers could
>>> create classes and interfaces, much as they would in class-based
>>> languages such as Java and C++. This version conformed partially to
>>> the ECMAScript Fourth Edition draft specification.
>> AS2 has been superseded. AS3 is a very strict/typed language, properly
>> structured and consistent. It feels a lot more like Java than JavaScript
>> (especially when when using classes, and the way you use objects).
>
> For better or for worse.
For better, as it really encourages reuse and superclasses (classes of
classes etc).
> I like JavaScript more than either Java or C++.
> Static typing and excessive object-orientation are over-rated-- they're
> not the silver bullets they're sold as that automatically make programs
> more robust and easier to maintain.
Okay, keep in mind non-programmer writing this here:
I agree but you can easily re-type (is it called casting?) an object if
you need to, or use the generic object type of... Object :) It makes it
SO much easier to trace errors, and keeps the overheads down (AS3 is
much more efficient with correct typing, apparently, compared to AS2's
fairly loose approach).
OOPL does lead to somewhat easier to maintain code... as everything is
inherited, you can create your own classes for special objects - for
example extending a MovieClip object to add your own functionality. This
is externalized in as class file. So, you can reuse that class in as
many projects as you like, and if you improve that class or add new
functionality, all the other projects inherit the new functionality too.
also makes it much easier to break a project up into pieces if you are
working in a team. Of course the downside of this... it takes a little
longer to compile, and you have a lot more files to version control! (of
course, after compile, you just have the one .swf file)
The Event model has been seriously improved now. There are hundreds of
events that you can capture using a really nice new syntax:
objectName.addEventListener(EVENT_NAME, listenerHandler);
function listenerHandler(evt:Event):void {
// gets passed the event, now we can do anything we want with it
}
....which for someone like me who is not a hardcore programmer is SO much
easier to comprehend. There are now many, many EVENT_NAMEs that make sense.
They fixed the way you draw things now... none of the getLevel rubbish.
You can now build everything in a virtual space, and when you are ready
add it to the display object as a child. This means NOTHING is EVER
drawn without you telling it. Eg;
// start
myFancyClip:Sprite = new fancyClipFromLibrary();
myContainer:MovieClip = new MovieClip();
function createSomeClips():void {
with (myFancyClip) {
x = 100;
y = 100;
alpha = 0.5;
}
//...
myContainer.addChild(myFancyClip);
this.addChild(myContainer);
}
createSomeClips();
// end
Sooooooooo cool. Love it.
>>> C++ is quite a bit different: it's a machine-oriented language with
>>> mostly value semantics and manual storage management.
>> To an extent AS3 is like this, although you are abstracted from memory
>> management and direct hardware calls - you can only work within the API
>> that AVM2 (the Flash Virtual Machine, inside Flash Player 9) so you are
>> restricted in that respect.
>
> Those are both good restrictions though.
Yep. You do have access to some hardware; sound, web cams and
microphones. If they are present on the machine viewing the Flash movie,
you should be able to access them.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-10-06, Jerry Stuckle
>> Ben C wrote:
> [...]
>>> As more people start to browse the web on phones (for which it has to
>>> become a bit cheaper, but it will) designers will start testing their
>>> sites more on phone browsers and it will all start to work better.
>>>
>>> There is also the argument that in Europe people like to talk to their
>>> friends on their phones, not play games, watch cartoons, or browse the
>>> web. But this argument now falls down as people have started using the
>>> web mainly to talk to their (so-called) friends anyway.
>> Sure, the same is true over here.
>
> Wherever over there is... It's in Japan that some of that gimmicky stuff
> on phones actually caught on.
>
The U.S.
>> But web access from a cell phone is slow. But instant messaging is
>> not using the web. And it has nothing to do with the internet.
>
> I was thinking of things like FaceBook, not instant messaging. Part of
> what "Web 2.0" consists of is porting good old internet things, like
> email, instant messaging and discussion groups, to the web.
Which haven't caught on at all. No one I know accesses facebook, etc.
from a cell phone. Neither do they do any of the rest.
Those who need that access have blackberrys and wireless pda's. Some
even have wireless cards for their laptops. But no one I know is
accessing the web from their cell phones - at least not with any regularity.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
dorayme wrote:
> In article <1191685585.333485.3580@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Travis Newbury
>
>> On Oct 5, 6:27 pm, dorayme
>>> In article <6443e$47066d6e$40cba7be$6...@NAXS.COM>,
>>> "Jonathan N. Little"
>
>>>> Again, we keep hearing about these wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
>>>> flash sites but no examples... Sounds like a Unicorn hunt.
>>> I do recall someone (I think it might have been Bergamot) putting
>>> a similar and very reasonable question to old Travis a while
>>> back. Travis disappeared for a while, it was the most silent I
>>> have ever heard him be. I think he might have hurried to a
>>> holiday destination the furthest from any computer likely to have
>>> a connection to a ng.
>>>
>> Provided an example yesterday look for it in this thread.
>
> I did notice a huge hunk of impressive looking code from you soon
> after I posted. This is a "wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
> flash site"?
>
> Seriously, I am sure it is something; but an example of a site
> site it is not.
>
And after it parses all the images it will be smaller then an html page?
Anyway here's a little Perl CGI parser that can read simple 3 field TSV(
Tab Separated Value) file to create pages, it's real tiny too but that's
not really the point is it...
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use CGI qw(:standard -no_xhtml);
my $me=$ENV{'SCRIPT_NAME'};
my $datafile='picturedb.tsv';
my $pixpath='http://www.example.com/pix/';
my $recno=$ENV{'QUERY_STRING'} ;
$recno=~s/[\D]*//g;
$recno=int($recno);
my ($rec, $count)=getRec($recno,$datafile);
my @fields=split("\t",$rec);
my $img=img({-src=>"$pixpath$fields[0]-1.jpg"});
my @links;
if($recno){
$links[0]=a({-href=>"$me?0"},'|< First Image');
$links[1]=a({-href=>"$me?" . ($recno-1)},'< Previous Image');
}
if($recno < --$count){
push(@links, a({-href=>"$me?". ($recno+1)},'Next Image >'));
push(@links, a({-href=>"$me?$count"},'Last Image >|'));
}
my $linkbar=ul({-id=>"linkbar"},li([@links]));
my $headstuff=head(title($fields[1]),
Link({-rel=>'stylesheet',href=>'/styles/stylesheet.css',-typ e=>'text/css'}));
print
header,html($headstuff,body(h1($fields[1]),div({-id=>'pixbox '},$img,$fields[2]),$linkbar));
sub getRec{
my( $recno, $db )=@_;
open(DB, $db) || die "opening db file '$db' for reading\n$!";
my ($rec, $count, @buf);
# skip comment lines with leading '#' ';' or whitespace
@buf=grep /^[^#|;|\s]/,
close(DB);
$count=@buf;
if($recno<$count){
$rec=$buf[$recno];
return ($rec,$count);
}
else{
return ('',$count);
}
}
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
> The knockout future development might be when someone can have a
> mobile with a really decent screen: connected rolled up
> "electronic paper"? Or perhaps more feasible, on glasses that
> your wear, everything looking big.
Getting there:
http://www.smashsworld.com/2005/07/fujitsus-flexible-lcd-scr een.php
You have to throw all assumptions away. Look at our clothing, for
instance. Outdoor clothing in the UK has already changed, as have
many tote bags, small rucksacs, etc., to add mesh pockets to cater for
the current fashion of carrying bottled water. If some future device
using a screen like this, 3G always-on, some for of neat input, etc.,
offers enough benefits to become fashionable then the current "it
doesn't fit in a pocket" will vanish.
Apple pulled a great stunt with the eraly iPods and their distinctive
earpieces. Even if you couldn't see the device itself, you could see
from the white earpieces they were using one. They should have done a
range of iPhone clothing.
1024x768 highly portable is not far off. And I really mean 3mm thick,
200 gramme, 3G always-on, days of battery life.
On 2007-10-07, SpaceGirl
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-10-06, SpaceGirl
>>> Ben C wrote:
[...]
>> For better or for worse.
>
> For better, as it really encourages reuse and superclasses (classes of
> classes etc).
In theory, yes. Where it goes wrong I think is when it is encourages
people to design arbitrary class hierarchies, which either get
overcomplicated, or require constant and painstaking "refactoring" when
the requirements change.
One might say well that's just bad OO programming, not OO programming in
general. But that's a cop-out-- the real question is how hard or easy is
it to do good or bad OO programming.
OO can encourage people to make too many design decisions up-front,
before they really know what they want to do yet.
It's supposed to protect against dreaded type mismatch errors-- you pass
the wrong type of object to a function by mistake-- but how often do
such errors actually really happen?
>> I like JavaScript more than either Java or C++.
>> Static typing and excessive object-orientation are over-rated-- they're
>> not the silver bullets they're sold as that automatically make programs
>> more robust and easier to maintain.
>
> Okay, keep in mind non-programmer writing this here:
>
> I agree but you can easily re-type (is it called casting?) an object if
> you need to, or use the generic object type of... Object :) It makes it
> SO much easier to trace errors, and keeps the overheads down (AS3 is
> much more efficient with correct typing, apparently, compared to AS2's
> fairly loose approach).
>
> OOPL does lead to somewhat easier to maintain code... as everything is
> inherited, you can create your own classes for special objects - for
> example extending a MovieClip object to add your own functionality. This
> is externalized in as class file. So, you can reuse that class in as
> many projects as you like, and if you improve that class or add new
> functionality, all the other projects inherit the new functionality too.
> also makes it much easier to break a project up into pieces if you are
> working in a team. Of course the downside of this... it takes a little
> longer to compile, and you have a lot more files to version control!
Those aren't really downsides. Both are worth it if it's easier to
maintain or break up between a team.
[...]
> The Event model has been seriously improved now. There are hundreds of
> events that you can capture using a really nice new syntax:
>
> objectName.addEventListener(EVENT_NAME, listenerHandler);
>
> function listenerHandler(evt:Event):void {
> // gets passed the event, now we can do anything we want with it
>
> }
>
> ...which for someone like me who is not a hardcore programmer is SO much
> easier to comprehend. There are now many, many EVENT_NAMEs that make sense.
I don't know what it was like before, but that looks OK. JavaScript DOM
events are just like that too. You get passed the event.
[...]
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:15:00
GMT Mark Goodge scribed:
>>> But it's important to
>>> remember that one of the reason these sites are impressive, and win
>>> awards, is because they are a departure from the norm. They bear as
>>> much relationship to everyday web design as my grandfather's prize
>>> marrows do to supermarket greengroceries.
>>
>>Eh? Your grandfather grows edible bone innards?? What next...
>
> That would be green squash, to you. Commonly used in vegetable growing
> competitions in the UK.
>
> http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/giants/msg1101403219 162.html
Sort of look like something from "The Day of the Triffids"...
Over here in the good ol' USA, our vegetable competitions are generally a
bit different. Last year's national contest was won by a grammatically-
challenged Australian with a logic-recognition problem. (Not mentioning
any names.)
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
dorayme wrote:
> In article <1191685585.333485.3580@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Travis Newbury
>
>> On Oct 5, 6:27 pm, dorayme
>>> In article <6443e$47066d6e$40cba7be$6...@NAXS.COM>,
>>> "Jonathan N. Little"
>
>>>> Again, we keep hearing about these wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
>>>> flash sites but no examples... Sounds like a Unicorn hunt.
>>> I do recall someone (I think it might have been Bergamot) putting
>>> a similar and very reasonable question to old Travis a while
>>> back. Travis disappeared for a while, it was the most silent I
>>> have ever heard him be. I think he might have hurried to a
>>> holiday destination the furthest from any computer likely to have
>>> a connection to a ng.
>>>
>>> --
>>> dorayme
>> Provided an example yesterday look for it in this thread.
>
> I did notice a huge hunk of impressive looking code from you soon
> after I posted. This is a "wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
> flash site"?
>
> Seriously, I am sure it is something; but an example of a site
> site it is not.
>
Here's a great example:
http://dev.getoutsmart.com/os3d/demos/videoroom/
Entire 3d engine, with UI's projected onto the walls and a character
than can walk around. Under 100Kb, created in Flex, which is Adobe's
tool for generating Flash on the fly.
Note the working calendar, pie 3d charting etc etc etc. See the black
screen on the wall? That's for steaming video. Mouse over it to see full
VCR controls and to stream video into the 3d environment. Try doing that
in JavaScript :D
This entire thing is about the size of 2 or 3 jpegs on a regular web
site (in kb).
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:58:18
GMT William Gill scribed:
> I agree with everything you say, but I don't see the "single simple
> solution."
>
> "Equitable", "within reason", or like the ADA says "reasonable
> accommodations", are as subjective as "common sense." BTW expenses
> come off the top, before "a third" is calculated.
>
> Having dealt with many contracts, laws, lawyers,and judges over the
> years I have developed a deep respect for the law of unintended
> consequences. The hair on the back of my neck stands up whenever I
> hear "that will be easy to fix."
>
> Companies hire actuaries all the time to calculate their "exposures."
> Some decide it's cheaper to produce an unsafe product, or skirt a law,
> than it is to fix or prevent a problem. It's a numbers game, and
> lawyers play it too. Assume for purposes of discussion, that we are
> able to define "reasonable" attorney compensation. If a lawyer knows
> he/she can make X dollars on one case or the same X dollars on
> another, but the second will take more time and effort, which one do
> you think he/she will take? Companies have lawyers; they know the
> kinds of cases others will shy away from. Are you ready to grant them
> license to disregard any laws that don't "cost" them, because no one
> can or will "prove it?"
>
> Let's put the principle in another context. I have a couple million
> dollars. I can put it in a bank and it will produce a nice safe
> return, or I can invest it in a business where, if I'm successful, I
> can make a nice profit, and BTW create a few jobs. I could lose
> everything, but if I COULD make enough to chance it, I might. Now
> someone says "hold on a minute, you're not paying your fair share of
> taxes." Will that change the equation, and possibly my mind? What
> about those people who needed those jobs?
>
> Elsewhere in this thread, someone suggests putting it all in the hands
> of judges to throw out the "unreasonable." Though they can and do do
> this now, I'm not sure I want all that power solely their hands, and
> if you had seen SOME of the judges I have seen, you wouldn't want any
> of it in their hands.
>
> Bottom line, I think we agree in principle, but I'm more cautious
> about the solution. I believe in asking "If it's so easy to fix, why
> hasn't someone already fixed it?" The answer may be "No one has
> tried." or it could be "This is how we fixed it!"
Yeah, your bottom line (and examples supporting it) are pretty darn
accurate. I guess what I'm advocating is a stricter interpretation and
limitation on what non-productive advocates can justifiably glean from
the primary proceeds of their independent clients. I certainly _don't_
believe that the solution lies with the judges because judges _are_
lawyers and will generally be swayed by the associated inequitable
mindset intrinsically related to their "calling".
I suppose my viewpoint is a bit socialistic, but I simply cannot accept
the old "It's not perfect but it works" tenet. The legal system is
hardly more than a joke in my book when money dictates advantage, as it
does now. Why did Patty Hearst "get off" with a slap on the tush? And
what about OJ? -Is he ?really? "innocent" just because his
state-of-the-art lawyers "uncovered" something that 99%+ of everyone
else's lawyers would not have? (-This is an example; don't know enough
about the OJ case to quote actual figures, but the point stands as it
demonstrates a prevailing condition.) A large part of the reason for
much of the crime today is the lack of confidence in the equality of the
legal system to begin with.
Here's one tenet I do believe in: if something's broke, fix it. The
legal system, and the associated judicial system, have been broke for a
long time, and no amount of pontificating and/or platitudizing changes a
fact into a non-fact. In this country (as in most), you can buy
"justice" - plain and clear, if not always simple. The answer is to
rectify this by a stricter, possibly more cynical recognition of who
benefits from what and why and then act upon that "new" information in a
logical and erudite manner. The old stupidities, traditional or not,
just don't hack it in the brave, new world. When justice is for sale,
there is no justice - for anyone.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-10-07, SpaceGirl
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2007-10-06, SpaceGirl
>>>> Ben C wrote:
> [...]
>>> For better or for worse.
>> For better, as it really encourages reuse and superclasses (classes of
>> classes etc).
>
> In theory, yes. Where it goes wrong I think is when it is encourages
> people to design arbitrary class hierarchies, which either get
> overcomplicated, or require constant and painstaking "refactoring" when
> the requirements change.
>
OO doesn't "encourage" anything. Just like C doesn't encourage
spaghetti code. People can design as well or as poorly as they like.
> One might say well that's just bad OO programming, not OO programming in
> general. But that's a cop-out-- the real question is how hard or easy is
> it to do good or bad OO programming.
>
It's bad OO design. It is easy to do good OO programming, with the
right training and experience.
> OO can encourage people to make too many design decisions up-front,
> before they really know what they want to do yet.
>
Good design (not just OO) dictates that your decisions MUST be made up
front. Can you imagine creating the blueprints after the house is 1/2
built? But that's how a lot of people approach programming problems.
> It's supposed to protect against dreaded type mismatch errors-- you pass
> the wrong type of object to a function by mistake-- but how often do
> such errors actually really happen?
>
Nothing in OO protects against type mismatch errors. That is completely
dependent on how strict the language's type checking is. PASCAL, for
instance, is a non-OO language, but does not allow any type mismatches.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
dorayme
news:doraymeRidThis-41B1C5.08574907102007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au:
> In article
> <1191688677.951356.316570@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Travis Newbury
>
>> On Oct 5, 6:29 pm, dorayme
>> > In article
>> > <1191605468.768652.27...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Travis Newbury
>> >
>> > > On Oct 5, 9:31 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > ??? When, where? The statement may be true for those
>> > > > over-bloated image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but
>> > > > no graphics is going to undercut text for bandwidth.
>> >
>> > > And we all know how much fun an all text website can be...
>> >
>> > Do we?
>> >
>> > --
>> > dorayme
>>
>> I do
>
> Here is a little "website", I made an index especially for you
> Travis, use your back button between reads and tell me honestly
> if you did not absolutely split your sides for minutes on end:
>
> http://dorayme.150m.com/jokes/jokesIndex.html
>
I know I laughed uncontrollably at the popups that came up on *every* page.
--
Karl Groves
http://www.WebAccessStrategies.com
On 2007-10-07, Jerry Stuckle
> Ben C wrote:
[...]
>> One might say well that's just bad OO programming, not OO programming in
>> general. But that's a cop-out-- the real question is how hard or easy is
>> it to do good or bad OO programming.
>>
>
> It's bad OO design. It is easy to do good OO programming, with the
> right training and experience.
I can believe you in theory, but I've never actually seen any good OO
programming, and lot of bad OO programming. Where does this training
come from? Who has this experience?
Name a good open source OO-designed program and I will gladly have a
look at it and be prepared to learn something.
>> OO can encourage people to make too many design decisions up-front,
>> before they really know what they want to do yet.
>>
>
> Good design (not just OO) dictates that your decisions MUST be made up
> front.
For houses, yes, not for programs.
> Can you imagine creating the blueprints after the house is 1/2 built?
> But that's how a lot of people approach programming problems.
Indeed, and many programming problems are better approached that way.
>> It's supposed to protect against dreaded type mismatch errors-- you pass
>> the wrong type of object to a function by mistake-- but how often do
>> such errors actually really happen?
>>
> Nothing in OO protects against type mismatch errors. That is completely
> dependent on how strict the language's type checking is. PASCAL, for
> instance, is a non-OO language, but does not allow any type mismatches.
OK, yes, OO and strict type checking are different things, and you can
have either without the other.
SpaceGirl wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>> In article <1191685585.333485.3580@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> Travis Newbury
>>
>>> On Oct 5, 6:27 pm, dorayme
>>>> In article <6443e$47066d6e$40cba7be$6...@NAXS.COM>,
>>>> "Jonathan N. Little"
>>
>>>>> Again, we keep hearing about these wonderful, accessible,
>>>>> low-bandwidth
>>>>> flash sites but no examples... Sounds like a Unicorn hunt.
>>>> I do recall someone (I think it might have been Bergamot) putting
>>>> a similar and very reasonable question to old Travis a while
>>>> back. Travis disappeared for a while, it was the most silent I
>>>> have ever heard him be. I think he might have hurried to a
>>>> holiday destination the furthest from any computer likely to have
>>>> a connection to a ng.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> dorayme
>>> Provided an example yesterday look for it in this thread.
>>
>> I did notice a huge hunk of impressive looking code from you soon
>> after I posted. This is a "wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
>> flash site"?
>> Seriously, I am sure it is something; but an example of a site site it
>> is not.
>>
>
>
> Here's a great example:
>
> http://dev.getoutsmart.com/os3d/demos/videoroom/
>
> Entire 3d engine, with UI's projected onto the walls and a character
> than can walk around. Under 100Kb, created in Flex, which is Adobe's
> tool for generating Flash on the fly.
Wow! At a download rate that oscillated between 5.1-5.2kb/sec, pretty
much the max on dialup, I got to watch an inane gyrating atom thingy for
2min 15sec! Then it improved to a BLACK screen with a small line of
teeny writing for 40 secs when finally a little boy showed up! Wow again
3 minuets of pure heart-stopping entertainment only to be rewarded with
with this graphic with writing that looks about 8 pixels high on *a
curve* that I cannot change at all.... I guess the dark grey text on
black at the bottom at a generous 10 pixels high, that I also cannot
adjust, is supposed to help! The whole this sits in a static 700 pixels
rectangle...oooh.
Sorry, all "flash" no guts. I'm sorry but after the gee-factor wears
off, this would be very frustrating experience if you are trying to get
any info from such a site. It is kind of like those themes for Windows
that at added animations, noises and fancy screensavers to your PC. Cute
for the moment but if you actually did work on your PC, well...
The problem is both you and Travis have miss the point. It is no how
small the initial script is, (I showed how small a Perl script can be),
but how small the end product that downloads that's important. AND
whether or not it can be usable to the "user"!
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Karl Groves wrote:
>
> I know I laughed uncontrollably at the popups that came up on *every* page.
>
Disable JS. It is the only way to view the site without interruption.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-10-07, Jerry Stuckle
>> Ben C wrote:
> [...]
>>> One might say well that's just bad OO programming, not OO programming in
>>> general. But that's a cop-out-- the real question is how hard or easy is
>>> it to do good or bad OO programming.
>>>
>> It's bad OO design. It is easy to do good OO programming, with the
>> right training and experience.
>
> I can believe you in theory, but I've never actually seen any good OO
> programming, and lot of bad OO programming. Where does this training
> come from? Who has this experience?
>
For one thing, I've been doing OO design for around 20 years, 17 of
those as a consultant. I've been on some projects which have good
designs, and managed OO projects. Also, I've taught several OOAD
courses to various organizations.
The experience is in some corporations. I have been brought in as a
consultant when they don't have that experience, to help them along.
Some I train, some already have been trained but no experience.
You're not going to get it out of a library book. This is something you
need to do hands on, with experienced designers.
> Name a good open source OO-designed program and I will gladly have a
> look at it and be prepared to learn something.
>
I have no idea. I don't follow much open source. But again, this is
something you aren't going to learn by reading - any more than you can
become a good golfer by reading golf magazines.
>>> OO can encourage people to make too many design decisions up-front,
>>> before they really know what they want to do yet.
>>>
>> Good design (not just OO) dictates that your decisions MUST be made up
>> front.
>
> For houses, yes, not for programs.
>
Nope, the same it true for programs. Otherwise those programs become a
mess of fixes, half-assed patches and other such stuff. It wastes
programmers time and makes the code less reliable and harder to maintain
and modify later.
>> Can you imagine creating the blueprints after the house is 1/2 built?
>> But that's how a lot of people approach programming problems.
>
> Indeed, and many programming problems are better approached that way.
>
Nope. No programming problem is "better" approached that way. Only
those who are either unable or don't want to plan ahead think that.
Programmers want to write code. You have to drag them kicking and
screaming to write *any* doc. And they will find every excuse they can
to not do it. Including that it "isn't necessary".
>>> It's supposed to protect against dreaded type mismatch errors-- you pass
>>> the wrong type of object to a function by mistake-- but how often do
>>> such errors actually really happen?
>>>
>> Nothing in OO protects against type mismatch errors. That is completely
>> dependent on how strict the language's type checking is. PASCAL, for
>> instance, is a non-OO language, but does not allow any type mismatches.
>
> OK, yes, OO and strict type checking are different things, and you can
> have either without the other.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
On 2007-10-07, Jerry Stuckle
> Ben C wrote:
[...]
>> I can believe you in theory, but I've never actually seen any good OO
>> programming, and lot of bad OO programming. Where does this training
>> come from? Who has this experience?
>
> For one thing, I've been doing OO design for around 20 years, 17 of
> those as a consultant. I've been on some projects which have good
> designs, and managed OO projects. Also, I've taught several OOAD
> courses to various organizations.
>
> The experience is in some corporations. I have been brought in as a
> consultant when they don't have that experience, to help them along.
> Some I train, some already have been trained but no experience.
>
> You're not going to get it out of a library book. This is something you
> need to do hands on, with experienced designers.
No disrespect, but this kind of talk isn't winning me over.
[...]
>>>> OO can encourage people to make too many design decisions up-front,
>>>> before they really know what they want to do yet.
>>>>
>>> Good design (not just OO) dictates that your decisions MUST be made up
>>> front.
>>
>> For houses, yes, not for programs.
>>
>
> Nope, the same it true for programs. Otherwise those programs become a
> mess of fixes, half-assed patches and other such stuff.
Not true.
> It wastes programmers time and makes the code less reliable and harder
> to maintain and modify later.
No-one's arguing for spaghetti here. Everyone wants a well-structured
program at the end that does the right thing and is easy to maintain.
But how do you get there?
There are no easy answers. OO and design up-front have plenty of
problems too. The most obvious is committing to the wrong design too
early because at the time of making the design the problem was not
properly understood (however much everyone may have claimed they
understood it).
>>> Can you imagine creating the blueprints after the house is 1/2 built?
>>> But that's how a lot of people approach programming problems.
>>
>> Indeed, and many programming problems are better approached that way.
>>
>
> Nope. No programming problem is "better" approached that way. Only
> those who are either unable or don't want to plan ahead think that.
In my experience many people believe they are more able to plan ahead
than they actually are. Especially when they are put under pressure to
produce professional-looking designs and plans.
> Programmers want to write code. You have to drag them kicking and
> screaming to write *any* doc. And they will find every excuse they can
> to not do it. Including that it "isn't necessary".
Generalizations like that aren't helpful. If you insist on a doc, or a
design, or a plan, then most people will produce them in order to make
you shut up. They won't necessarily be any use though.
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-10-06, Jerry Stuckle
>>> Ben C wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> As more people start to browse the web on phones (for which it has to
>>>> become a bit cheaper, but it will) designers will start testing their
>>>> sites more on phone browsers and it will all start to work better.
>>>>
>>>> There is also the argument that in Europe people like to talk to their
>>>> friends on their phones, not play games, watch cartoons, or browse the
>>>> web. But this argument now falls down as people have started using the
>>>> web mainly to talk to their (so-called) friends anyway.
>>> Sure, the same is true over here.
>>
>> Wherever over there is... It's in Japan that some of that gimmicky stuff
>> on phones actually caught on.
>>
>
> The U.S.
>
>>> But web access from a cell phone is slow. But instant messaging is
>>> not using the web. And it has nothing to do with the internet.
>>
>> I was thinking of things like FaceBook, not instant messaging. Part of
>> what "Web 2.0" consists of is porting good old internet things, like
>> email, instant messaging and discussion groups, to the web.
>
> Which haven't caught on at all. No one I know accesses facebook, etc.
> from a cell phone. Neither do they do any of the rest.
>
> Those who need that access have blackberrys and wireless pda's. Some
> even have wireless cards for their laptops. But no one I know is
> accessing the web from their cell phones - at least not with any
> regularity.
>
My girlfriend uses it for getting her ebay alerts (she ebays alot!)
but we rarely if never use it for any other type of web service. The
screens are just too small (typical cellphone) to make it worthwhile.
Some are getting faster though.
Norm
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme
A23135.09075907102007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
>> You can always use a phone simulator like Openwave
>>
>> phone, and I can test things on my local machine, without the cost of
>> the phone.
>
> Openwave© Phone Simulator 7.0, Version 7.0.107, is a
> Windows-based application. And, for my Mac, thar's the rub. But I
> suppose I could look to installing it on a Win box I have. Thanks
> for this. I have it bookmarked.
>
> I hope this software does not lull users into error by allowing
> much bigger and better screens and button controls than are to be
> found on real life mobiles that most people can afford?
>
No, the application is a phone, and the size of the "screen" is about
the same as an actual phone. To use the phone, you click on the buttons
as if you were using a real phone. It has menus, etc, just like a phone,
and features similar to a phone. I think you'll be impressed.
When we ordered phones from ATT/Cingular, we got our phones free with
signup. They're Nokia phones, pretty standard.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
On Oct 6, 6:44 pm, dorayme
> In article <1191685585.333485.3...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Travis Newbury
>
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 6:27 pm, dorayme
> > > In article <6443e$47066d6e$40cba7be$6...@NAXS.COM>,
> > > "Jonathan N. Little"
> > > > Again, we keep hearing about these wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
> > > > flash sites but no examples... Sounds like a Unicorn hunt.
>
> > > I do recall someone (I think it might have been Bergamot) putting
> > > a similar and very reasonable question to old Travis a while
> > > back. Travis disappeared for a while, it was the most silent I
> > > have ever heard him be. I think he might have hurried to a
> > > holiday destination the furthest from any computer likely to have
> > > a connection to a ng.
>
> > > --
> > > dorayme
>
> > Provided an example yesterday look for it in this thread.
>
> I did notice a huge hunk of impressive looking code from you soon
> after I posted. This is a "wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
> flash site"?
>
> Seriously, I am sure it is something; but an example of a site
> site it is not.
>
> --
> dorayme
It is an example of a 5K piece of flash that can do a shit load of
stuff (this meets all the criteria for the unicorn site)
And no, it is not on line anywhere, but I will be more that willing to
email it to who ever wants it. Both the SWF file and the FLA so you
can see how it works.
On Oct 7, 10:29 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:
> Wow! At a download rate that oscillated between 5.1-5.2kb/sec, pretty
> much the max on dialup, I got to watch an inane gyrating atom thingy for
> 2min 15sec!
If that is your download rate, then enjoy text sites. It sux to be
you.
> The problem is both you and Travis have miss the point. It is no how
> small the initial script is, (I showed how small a Perl script can be),
> but how small the end product that downloads that's important. AND
> whether or not it can be usable to the "user"
snore...
On Oct 6, 3:10 pm, Mark Goodge
wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:16:54 -0000, Travis Newbury put finger to
> >Making money sometimes requires pizazz. Would you use Flash if it
> >made you more money?
> Yes, but I have come across no situations where it would. Can you give
> examples of Flash-built sites which are primary money earners?
I already did. Virtually any entertainment site, any news site, any
sports site, and any educational (WBT) site. You pick it they are all
using Flash. And they use flash because that is what the users all
want. They would abandon the site if they removed the flash. Flash
content as well as Flash as a means to host other content is what they
come for. And all the sites make money
> >I work in the Entertainment and Education/Training world. Plain-ol-
> >text doesn't cut it there. Flash is currently the most popular method
> >for producing educational CBTs and WBTs.
>
> Not in my field. What's your specialisation?
My specialty is video and video presentation.
> Show us a site that is built entirely in Flash and is also accessible
> to screen readers and indexable by search engines, then. Just a URL
> will do, thanks.
I did not say a site 100% flash. I am actually against sites like
that (google earlier posts for proof)
> >Most people (experts?) in this group haven't a clue what you can do
> >with Flash.
> That may possibly be true. Just like it's true that most Flash
> designers don't have a clue what you can do with HTML, CSS and maybe
> some Javascript thrown in to add interest.
I can not disagree with that
> So show us something different then. Let's see a website built
> entirely in Flash that has a smaller footprint and is more accessible
> than it would have been if written using HTML. Your call.
Why? I don't like all flash sites. I like sites that are flash
heavy.
On Oct 7, 9:48 am, Karl Groves
> >> > > And we all know how much fun an all text website can be...
> >> > Do we?
> >> I do
> > Here is a little "website", I made an index especially for you
> > Travis, use your back button between reads and tell me honestly
> > if you did not absolutely split your sides for minutes on end:
> >http://dorayme.150m.com/jokes/jokesIndex.html
> I know I laughed uncontrollably at the popups that came up on *every* page.
There were popups?
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:46:48 -0700, Travis Newbury put finger to
keyboard and typed:
>On Oct 6, 3:10 pm, Mark Goodge
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:16:54 -0000, Travis Newbury put finger to
>> >Making money sometimes requires pizazz. Would you use Flash if it
>> >made you more money?
>> Yes, but I have come across no situations where it would. Can you give
>> examples of Flash-built sites which are primary money earners?
>
>I already did.
No, you haven't. You haven't posted any URLs at all so far in this
thread.
> Virtually any entertainment site, any news site, any
>sports site, and any educational (WBT) site.
No news or sports sites that I use are Flash-based. Some of them use
Flash for some applications, but none of them use it in places where
standard text and graphics are more appropriate.
>You pick it they are all
>using Flash.
Some of them use Flash. Not all.
> And they use flash because that is what the users all
>want.
Bollocks. To take one example, the most popular news website in the
world only ues Flash in some very limited aplications (quizzes,
mostly). To remove them would hardly damage the site at all.
> They would abandon the site if they removed the flash. Flash
>content as well as Flash as a means to host other content is what they
>come for. And all the sites make money
>
>> >I work in the Entertainment and Education/Training world. Plain-ol-
>> >text doesn't cut it there. Flash is currently the most popular method
>> >for producing educational CBTs and WBTs.
>>
>> Not in my field. What's your specialisation?
>
>My specialty is video and video presentation.
Well, duh. Have you thought about what works best for people who don't
just want to present what they make?
Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"When your thoughts are too expensive to ever want to keep"
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 7, 10:29 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> wrote:
>> Wow! At a download rate that oscillated between 5.1-5.2kb/sec, pretty
>> much the max on dialup, I got to watch an inane gyrating atom thingy for
>> 2min 15sec!
>
> If that is your download rate, then enjoy text sites. It sux to be
> you.
No choice at the moment. I am not alone...
>
>> The problem is both you and Travis have miss the point. It is no how
>> small the initial script is, (I showed how small a Perl script can be),
>> but how small the end product that downloads that's important. AND
>> whether or not it can be usable to the "user"
>
> snore...
>
And so a potential sale goes elsewhere while you sleep.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
> Wow! At a download rate that oscillated between 5.1-5.2kb/sec, pretty
> much the max on dialup, I got to watch an inane gyrating atom thingy for
> 2min 15sec! Then it improved to a BLACK screen with a small line of
> teeny writing for 40 secs when finally a little boy showed up! Wow again
> 3 minuets of pure heart-stopping entertainment only to be rewarded with
> with this graphic with writing that looks about 8 pixels high on *a
> curve* that I cannot change at all.... I guess the dark grey text on
> black at the bottom at a generous 10 pixels high, that I also cannot
> adjust, is supposed to help! The whole this sits in a static 700 pixels
> rectangle...oooh.
I had to boot up the old ThinkPad Transnote - 600MHz Pentium on Talk-
talk broadband. Only took around thirty seconds to get going here.
Couldn't find the no-mouse or audio substitution support.
Harlan Messinger wrote:
> Karl Groves wrote:
>> dorayme
>> 118B39.07520506102007@news-vip.optusnet.com.au:
>>
>>> In article <1191583146.710342.51170@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Phil Payne
>>>
>>>> "Globally, just over one-fourth (28%) of mobile phone owners worldwide
>>>> have browsed the Internet on a wireless handset, up slightly from 25%
>>>> at the end 2004.
>>> How come I don't know a single person who does this?
>>
>> I don't, either. Further, I think "...have browsed the Internet..."
>> is probably a bit deceiving. As soon as I found out my phone could
>> access the web, I tried it. It was so painful an experience, I've
>> never done it again.
>
> Certainly *plenty* of people are getting e-mail by phone. That *is* the
> Internet, you know. When you say "browse the Internet", you're really
> referring specifically to the Web.
>
> It's painful to access many sites, it's true. But Google is fine. Some
> sites have good mobile versions--Yahoo and the Washington Post, for
> example. The downloadable version of Google Maps for Windows Mobile,
> which pulls live data from the Internet, works really nicely on the
> Treo. Wikipedia--with several skins available, I'm surprised one hasn't
> been designed specifically for handheld devices, but in any event it
> works well in IE on Windows Mobile when I set it to use One Column mode.
> So I never have to wait till I get home or to the office to look stuff up.
Since writing this I've learned how to create my own custom CSS on
Wikipedia, and created a sheet of rules inside @media handheld {}
wrappers that override the default styling when I look at Wikipedia
pages in IE on my Treo. Looks great.
Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-10-07, Jerry Stuckle
>> Ben C wrote:
> [...]
>>> I can believe you in theory, but I've never actually seen any good OO
>>> programming, and lot of bad OO programming. Where does this training
>>> come from? Who has this experience?
>> For one thing, I've been doing OO design for around 20 years, 17 of
>> those as a consultant. I've been on some projects which have good
>> designs, and managed OO projects. Also, I've taught several OOAD
>> courses to various organizations.
>>
>> The experience is in some corporations. I have been brought in as a
>> consultant when they don't have that experience, to help them along.
>> Some I train, some already have been trained but no experience.
>>
>> You're not going to get it out of a library book. This is something you
>> need to do hands on, with experienced designers.
>
> No disrespect, but this kind of talk isn't winning me over.
>
I'm not trying to win you over. I'm stating the facts. You can't learn
to play golf from a book, either. And you can't learn it by watching
videos of Tiger Woods and Arnold Palmer. You need to get out and do it.
And to do it right, you need classes and private tutoring.
> [...]
>>>>> OO can encourage people to make too many design decisions up-front,
>>>>> before they really know what they want to do yet.
>>>>>
>>>> Good design (not just OO) dictates that your decisions MUST be made up
>>>> front.
>>> For houses, yes, not for programs.
>>>
>> Nope, the same it true for programs. Otherwise those programs become a
>> mess of fixes, half-assed patches and other such stuff.
>
> Not true.
>
Wrong answer. I've seen it too many time.
The other option is to waste a lot of time completely rewriting code
from scratch.
>> It wastes programmers time and makes the code less reliable and harder
>> to maintain and modify later.
>
> No-one's arguing for spaghetti here. Everyone wants a well-structured
> program at the end that does the right thing and is easy to maintain.
> But how do you get there?
>
A proper design. Either structured or OO work will. But the design is
all important.
> There are no easy answers. OO and design up-front have plenty of
> problems too. The most obvious is committing to the wrong design too
> early because at the time of making the design the problem was not
> properly understood (however much everyone may have claimed they
> understood it).
>
A good design resolves most problems. And you are *much less* committed
to a design that's on paper than you are if you're written thousands of
lines of code.
But that is also part of project management. Ensuring the problem is
properly understood by all parties. And all parties agree to it.
It's a practice I learned over 20 years ago while working for IBM. And
it works.
>>>> Can you imagine creating the blueprints after the house is 1/2 built?
>>>> But that's how a lot of people approach programming problems.
>>> Indeed, and many programming problems are better approached that way.
>>>
>> Nope. No programming problem is "better" approached that way. Only
>> those who are either unable or don't want to plan ahead think that.
>
> In my experience many people believe they are more able to plan ahead
> than they actually are. Especially when they are put under pressure to
> produce professional-looking designs and plans.
>
And my experience is people believe they can write code even though they
don't understand the problem.
They can. But they're not writing productive code.
>> Programmers want to write code. You have to drag them kicking and
>> screaming to write *any* doc. And they will find every excuse they can
>> to not do it. Including that it "isn't necessary".
>
> Generalizations like that aren't helpful. If you insist on a doc, or a
> design, or a plan, then most people will produce them in order to make
> you shut up. They won't necessarily be any use though.
Yes, I insist on a design. And I use that design.
You've obviously never been on a project with > 100 programmers for over
two years. Or even one with a 3-4 programmers for six months to a year.
There is a formal process to managing projects, just like there is for a
lot of things. And it works. But when you've never used this process,
you can come up with all kinds of rationalizations as to why it won't work.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Phil Payne wrote:
[you snipped my quote reference] Jonathan wrote:
>> Wow! At a download rate that oscillated between 5.1-5.2kb/sec, pretty
>> much the max on dialup, I got to watch an inane gyrating atom thingy for
>> 2min 15sec! Then it improved to a BLACK screen with a small line of
>> teeny writing for 40 secs when finally a little boy showed up! Wow again
>> 3 minuets of pure heart-stopping entertainment only to be rewarded with
>> with this graphic with writing that looks about 8 pixels high on *a
>> curve* that I cannot change at all.... I guess the dark grey text on
>> black at the bottom at a generous 10 pixels high, that I also cannot
>> adjust, is supposed to help! The whole this sits in a static 700 pixels
>> rectangle...oooh.
>
> I had to boot up the old ThinkPad Transnote - 600MHz Pentium on Talk-
> talk broadband. Only took around thirty seconds to get going here.
It is not really about processor speed (unless your using an old 486)
but connection speed. Yours was broadband. My point is not everyone
'has|can have|will have in the near future' access to broadband.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On 2007-10-07, Jerry Stuckle
[...]
> There is a formal process to managing projects, just like there is for a
> lot of things. And it works. But when you've never used this process,
> you can come up with all kinds of rationalizations as to why it won't work.
But apparently when you have used it you can't come up with any as to
why it does.
> It is not really about processor speed (unless your using an old 486)
> but connection speed. Yours was broadband. My point is not everyone
> 'has|can have|will have in the near future' access to broadband.
But even on broadband - 30 seconds?
Most users have MUCH shorter fuses and would long since have clicked
away.
Phil Payne wrote:
>
> I had to boot up the old ThinkPad Transnote - 600MHz Pentium on Talk-
> talk broadband. Only took around thirty seconds to get going here.
>
> Couldn't find the no-mouse or audio substitution support.
>
For a 3d environment? Are you kidding? You think you can play xbox games
without a joypad?
Flash is just one presentational layer. In this case I was trying to
demonstrate that even alternative UIs, such as 3D or audio, are easily
achieved. There's no way to do this sort of thing in HTML + JS. If there
is a requirement to present the content via other UIs, then you do it.
It's not a big deal. I'm bemused by the all or nothing attitude some
folks have in here.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Phil Payne wrote:
>> It is not really about processor speed (unless your using an old 486)
>> but connection speed. Yours was broadband. My point is not everyone
>> 'has|can have|will have in the near future' access to broadband.
>
> But even on broadband - 30 seconds?
>
> Most users have MUCH shorter fuses and would long since have clicked
> away.
>
Ohhhh! I see your point. Sorry dialup-mindset. Sometimes I *wish* a page
loaded in 30 seconds!
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Phil Payne wrote:
>>
>> I had to boot up the old ThinkPad Transnote - 600MHz Pentium on Talk-
>> talk broadband. Only took around thirty seconds to get going here.
>>
>> Couldn't find the no-mouse or audio substitution support.
>>
>
> For a 3d environment? Are you kidding? You think you can play xbox games
> without a joypad?
>
> Flash is just one presentational layer. In this case I was trying to
> demonstrate that even alternative UIs, such as 3D or audio, are easily
> achieved. There's no way to do this sort of thing in HTML + JS. If there
> is a requirement to present the content via other UIs, then you do it.
> It's not a big deal. I'm bemused by the all or nothing attitude some
> folks have in here.
>
The point is it has limited practical application. I would hate to
browse eBay in a virtual 3-d shopping buddy regardless of the connection
speed. Flash is just not the "bee's knees" for everything.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Wow! At a download rate that oscillated between 5.1-5.2kb/sec, pretty
> much the max on dialup, I got to watch an inane gyrating atom thingy for
> 2min 15sec! Then it improved to a BLACK screen with a small line of
> teeny writing for 40 secs when finally a little boy showed up! Wow again
> 3 minuets of pure heart-stopping entertainment only to be rewarded with
> with this graphic with writing that looks about 8 pixels high on *a
> curve* that I cannot change at all.... I guess the dark grey text on
> black at the bottom at a generous 10 pixels high, that I also cannot
> adjust, is supposed to help! The whole this sits in a static 700 pixels
> rectangle...oooh.
>
> Sorry, all "flash" no guts. I'm sorry but after the gee-factor wears
> off, this would be very frustrating experience if you are trying to get
> any info from such a site. It is kind of like those themes for Windows
> that at added animations, noises and fancy screensavers to your PC. Cute
> for the moment but if you actually did work on your PC, well...
>
> The problem is both you and Travis have miss the point. It is no how
> small the initial script is, (I showed how small a Perl script can be),
> but how small the end product that downloads that's important. AND
> whether or not it can be usable to the "user"!
I was trying to show to a tech demo of the sort of things that can be
done, but I guess you're unwilling to open your eyes. You've decided
that Flash is bad, and won't hear otherwise. It's very sad, really.
We live in a multimedia world. The WWW is changing every day, and we're
moving further away from the flat page metaphor for describing
information. Flash is just one technology that enables this.
Web sites are about communicating. There is no one "official" way to do
this. Something delivered via the WWW can be in whatever form works best
for your audience. I wouldn't, for example, dream of advocating Flash to
replace Google.com - it's perfectly possible (for the most) to do it,
but it's the wrong medium / wrong tool for the job.
I don't mean the following in a patronizing or mean way, but, open your
eyes; if you're a design actually spend some time using Flash. Don't dis
Flash because of your own closed-mindedness.
I'm working on a Magazine project at the moment - the magazine is Flash
based. It provides a very fluid, easy to read layout, with lots of
visual content. We're also providing an HTML view of the magazine and
XML/RSS feeds. The best technologies for job:
Flash: enables a layout just like a printed magazine
HTML: provides all of the content for people without flash, small
screens, screen readers and search engines
XML/RSS: provides content for news and blog engines
It would be stupid to rely purely on Flash. Going back to the site I
posted; it was a demonstration of the sorts of things that could be
done, not a commercial site. If it were commercial, I'd expect all of
the content to be available in some other form (regardless of legal
requirements).
I think sometimes this is more to do with people being afraid of
technology they don't understand; I remember when I first picked up
Flash and I was horrified by it. I'm NOT a programmer. The last thing I
wanted to do was to stray from PhotoShop+DreamWeaver+CSS+little bits of
JS. I used to dis Flash a lot, until I realised it was just another
fantastic tool in my box of tricks for building great web sites.
Okay, lastly. You're a narrowband user, right? Unfortunately you've been
left behind. It's a sad state, but it's how technology works - you
cannot expect technology to stand still because you have. Doesn't matter
if it's your fault that you are narrowband or otherwise - technology
will always leave you behind. There are MANY sites online now that will
not work on narrowband connections. Some of the worlds most popular
sites almost require broadband these days. An example would be something
like YouTube. Pretty much useless if you don't have Flash installed or
you only have a narrowband connection. It's the nature of its multimedia
content. We'll only see more and more like this; less content for
out-dated users. It's almost impossible to design sites that work on
everyones computers these days - when folks demand multimedia and more
and more innovative ways to describing content. You also have to ask, is
it something we should even be doing? The WWW is so utterly huge, and so
utterly international, it's a virtually impossible task. Focusing on
your audience's needs, and the capabilities of *their* technology makes
far more sense. An example would be the far east, in particular Japan,
where pretty much everyone is broadband, and almost all commercial sites
are heavily Flashed. Serve up low-media text sites there and watch your
site sink without a trace.
So, okay to conclude my ramble :)
Flash is not intrinsically good/bad.
Just because Flash is technically superior at some things doesn't mean
it should be used for everything.
Treating everyone on the WWW the same is a Bad Thing.
Accessibility is a buzzword. It shouldn't be used as an excuse not to
explore different ways of presenting your content.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> And so a potential sale goes elsewhere while you sleep.
>
Or you loose a client because you didn't interested them?
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
On 2007-10-07, SpaceGirl
[...]
> I was trying to show to a tech demo of the sort of things that can be
> done.
The demo is cool. How does Java3D compare to Flash for that sort of
thing?
[...]
> We live in a multimedia world. The WWW is changing every day, and
> we're moving further away from the flat page metaphor for describing
> information.
The www _is_ changing every day, but at the moment I think, in the
opposite direction.
More and more sites now seem to be favouring cleaner designs with quite
a lot of readable text on them.
Perhaps SEO is part of the reason, perhaps also people are reaching for
the TV or the PlayStation instead if they want video or 3D and using the
web more for information.
[...]
> Web sites are about communicating. There is no one "official" way to
> do this. Something delivered via the WWW can be in whatever form works
> best for your audience. I wouldn't, for example, dream of advocating
> Flash to replace Google.com - it's perfectly possible (for the most)
> to do it, but it's the wrong medium / wrong tool for the job.
Have you seen http://www.kartoo.com?
Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-10-07, SpaceGirl
> [...]
>> I was trying to show to a tech demo of the sort of things that can be
>> done.
>
> The demo is cool. How does Java3D compare to Flash for that sort of
> thing?
J3D requires Java... which is around 60Mb, vs. Flash which is about 3Mb
:) Java is a VERY bloated tool, but in theory can do a lot more.
However, it's really unstable inside a browser :(
> The www _is_ changing every day, but at the moment I think, in the
> opposite direction.
>
> More and more sites now seem to be favouring cleaner designs with quite
> a lot of readable text on them.
I disagree. I think what we are seeing is more audience focused designs,
and the correct tools being used.
> Perhaps SEO is part of the reason, perhaps also people are reaching for
> the TV or the PlayStation instead if they want video or 3D and using the
> web more for information.
Could be, but I think we really are on the cusp of change for the way we
really use the WWW. Flat pages dated. I don't mean that everything is
going to become fancy and 3D :)
>> Web sites are about communicating. There is no one "official" way to
>> do this. Something delivered via the WWW can be in whatever form works
>> best for your audience. I wouldn't, for example, dream of advocating
>> Flash to replace Google.com - it's perfectly possible (for the most)
>> to do it, but it's the wrong medium / wrong tool for the job.
>
> Have you seen http://www.kartoo.com?
Yep.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2006
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-10-07, Jerry Stuckle
>>> Ben C wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I can believe you in theory, but I've never actually seen any good OO
>>>> programming, and lot of bad OO programming. Where does this training
>>>> come from? Who has this experience?
>>> For one thing, I've been doing OO design for around 20 years, 17 of
>>> those as a consultant. I've been on some projects which have good
>>> designs, and managed OO projects. Also, I've taught several OOAD
>>> courses to various organizations.
>>>
>>> The experience is in some corporations. I have been brought in as a
>>> consultant when they don't have that experience, to help them along.
>>> Some I train, some already have been trained but no experience.
>>>
>>> You're not going to get it out of a library book. This is something
>>> you need to do hands on, with experienced designers.
>>
>> No disrespect, but this kind of talk isn't winning me over.
>>
>
> I'm not trying to win you over. I'm stating the facts. You can't learn
> to play golf from a book, either. And you can't learn it by watching
> videos of Tiger Woods and Arnold Palmer. You need to get out and do it.
> And to do it right, you need classes and private tutoring.
>
>> [...]
>>>>>> OO can encourage people to make too many design decisions up-front,
>>>>>> before they really know what they want to do yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Good design (not just OO) dictates that your decisions MUST be made
>>>>> up front.
>>>> For houses, yes, not for programs.
>>>>
>>> Nope, the same it true for programs. Otherwise those programs become
>>> a mess of fixes, half-assed patches and other such stuff.
>>
>> Not true.
>>
>
> Wrong answer. I've seen it too many time.
>
> The other option is to waste a lot of time completely rewriting code
> from scratch.
>
>
>>> It wastes programmers time and makes the code less reliable and harder
>>> to maintain and modify later.
>>
>> No-one's arguing for spaghetti here. Everyone wants a well-structured
>> program at the end that does the right thing and is easy to maintain.
>> But how do you get there?
>>
>
> A proper design. Either structured or OO work will. But the design is
> all important.
>
>> There are no easy answers. OO and design up-front have plenty of
>> problems too. The most obvious is committing to the wrong design too
>> early because at the time of making the design the problem was not
>> properly understood (however much everyone may have claimed they
>> understood it).
>>
>
> A good design resolves most problems. And you are *much less* committed
> to a design that's on paper than you are if you're written thousands of
> lines of code.
>
> But that is also part of project management. Ensuring the problem is
> properly understood by all parties. And all parties agree to it.
>
> It's a practice I learned over 20 years ago while working for IBM. And
> it works.
>
>>>>> Can you imagine creating the blueprints after the house is 1/2 built?
>>>>> But that's how a lot of people approach programming problems.
>>>> Indeed, and many programming problems are better approached that way.
>>>>
>>> Nope. No programming problem is "better" approached that way. Only
>>> those who are either unable or don't want to plan ahead think that.
>>
>> In my experience many people believe they are more able to plan ahead
>> than they actually are. Especially when they are put under pressure to
>> produce professional-looking designs and plans.
>>
>
> And my experience is people believe they can write code even though they
> don't understand the problem.
>
> They can. But they're not writing productive code.
>
>>> Programmers want to write code. You have to drag them kicking and
>>> screaming to write *any* doc. And they will find every excuse they
>>> can to not do it. Including that it "isn't necessary".
>>
>> Generalizations like that aren't helpful. If you insist on a doc, or a
>> design, or a plan, then most people will produce them in order to make
>> you shut up. They won't necessarily be any use though.
>
> Yes, I insist on a design. And I use that design.
>
> You've obviously never been on a project with > 100 programmers for over
> two years. Or even one with a 3-4 programmers for six months to a year.
>
> There is a formal process to managing projects, just like there is for a
> lot of things. And it works. But when you've never used this process,
> you can come up with all kinds of rationalizations as to why it won't work.
>
>
This is all very nice, but what about RAD? Or Agile? And how does this
apply to small enclosed languages like AS3.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2006
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> And so a potential sale goes elsewhere while you sleep.
>>
>
> Or you loose a client because you didn't interested them?
>
Maybe, depends on how you do it and what you are selling. Flash won't
sell everything. Content is important.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On 2007-10-07, Karl Groves wrote:
> dorayme
>> http://dorayme.150m.com/jokes/jokesIndex.html
>
> I know I laughed uncontrollably at the popups that came up on
> *every* page.
Popups? I saw one on the menu page, and only the first time I
visited it. After that, none.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
On 2007-10-07, SpaceGirl wrote:
> Here's a great example:
>
> http://dev.getoutsmart.com/os3d/demos/videoroom/
>
> Entire 3d engine, with UI's projected onto the walls and a character
> than can walk around. Under 100Kb, created in Flex, which is Adobe's
> tool for generating Flash on the fly.
Cute.
> Note the working calendar,
For what definition of"working"? It (like everything else) was too
small for me to read.
The navigation is not intuitive. It took longer to figure out how
to move around than it would have to read the information if it had
been sensible presented.
Once I had it (sort of) figured out, it was still too slow to be a
viable means of presenting information.
Perhaps you could come up with something where it _does_ make sense
to use that technique?
> pie 3d charting etc etc etc. See the black
> screen on the wall? That's for steaming video. Mouse over it to see full
> VCR controls and to stream video into the 3d environment. Try doing that
> in JavaScript :D
>
> This entire thing is about the size of 2 or 3 jpegs on a regular web
> site (in kb).
Very slow to load. I could have loaded a full web page with
graphics in less time, even if it was somewhat larger in raw size.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-10-07, Jerry Stuckle
> [...]
>> There is a formal process to managing projects, just like there is for a
>> lot of things. And it works. But when you've never used this process,
>> you can come up with all kinds of rationalizations as to why it won't work.
>
> But apparently when you have used it you can't come up with any as to
> why it does.
Read back through this thread. I have. You've just ignored it. Or
you've (incorrectly) claimed it isn't so.
But here is a lot more detail - just so you can poo-poo it again.
A good design process starts with requirements gathering, and ensures
everyone agrees on the requirements for the project.
From the requirements you design the project - database, classes, etc.
You look at the flow between objects.
Once the design is completed, you can start writing the code. You
already know what is required, and the code fits together. There is no
trial and error. There is no rewriting code because everything was
designed first.
And when there are changes to the requirements, you can see exactly what
needs to be changed in the design - and therefore in the code.
It works, And it's worked for a lot of years by people who know how to
build complex projects.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2007-10-07, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> Ben C wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> I can believe you in theory, but I've never actually seen any good OO
>>>>> programming, and lot of bad OO programming. Where does this training
>>>>> come from? Who has this experience?
>>>> For one thing, I've been doing OO design for around 20 years, 17 of
>>>> those as a consultant. I've been on some projects which have good
>>>> designs, and managed OO projects. Also, I've taught several OOAD
>>>> courses to various organizations.
>>>>
>>>> The experience is in some corporations. I have been brought in as a
>>>> consultant when they don't have that experience, to help them along.
>>>> Some I train, some already have been trained but no experience.
>>>>
>>>> You're not going to get it out of a library book. This is something
>>>> you need to do hands on, with experienced designers.
>>>
>>> No disrespect, but this kind of talk isn't winning me over.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not trying to win you over. I'm stating the facts. You can't
>> learn to play golf from a book, either. And you can't learn it by
>> watching videos of Tiger Woods and Arnold Palmer. You need to get out
>> and do it. And to do it right, you need classes and private tutoring.
>>
>>> [...]
>>>>>>> OO can encourage people to make too many design decisions up-front,
>>>>>>> before they really know what they want to do yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good design (not just OO) dictates that your decisions MUST be
>>>>>> made up front.
>>>>> For houses, yes, not for programs.
>>>>>
>>>> Nope, the same it true for programs. Otherwise those programs
>>>> become a mess of fixes, half-assed patches and other such stuff.
>>>
>>> Not true.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong answer. I've seen it too many time.
>>
>> The other option is to waste a lot of time completely rewriting code
>> from scratch.
>>
>>
>>>> It wastes programmers time and makes the code less reliable and harder
>>>> to maintain and modify later.
>>>
>>> No-one's arguing for spaghetti here. Everyone wants a well-structured
>>> program at the end that does the right thing and is easy to maintain.
>>> But how do you get there?
>>>
>>
>> A proper design. Either structured or OO work will. But the design is
>> all important.
>>
>>> There are no easy answers. OO and design up-front have plenty of
>>> problems too. The most obvious is committing to the wrong design too
>>> early because at the time of making the design the problem was not
>>> properly understood (however much everyone may have claimed they
>>> understood it).
>>>
>>
>> A good design resolves most problems. And you are *much less*
>> committed to a design that's on paper than you are if you're written
>> thousands of lines of code.
>>
>> But that is also part of project management. Ensuring the problem is
>> properly understood by all parties. And all parties agree to it.
>>
>> It's a practice I learned over 20 years ago while working for IBM.
>> And it works.
>>
>>>>>> Can you imagine creating the blueprints after the house is 1/2 built?
>>>>>> But that's how a lot of people approach programming problems.
>>>>> Indeed, and many programming problems are better approached that way.
>>>>>
>>>> Nope. No programming problem is "better" approached that way. Only
>>>> those who are either unable or don't want to plan ahead think that.
>>>
>>> In my experience many people believe they are more able to plan ahead
>>> than they actually are. Especially when they are put under pressure to
>>> produce professional-looking designs and plans.
>>>
>>
>> And my experience is people believe they can write code even though
>> they don't understand the problem.
>>
>> They can. But they're not writing productive code.
>>
>>>> Programmers want to write code. You have to drag them kicking and
>>>> screaming to write *any* doc. And they will find every excuse they
>>>> can to not do it. Including that it "isn't necessary".
>>>
>>> Generalizations like that aren't helpful. If you insist on a doc, or a
>>> design, or a plan, then most people will produce them in order to make
>>> you shut up. They won't necessarily be any use though.
>>
>> Yes, I insist on a design. And I use that design.
>>
>> You've obviously never been on a project with > 100 programmers for
>> over two years. Or even one with a 3-4 programmers for six months to
>> a year.
>>
>> There is a formal process to managing projects, just like there is for
>> a lot of things. And it works. But when you've never used this
>> process, you can come up with all kinds of rationalizations as to why
>> it won't work.
>>
>>
>
> This is all very nice, but what about RAD? Or Agile? And how does this
> apply to small enclosed languages like AS3.
>
>
RAD proceeds even faster with a good design. You don't waste your time
on trial and error. And even with RAD tools, it takes less time to
develop the design than the code.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
In article
Neredbojias
> Over here in the good ol' USA, our vegetable competitions are generally a
> bit different. Last year's national contest was won by a grammatically-
> challenged Australian with a logic-recognition problem. (Not mentioning
> any names.)
Are you meaning to deny outright that I grew 120 lbs of wonderful
tomatoes in a Melbourne backyard in the 1960s? My sence of gramer
and ligoc tells me you are so denying this. Now, where is that
Officer White, i have new harsh instructions for him...
--
dorayme
In article
Karl Groves
> dorayme
> > Here is a little "website", I made an index especially for you
> > Travis, use your back button between reads and tell me honestly
> > if you did not absolutely split your sides for minutes on end:
> >
> > http://dorayme.150m.com/jokes/jokesIndex.html
> >
>
> I know I laughed uncontrollably at the popups that came up on *every* page.
Yes. Gosh, I don't much use this server, it is just that the
address has my name on it and I am a sentimental old fool about
myself...
I did use a margin trick to push banner ads out of sight. Inertia
stops me throwing this server off my books. I subscribed a long
time back when I thought you lot might track me down and kill me.
But I now realise you are all gentle lambs and would not harm the
least living thing, not even from another planet.
Are there not popup blockers one can implement? I have little
knowledge of these things as I never seem to browse sites much
that have them.
--
dorayme
In article <5mrulvFesgq6U1@mid.individual.net>,
SpaceGirl
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <1191685585.333485.3580@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Travis Newbury
> >
>
> > I did notice a huge hunk of impressive looking code from you soon
> > after I posted. This is a "wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
> > flash site"?
> >
> > Seriously, I am sure it is something; but an example of a
> > site it is not.
> >
>
>
> Here's a great example:
>
> http://dev.getoutsmart.com/os3d/demos/videoroom/
It is not a great example of a real page that has text that
resizes, a menu and so on... It is an example of a snippet of
something. I can imagine the interactive business being useful
for various purposes.
Can I employ you to make one of these things to depict some of
the killfiles I have been in? But I want a menu so that the very
many interested folk can go on a tour of a whole lot of them. I
can give you detailed descriptions from my memory, how I had
things nicely arranged in some, how I was tortured in others, the
screams I heard from other chambers (you do sound too?)
--
dorayme
Neredbojias wrote:
>
> ... I certainly _don't_
> believe that the solution lies with the judges because judges _are_
> lawyers and will generally be swayed by the associated inequitable
> mindset intrinsically related to their "calling".
>
Judges are also human, and thus potentially swayed by many things.
Checks and balances should be central to any solution.
> ... I simply cannot accept
> the old "It's not perfect but it works" tenet.
>
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good
men to do nothing.Â’
Edmund Burke
> Here's one tenet I do believe in: if something's broke, fix it.
>
And don't expect ANY fix to be a permanent solution. The system in the
U.S. is not good because 231 years ago several wise men found the
"perfect system." It is good because they had the wisdom to build a
system with methods for implementing significant change, without the
bloodshed usually inherent to such change.
In article
<1191779908.117736.318780@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury
> On Oct 7, 9:48 am, Karl Groves
> > >> > > And we all know how much fun an all text website can be...
> > >> > Do we?
> > >> I do
> > > Here is a little "website", I made an index especially for you
> > > Travis, use your back button between reads and tell me honestly
> > > if you did not absolutely split your sides for minutes on end:
> > >http://dorayme.150m.com/jokes/jokesIndex.html
> > I know I laughed uncontrollably at the popups that came up on *every* page.
> There were popups?
So, Travis, I have two theories about this, one boring and the
other more pleasing to me. The pleasing one:
You, Travis Newbury, were rolling about the floor, hands and feet
punching and kicking the air, your torso in paroxysms of such
helpless laughter at the jokes, that you did not notice the pop
ups.
--
dorayme
In article
William Gill
> Judges are also human, and thus potentially swayed by many things.
....or by nothing when they fall asleep. Recent case in Australia.
On appeal it was judged that the judge was not required to be
awake, only to be present. I kid you not.
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article
>
> Neredbojias
>
>> Over here in the good ol' USA, our vegetable competitions are generally a
>> bit different. Last year's national contest was won by a grammatically-
>> challenged Australian with a logic-recognition problem. (Not mentioning
>> any names.)
>
> Are you meaning to deny outright that I grew 120 lbs of wonderful
> tomatoes in a Melbourne backyard in the 1960s? My sence of gramer
> and ligoc tells me you are so denying this. Now, where is that
> Officer White, i have new harsh instructions for him...
>
I don't doubt that at all.
Back in the late 70's, I tried my hand at planting some tomatoes. I
read up on them, and got six of the scrawniest plants you've ever seen
at the nursery. I planted right by the garage (white siding, west side,
full sun), watered, fertilized and staked them like the experts said,
and waited.
Then I started to get tomatoes. And more tomatoes. And more tomatoes.
I was getting an average of almost a dozen tomatoes off of these six
sick-looking sprouts every day! I couldn't eat them all. I couldn't
give them away to my families. My neighbors wouldn't talk to me... My
coworkers would run when they saw me carrying a brown bag... My clients
didn't (I was in hardware maintenance for IBM at the time) didn't want
to see me...
Yes, I can easily believe you got 120 lbs of tomatoes in your back yard! :-)
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
In article
Jerry Stuckle
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article
> >
> > Neredbojias
> >
> >> Over here in the good ol' USA, our vegetable competitions are generally a
> >> bit different. Last year's national contest was won by a grammatically-
> >> challenged Australian with a logic-recognition problem. (Not mentioning
> >> any names.)
> >
> > Are you meaning to deny outright that I grew 120 lbs of wonderful
> > tomatoes in a Melbourne backyard in the 1960s? My sence of gramer
> > and ligoc tells me you are so denying this. Now, where is that
> > Officer White, i have new harsh instructions for him...
> >
>
> I don't doubt that at all.
>
> Back in the late 70's, I tried my hand at planting some tomatoes. I
> read up on them, and got six of the scrawniest plants you've ever seen
> at the nursery. I planted right by the garage (white siding, west side,
> full sun), watered, fertilized and staked them like the experts said,
> and waited.
>
> Then I started to get tomatoes. And more tomatoes. And more tomatoes.
>
> I was getting an average of almost a dozen tomatoes off of these six
> sick-looking sprouts every day! I couldn't eat them all. I couldn't
> give them away to my families. My neighbors wouldn't talk to me... My
> coworkers would run when they saw me carrying a brown bag... My clients
> didn't (I was in hardware maintenance for IBM at the time) didn't want
> to see me...
>
> Yes, I can easily believe you got 120 lbs of tomatoes in your back yard! :-)
I learnt tomato pickling, natural tomato soup, tomato chutney, I
even considered political activism where I could throw the ripe
ones in stormy meetings...
(Someone in Sydney here once threw one and landed it on the
Governer General. I realise this last little tid-bit is pretty
OT...)
--
dorayme
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> And so a potential sale goes elsewhere while you sleep.
>>>
>>
>> Or you loose a client because you didn't interested them?
>>
>
> Maybe, depends on how you do it and what you are selling. Flash won't
> sell everything. Content is important.
>
Yep.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>> Phil Payne wrote:
>>>
>>> I had to boot up the old ThinkPad Transnote - 600MHz Pentium on Talk-
>>> talk broadband. Only took around thirty seconds to get going here.
>>>
>>> Couldn't find the no-mouse or audio substitution support.
>>>
>>
>> For a 3d environment? Are you kidding? You think you can play xbox
>> games without a joypad?
>>
>> Flash is just one presentational layer. In this case I was trying to
>> demonstrate that even alternative UIs, such as 3D or audio, are easily
>> achieved. There's no way to do this sort of thing in HTML + JS. If
>> there is a requirement to present the content via other UIs, then you
>> do it. It's not a big deal. I'm bemused by the all or nothing attitude
>> some folks have in here.
>>
>
> The point is it has limited practical application. I would hate to
> browse eBay in a virtual 3-d shopping buddy regardless of the connection
> speed. Flash is just not the "bee's knees" for everything.
>
>
Of course. But 3D is just one thing you can do in Flash, so whatever UI
you care to imagine you can try out. Perhaps you'll discover something
that'll work better. To be honest I can't think of any compelling
argument to replace a regular site layout with one that looks the same,
but done in Flash. It would probably make the user experience worse
rather than better.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
dorayme wrote:
> In article <5mrulvFesgq6U1@mid.individual.net>,
> SpaceGirl
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <1191685585.333485.3580@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Travis Newbury
>>>
>>> I did notice a huge hunk of impressive looking code from you soon
>>> after I posted. This is a "wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
>>> flash site"?
>>>
>>> Seriously, I am sure it is something; but an example of a
>>> site it is not.
>>>
>>
>> Here's a great example:
>>
>> http://dev.getoutsmart.com/os3d/demos/videoroom/
>
> It is not a great example of a real page that has text that
> resizes, a menu and so on...
This can be done too.
> It is an example of a snippet of
> something. I can imagine the interactive business being useful
> for various purposes.
Something different. I wouldn't want to use this for say... a shopping
site. Imagine a kids site though?
> Can I employ you to make one of these things to depict some of
> the killfiles I have been in? But I want a menu so that the very
> many interested folk can go on a tour of a whole lot of them. I
> can give you detailed descriptions from my memory, how I had
> things nicely arranged in some, how I was tortured in others, the
> screams I heard from other chambers (you do sound too?)
LOL yes.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
On 2007-10-08, dorayme wrote:
....
> You, Travis Newbury, were rolling about the floor, hands and feet
> punching and kicking the air, your torso in paroxysms of such
> helpless laughter at the jokes, that you did not notice the pop
> ups.
What pop-ups?
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
On 2007-10-07, SpaceGirl
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
[...]
>> There is a formal process to managing projects, just like there is for a
>> lot of things. And it works. But when you've never used this process,
>> you can come up with all kinds of rationalizations as to why it won't work.
>>
> This is all very nice, but what about RAD? Or Agile? And how does this
> apply to small enclosed languages like AS3.
"Agile" is a "methodology" or family of methodologies, distinguished
mainly by being trendy. I suspect they would accuse Jerry Stuckle of
being a old-fashioned "Waterfall".
The fact that the both sides of the argument are represented can be a
good thing politically though.
"RAD" just means using a visual IDE instead of a proper^H^H^H^H^H^H
editor.
The choice of language, methodology, and programming environment are all
independent. You can do up-front design and program in C, or
just-in-time Agile design (or whatever they call it) and program in C++.
You can use whatever programming environment you like for either (in
general, although some languages are quite closely tied to a particular
programming environment).
In article
"Chris F.A. Johnson"
> On 2007-10-08, dorayme wrote:
> ...
> > You, Travis Newbury, were rolling about the floor, hands and feet
> > punching and kicking the air, your torso in paroxysms of such
> > helpless laughter at the jokes, that you did not notice the pop
> > ups.
>
> What pop-ups?
You too eh? I am delighted you both enjoyed the jokes so much.
There is nothing, I trust, that I am misunderstanding here.
--
dorayme
On Oct 7, 2:27 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> > If that is your download rate, then enjoy text sites. It sux to be
> > you.
> No choice at the moment. I am not alone...
Not my problem. Since I work with audio or video 90% of the time, I
already know you can't see what I have to offer anyway, so I (and
100% of my clients) are completely unconcerned with the fact that you
and others that do not have broadband can not see what we are
offering.
> > snore...
> And so a potential sale goes elsewhere while you sleep.
Trying to please 100% of your potential customers is a complete waste
of time. Corporate clients know this as they deal with it on a daily
basis with marketing. They understand it is a balance. If your site,
no matter how it is created, wins more than it loses, then you have
made the correct choice.
On Oct 7, 5:46 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> >> And so a potential sale goes elsewhere while you sleep.
> > Or you loose a client because you didn't interested them?
> Maybe, depends on how you do it and what you are selling. Flash won't
> sell everything. Content is important.
First, flash is both content as well as a way to present content.
Second, my mantra "it depends"...
If plain Jane gains more than it loses then use plain Jane. If Flash
gains more than it loses, then use Flash, if Ajax gains more than it
loses use Ajax, if technology "X" gains more than it loses, then use
technology "X".
I laugh at close minded developers (or people in general) that
completely write off a technology or possible solution, either because
they don't understand what it dose, don't realize the potential, or
just blindly follow those that do one of those things. And it happens
ALL the time in this group.
On Oct 7, 4:13 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> The point is it has limited practical application. I would hate to
> browse eBay in a virtual 3-d shopping buddy regardless of the connection
> speed. Flash is just not the "bee's knees" for everything.
Duh... I don't believe SpaceGirl or I have ever claimed anything
different. I believe both of us are laughing at those that just
blindly write off a hugely populartechnology just because "someone"
may not / can not see it.
On Oct 7, 4:28 pm, SpaceGirl
> We live in a multimedia world. The WWW is changing every day, and we're
> moving further away from the flat page metaphor for describing
> information. Flash is just one technology that enables this.
>
> Web sites are about communicating. There is no one "official" way to do
> this. Something delivered via the WWW can be in whatever form works best
> for your audience. I wouldn't, for example, dream of advocating Flash to
> replace Google.com - it's perfectly possible (for the most) to do it,
> but it's the wrong medium / wrong tool for the job.
Will you marry me?
On Oct 7, 10:10 pm, dorayme
> You, Travis Newbury, were rolling about the floor, hands and feet
> punching and kicking the air, your torso in paroxysms of such
> helpless laughter at the jokes, that you did not notice the pop
> ups.
Or I fell asleep...
On Oct 8, 6:02 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> Phil Payne wrote:
> >> It is not really about processor speed (unless your using an old 486)
> >> but connection speed. Yours was broadband. My point is not everyone
> >> 'has|can have|will have in the near future' access to broadband.
>
> > But even on broadband - 30 seconds?
>
> > Most users have MUCH shorter fuses and would long since have clicked
> > away.
>
> Ohhhh! I see your point. Sorry dialup-mindset. Sometimes I *wish* a page
> loaded in 30 seconds!
>
http://www.mortgagenews2.com
It's from the same company that SpaceGirl gave the previous example
from. It's a shocker though, I mean it should have been done in HTML +
CSS for style + PHP / some other server side language for the user
account stuff.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
On Oct 8, 5:26 am, Chaddy2222
wrote:
> http://www.mortgagenews2.com
> It's from the same company that SpaceGirl gave the previous example
> from. It's a shocker though, I mean it should have been done in HTML +
> CSS for style + PHP / some other server side language for the user
> account stuff.
A "Shocker" Hardly.
Should have? We can not tell because we do not know the audience well
enough to make that decision.
Could have, absolutely. The company and developers need to understand
what their visitors want. You don't know, there may have been a
calling for this.
Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-10-07, SpaceGirl
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> [...]
>>> There is a formal process to managing projects, just like there is for a
>>> lot of things. And it works. But when you've never used this process,
>>> you can come up with all kinds of rationalizations as to why it won't work.
>>>
>> This is all very nice, but what about RAD? Or Agile? And how does this
>> apply to small enclosed languages like AS3.
>
> "Agile" is a "methodology" or family of methodologies, distinguished
> mainly by being trendy. I suspect they would accuse Jerry Stuckle of
> being a old-fashioned "Waterfall".
>
Yep, and I'd love to see it applied successfully to a two or three year
project with > 100 programmers on it. It's new, and it's trendy. But I
haven't seen where it's "better" yet. It's simply a methodology which
skips the up front work. Well loved by programmers who don't like to
document. :-)
> The fact that the both sides of the argument are represented can be a
> good thing politically though.
>
> "RAD" just means using a visual IDE instead of a proper^H^H^H^H^H^H
> editor.
>
To some extent, yes. But in the better RAD products, you have a lot of
stuff behind them, also.
For instance, the old IBM VisualAge for C++ had a lot of classes behind
it for all kinds of things. You could build an entire application and
only have to write a very few lines of code. Not quite plug and play,
but close to it.
The down side if it was it was that the resulting application was very
bloated and slow.
They also had (still have?) a VisualAge for Java product which was
actually pretty decent. But they priced it too high for it to catch on.
> The choice of language, methodology, and programming environment are all
> independent. You can do up-front design and program in C, or
> just-in-time Agile design (or whatever they call it) and program in C++.
> You can use whatever programming environment you like for either (in
> general, although some languages are quite closely tied to a particular
> programming environment).
Within limits, very true. But some fit together better than others.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, Travis Newbury
> On Oct 8, 5:26 am, Chaddy2222
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.mortgagenews2.com
> > It's from the same company that SpaceGirl gave the previous example
> > from. It's a shocker though, I mean it should have been done in HTML +
> > CSS for style + PHP / some other server side language for the user
> > account stuff.
>
> A "Shocker" Hardly.
>
Hmmm, well it does look quite good i'll give it that.
> Should have? We can not tell because we do not know the audience well
> enough to make that decision.
>
> Could have, absolutely. The company and developers need to understand
> what their visitors want. You don't know, there may have been a
> calling for this.
True, I don't have much of a problem with the overall look of the site
but it just seams to have been poorly implemented.
An example of this is the use of frames, a very old technology and the
fact that it's not accessible by search engions or my screen reader,
which was the entire point of what I wrote.
But, maybe they don't care about SE ranking or being sued for that
matter.
It's an information site, what they have done is a nice example of
what you can do visually with Flash but frankly it's overkill as far
as I am concerned.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
On Oct 8, 10:26 am, Chaddy2222
> On Oct 8, 6:02 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> > >> It is not really about processor speed (unless your using an old 486)
> > >> but connection speed. Yours was broadband. My point is not everyone
> > >> 'has|can have|will have in the near future' access to broadband.
>
> > > But even on broadband - 30 seconds?
>
> > > Most users have MUCH shorter fuses and would long since have clicked
> > > away.
>
> > Ohhhh! I see your point. Sorry dialup-mindset. Sometimes I *wish* a page
> > loaded in 30 seconds!
>
> http://www.mortgagenews2.com
> It's from the same company that SpaceGirl gave the previous example
> from. It's a shocker though, I mean it should have been done in HTML +
> CSS for style + PHP / some other server side language for the user
> account stuff.
Why should it have? Because you don't like Flash?
SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Oct 8, 10:26 am, Chaddy2222
>> On Oct 8, 6:02 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
>>>>> It is not really about processor speed (unless your using an old 486)
>>>>> but connection speed. Yours was broadband. My point is not everyone
>>>>> 'has|can have|will have in the near future' access to broadband.
>>>> But even on broadband - 30 seconds?
>>>> Most users have MUCH shorter fuses and would long since have clicked
>>>> away.
>>> Ohhhh! I see your point. Sorry dialup-mindset. Sometimes I *wish* a page
>>> loaded in 30 seconds!
>> http://www.mortgagenews2.com
>> It's from the same company that SpaceGirl gave the previous example
>> from. It's a shocker though, I mean it should have been done in HTML +
>> CSS for style + PHP / some other server side language for the user
>> account stuff.
>
> Why should it have? Because you don't like Flash?
>
When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
I happen to agree. Flash is good for some things. But this could have
been easily done without it. And I think it should have been.
It would have been smaller and faster. It could have been spidered by
the search engines (probably not applicable in this particular case).
But most of all, it would have been accessible to the blind.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Oct 8, 10:26 am, Chaddy2222
> > On Oct 8, 6:02 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> > > >> It is not really about processor speed (unless your using an old 486)
> > > >> but connection speed. Yours was broadband. My point is not everyone
> > > >> 'has|can have|will have in the near future' access to broadband.
> >
> > > > But even on broadband - 30 seconds?
> >
> > > > Most users have MUCH shorter fuses and would long since have clicked
> > > > away.
> >
> > > Ohhhh! I see your point. Sorry dialup-mindset. Sometimes I *wish* a page
> > > loaded in 30 seconds!
> >
> > http://www.mortgagenews2.com
> > It's from the same company that SpaceGirl gave the previous example
> > from. It's a shocker though, I mean it should have been done in HTML +
> > CSS for style + PHP / some other server side language for the user
> > account stuff.
>
> Why should it have? Because you don't like Flash?
Not really, it's just that it would have been a lot quicker to develop
useing HTML / CSS and PHP then it would have been useing Flash.
Oh yeah and I would have been able to read the bloody thing.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
"Jonathan N. Little"
news:df5f7$4708ed8a$40cba7ca$16428@NAXS.COM:
> Karl Groves wrote:
>
>>
>> I know I laughed uncontrollably at the popups that came up on *every*
>> page.
>>
> Disable JS. It is the only way to view the site without interruption.
>
Or just click away, which is exactly what I did.
--
Karl Groves
http://www.WebAccessStrategies.com
"Chris F.A. Johnson"
@xword.teksavvy.com:
> On 2007-10-07, Karl Groves wrote:
>> dorayme
>>> http://dorayme.150m.com/jokes/jokesIndex.html
>>
>> I know I laughed uncontrollably at the popups that came up on
>> *every* page.
>
> Popups? I saw one on the menu page, and only the first time I
> visited it. After that, none.
>
Silly me. Somehow my NoScript extension in Firefox had gotten set to "Allow
Scripts Globally".
::Looks over at wife, suspiciously::
--
Karl Groves
http://www.WebAccessStrategies.com
On Oct 8, 1:41 pm, Chaddy2222
wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 10:26 am, Chaddy2222
> > > On Oct 8, 6:02 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> > > > >> It is not really about processor speed (unless your using an old 486)
> > > > >> but connection speed. Yours was broadband. My point is not everyone
> > > > >> 'has|can have|will have in the near future' access to broadband.
>
> > > > > But even on broadband - 30 seconds?
>
> > > > > Most users have MUCH shorter fuses and would long since have clicked
> > > > > away.
>
> > > > Ohhhh! I see your point. Sorry dialup-mindset. Sometimes I *wish* a page
> > > > loaded in 30 seconds!
>
> > >http://www.mortgagenews2.com
> > > It's from the same company that SpaceGirl gave the previous example
> > > from. It's a shocker though, I mean it should have been done in HTML +
> > > CSS for style + PHP / some other server side language for the user
> > > account stuff.
>
> > Why should it have? Because you don't like Flash?
>
> Not really, it's just that it would have been a lot quicker to develop
> useing HTML / CSS and PHP then it would have been useing Flash.
Doubt it. This site was built in Flex. In other words a proper drag
and drop IDE. Most of the components used (the content panels,
scrollbars, graphs etc) are standard. Most of the UI was probably
described in MXML with small bits of code, rather than reams of code
to do everything. I suspect this site took a fraction of the time
compared to building by hand in PHP.
> Oh yeah and I would have been able to read the bloody thing.
Well... there is that :)
On Oct 8, 1:29 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 10:26 am, Chaddy2222
> >> On Oct 8, 6:02 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> >>>>> It is not really about processor speed (unless your using an old 486)
> >>>>> but connection speed. Yours was broadband. My point is not everyone
> >>>>> 'has|can have|will have in the near future' access to broadband.
> >>>> But even on broadband - 30 seconds?
> >>>> Most users have MUCH shorter fuses and would long since have clicked
> >>>> away.
> >>> Ohhhh! I see your point. Sorry dialup-mindset. Sometimes I *wish* a page
> >>> loaded in 30 seconds!
> >>http://www.mortgagenews2.com
> >> It's from the same company that SpaceGirl gave the previous example
> >> from. It's a shocker though, I mean it should have been done in HTML +
> >> CSS for style + PHP / some other server side language for the user
> >> account stuff.
>
> > Why should it have? Because you don't like Flash?
>
> When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
:)
> I happen to agree. Flash is good for some things. But this could have
> been easily done without it.
Yep... maybe
>And I think it should have been.
Possibly. Really Flash doesn't bring anything to this particular site.
> It would have been smaller and faster.
I'm not sure about that. It would be interesting to time the site.
> It could have been spidered by
> the search engines (probably not applicable in this particular case).
Google etc can spider well constructed Flash movies.
> But most of all, it would have been accessible to the blind.
Yes
They could have easily added the facility though.
On Oct 8, 8:41 am, Chaddy2222
wrote:
> Not really, it's just that it would have been a lot quicker to develop
> useing HTML / CSS and PHP then it would have been useing Flash.
> Oh yeah and I would have been able to read the bloody thing.
It would have been faster for YOU to develop it in HTML/CSS/PHP. You
don't know how to develop a flash application so you can not say it is
a slower development process.
> Oh yeah and I would have been able to read the bloody thing.
Zoom.... (Yes I know the zoom feature sucks)
On Oct 8, 11:12 pm, SpaceGirl
> On Oct 8, 1:29 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>
>
>
>
>
> > SpaceGirl wrote:
> > > On Oct 8, 10:26 am, Chaddy2222
> > >> On Oct 8, 6:02 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> > >>>>> It is not really about processor speed (unless your using an old 486)
> > >>>>> but connection speed. Yours was broadband. My point is not everyone
> > >>>>> 'has|can have|will have in the near future' access to broadband.
> > >>>> But even on broadband - 30 seconds?
> > >>>> Most users have MUCH shorter fuses and would long since have clicked
> > >>>> away.
> > >>> Ohhhh! I see your point. Sorry dialup-mindset. Sometimes I *wish* a page
> > >>> loaded in 30 seconds!
> > >>http://www.mortgagenews2.com
> > >> It's from the same company that SpaceGirl gave the previous example
> > >> from. It's a shocker though, I mean it should have been done in HTML +
> > >> CSS for style + PHP / some other server side language for the user
> > >> account stuff.
>
> > > Why should it have? Because you don't like Flash?
>
> > When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
>
> :)
>
> > I happen to agree. Flash is good for some things. But this could have
> > been easily done without it.
>
> Yep... maybe
>
> >And I think it should have been.
>
> Possibly. Really Flash doesn't bring anything to this particular site.
>
> > It would have been smaller and faster.
>
> I'm not sure about that. It would be interesting to time the site.
>
> > It could have been spidered by
> > the search engines (probably not applicable in this particular case).
>
> Google etc can spider well constructed Flash movies.
>
> > But most of all, it would have been accessible to the blind.
>
> Yes
>
> They could have easily added the facility though.- Hide quoted text -
Take a look at:
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/wso.php
That might answer the questions about loading faster.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:29 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>> SpaceGirl wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 10:26 am, Chaddy2222
>>>> On Oct 8, 6:02 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
>>>>>>> It is not really about processor speed (unless your using an old 486)
>>>>>>> but connection speed. Yours was broadband. My point is not everyone
>>>>>>> 'has|can have|will have in the near future' access to broadband.
>>>>>> But even on broadband - 30 seconds?
>>>>>> Most users have MUCH shorter fuses and would long since have clicked
>>>>>> away.
>>>>> Ohhhh! I see your point. Sorry dialup-mindset. Sometimes I *wish* a page
>>>>> loaded in 30 seconds!
>>>> http://www.mortgagenews2.com
>>>> It's from the same company that SpaceGirl gave the previous example
>>>> from. It's a shocker though, I mean it should have been done in HTML +
>>>> CSS for style + PHP / some other server side language for the user
>>>> account stuff.
>>> Why should it have? Because you don't like Flash?
>> When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
>
> :)
>
>> I happen to agree. Flash is good for some things. But this could have
>> been easily done without it.
>
> Yep... maybe
>
>> And I think it should have been.
>
> Possibly. Really Flash doesn't bring anything to this particular site.
>
>> It would have been smaller and faster.
>
> I'm not sure about that. It would be interesting to time the site.
>
>> It could have been spidered by
>> the search engines (probably not applicable in this particular case).
>
> Google etc can spider well constructed Flash movies.
>
>> But most of all, it would have been accessible to the blind.
>
> Yes
>
> They could have easily added the facility though.
>
And if they did it in plain css/html, they would have everything they do
now, but wouldn't have to add it.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 8, 8:41 am, Chaddy2222
> wrote:
>
>> Not really, it's just that it would have been a lot quicker to develop
>> useing HTML / CSS and PHP then it would have been useing Flash.
>> Oh yeah and I would have been able to read the bloody thing.
>
> It would have been faster for YOU to develop it in HTML/CSS/PHP. You
> don't know how to develop a flash application so you can not say it is
> a slower development process.
>
>> Oh yeah and I would have been able to read the bloody thing.
> Zoom.... (Yes I know the zoom feature sucks)
>
So are you saying it is NOT faster to develop in HTML/CSS/PHP? Or are
you just blowing hot air?
The fact is - whether you like it or not - this is a lousy application
for flash. And every one of those reasons you dismiss so handily show
how closed minded you really are.
I'm not saying flash isn't worthwhile. But unlike you, I don't think
it's applicable to everything - and certainly not here.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
On Oct 8, 2:54 pm, Chaddy2222
wrote:
> Take a look at:http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/wso.p hp
> That might answer the questions about loading faster.
Hardly... it doesn't understand Flash! :)
On Oct 9, 12:28 am, SpaceGirl
> On Oct 8, 2:54 pm, Chaddy2222
> wrote:
>
> > Take a look at:http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/wso.p hp
> > That might answer the questions about loading faster.
>
> Hardly... it doesn't understand Flash! :)
Hmmm, maybe it's becuase of the frames and such? I know the site can
handle normal SWF files.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 8, 5:26 am, Chaddy2222
> wrote:
>> http://www.mortgagenews2.com
>> It's from the same company that SpaceGirl gave the previous example
>> from. It's a shocker though, I mean it should have been done in HTML +
>> CSS for style + PHP / some other server side language for the user
>> account stuff.
>
> A "Shocker" Hardly.
>
> Should have? We can not tell because we do not know the audience well
> enough to make that decision.
>
> Could have, absolutely. The company and developers need to understand
> what their visitors want. You don't know, there may have been a
> calling for this.
>
BS. Nearly 4 minutes before I could see anything. As a client I assume I
would be interested in mortgages, not dancing animated squirrels or
whatever. So while I'm watching a progress bar instead of getting
mortgage rates I can get the info a www.lendingtree.com in 24 seconds.
Now I if I cannot read the text on mortgagenews2.com, well I'm screwed.
lendingtree.com also has stupid pixel-fixed design, but with
lendingtree.com I can dump their lousy CSS and bump the font size up and
read it if I wish.
Yes the deziner does not have ultimate control of the styling as with
flash, but then a potential customer doesn't have to be driving away
because of some poor design decisions made by the said deziner!
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On Oct 8, 3:32 pm, Chaddy2222
wrote:
> Hmmm, maybe it's becuase of the frames and such? I know the site can
> handle normal SWF files.
Oh, okay! That would make sense. Wonder how it calculates content that
Flash is internally loading? Regardless - useful site that.
On Oct 8, 3:56 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> Travis Newbury wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 5:26 am, Chaddy2222
> > wrote:
> >>http://www.mortgagenews2.com
> >> It's from the same company that SpaceGirl gave the previous example
> >> from. It's a shocker though, I mean it should have been done in HTML +
> >> CSS for style + PHP / some other server side language for the user
> >> account stuff.
>
> > A "Shocker" Hardly.
>
> > Should have? We can not tell because we do not know the audience well
> > enough to make that decision.
>
> > Could have, absolutely. The company and developers need to understand
> > what their visitors want. You don't know, there may have been a
> > calling for this.
>
> BS. Nearly 4 minutes before I could see anything. As a client I assume I
> would be interested in mortgages, not dancing animated squirrels or
> whatever. So while I'm watching a progress bar instead of getting
> mortgage rates I can get the info awww.lendingtree.comin 24 seconds.
>
> Now I if I cannot read the text on mortgagenews2.com, well I'm screwed.
> lendingtree.com also has stupid pixel-fixed design, but with
> lendingtree.com I can dump their lousy CSS and bump the font size up and
> read it if I wish.
>
> Yes the deziner does not have ultimate control of the styling as with
> flash, but then a potential customer doesn't have to be driving away
> because of some poor design decisions made by the said deziner!
Well I agree. Bad design is bad design!
On Oct 9, 1:10 am, SpaceGirl
> On Oct 8, 3:32 pm, Chaddy2222
> wrote:
>
> > Hmmm, maybe it's becuase of the frames and such? I know the site can
> > handle normal SWF files.
>
> Oh, okay! That would make sense. Wonder how it calculates content that
> Flash is internally loading? Regardless - useful site that.
It is good, Oh and I didn't even think of the Flash Internally loading
stuff thing (it's kind of new to Flash as I understand) but it
probably treats it like some of the CSS related propities / files.
I think the entire system just works by grabbing the size of the file
and calculating how long it would take vire the various download
speeds, perhaps kind of similar to how those broadband speed test
thingies work.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 8, 8:41 am, Chaddy2222
> wrote:
>> Oh yeah and I would have been able to read the bloody thing.
> Zoom.... (Yes I know the zoom feature sucks)
>
Hmmm, apparently the deziner forgot to enable the feature. Sorry Chad
you're screwed! You'll be coming back to the site with some youngin with
fresh perfect eyes in tow to read off the pages for you, right? Yeah,
sure...
Not saying there is no use for flash, but dammit it is not better than
html for conveying textual content on the web. Whether it better than
server-side for organizing and disseminating the content is also
debatable since in most cases the end result is neither delivered to
displayed on the browser any faster nor as flexible is usability once it
gets there! The swf of this site www.mortgagenews2.com maybe only 27Kb
but that cannot be the whole story. A lot more must have been
parsed|processed to take 4+ minutes to display the friggin textual page
on a dialup connection.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
On Oct 9, 1:47 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> Travis Newbury wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 8:41 am, Chaddy2222
> > wrote:
> >> Oh yeah and I would have been able to read the bloody thing.
> > Zoom.... (Yes I know the zoom feature sucks)
>
> Hmmm, apparently the deziner forgot to enable the feature. Sorry Chad
> you're screwed! You'll be coming back to the site with some youngin with
> fresh perfect eyes in tow to read off the pages for you, right? Yeah,
> sure...
>
> Not saying there is no use for flash, but dammit it is not better than
> html for conveying textual content on the web. Whether it better than
> server-side for organizing and disseminating the content is also
> debatable since in most cases the end result is neither delivered to
> displayed on the browser any faster nor as flexible is usability once it
> gets there! The swf of this sitewww.mortgagenews2.commaybe only 27Kb
That's f***ing jygantic!.
My XHTML docs with a lot of images would equal about 10KB I reckon.
.
No, actually I have a layout for a photo gallery page with about 10
thumbnails that ways in at about 2KB!
now try and do that with your fancy bandwith eating Flash
applications!
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
> but that cannot be the whole story. A lot more must have been
> parsed|processed to take 4+ minutes to display the friggin textual page
> on a dialup connection.
>
On Oct 8, 10:56 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:
> BS. Nearly 4 minutes before I could see anything. As a client I assume I
> would be interested in mortgages, not dancing animated squirrels or
> whatever....
We have already established your connection sucks and you hate flash.
I personally think you are just crying sour grapes and think you are
pissed that we can all enjoy Flash just fine. You just don't want
anyone else to enjoy something you are not capable of enjoying. (I am
being facetious)
> So while I'm watching a progress bar instead of getting
> mortgage rates I can get the info awww.lendingtree.comin 24 seconds.
Then you should go there. That will teach these guys a lesson!
> Now I if I cannot read the text on mortgagenews2.com, well I'm screwed.
> lendingtree.com also has stupid pixel-fixed design, but with
> lendingtree.com I can dump their lousy CSS and bump the font size up and
> read it if I wish.
Again, it is your prerogative to head to lending tree.
> Yes the deziner does not have ultimate control of the styling as with
> flash, but then a potential customer doesn't have to be driving away
> because of some poor design decisions made by the said deziner!
And as time goes on, if that seems to be a problem with this site,
and they start losing money because of the designer, they will either
have to change or go out of business. I seriously doubt either will
happen.
This is the great thing about the free market. If there is a gap
somewhere that will make money, someone will fill the gap. There is
little need for government regulation. The free market system is self
regulating.
On Oct 8, 10:09 am, Jerry Stuckle
> So are you saying it is NOT faster to develop in HTML/CSS/PHP? Or are
> you just blowing hot air?
I am saying since he is not a flash developer his statement is
irrelevant. Answer this, who can run a 5K faster? You or me?
> The fact is - whether you like it or not - this is a lousy application
> for flash. And every one of those reasons you dismiss so handily show
> how closed minded you really are.
I never said it was not a lousy application for Flash. (I do think it
looks nice though)
> I'm not saying flash isn't worthwhile. But unlike you, I don't think
> it's applicable to everything - and certainly not here.
Please find where I have EVER said Flash is good for everything. I
have repeated time and time again (Ask dorayme) that you should only
use it when it is appropriate.
On Oct 9, 2:33 am, Travis Newbury
> On Oct 8, 10:09 am, Jerry Stuckle
>
> > So are you saying it is NOT faster to develop in HTML/CSS/PHP? Or are
> > you just blowing hot air?
>
> I am saying since he is not a flash developer his statement is
> irrelevant. Answer this, who can run a 5K faster? You or me?
>
I think my point was that it would be better from a useability point
of view if the site was done useing HTML and CSS a long with server
side scripting as it would be more accessible etc.
Take a shit load of codeing though, infact I would have probably just
used a pre-fad CMS and slaped the content in. But I am an info /
content type of bloke really.
> > The fact is - whether you like it or not - this is a lousy application
> > for flash. And every one of those reasons you dismiss so handily show
> > how closed minded you really are.
>
> I never said it was not a lousy application for Flash. (I do think it
> looks nice though)
>
Well yes, we gathered that. BTW you didn't say it was that bad at
first eather (actually come to think about it you took the marketing
angle, which is obviously not what the site owners did.
You can tell that the designer was given too much control as it's
looks great but is a bloated pile of shite, much like the majority of
Flash sites.
BTW I like YouTube and am considering useing some Flash based stuff
for audio content.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
> > I'm not saying flash isn't worthwhile. But unlike you, I don't think
> > it's applicable to everything - and certainly not here.
>
> Please find where I have EVER said Flash is good for everything. I
> have repeated time and time again (Ask dorayme) that you should only
> use it when it is appropriate.
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 8, 10:56 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> wrote:
>
>> BS. Nearly 4 minutes before I could see anything. As a client I assume I
>> would be interested in mortgages, not dancing animated squirrels or
>> whatever....
>
> We have already established your connection sucks and you hate flash.
> I personally think you are just crying sour grapes and think you are
> pissed that we can all enjoy Flash just fine. You just don't want
> anyone else to enjoy something you are not capable of enjoying. (I am
> being facetious)
No. It is just bad application. Use flash for what flash can do best,
this is *not* one of those applications. All flash does for this site is
*needlessly* make the site both slower and reduce user accessibility!
Bad design strategy. Although I am sure it was easy to impress the boys
in the front office with it, just as dumb as "we use xhtml because it's
advanced..." sells up front too...
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> And if they did it in plain css/html, they would have everything they do
> now, but wouldn't have to add it.
>
Nah, that's just dumb. If they designed the web site without CSS, it'd
be the same. They'd have to add it.
Just as you can apply CSS to HTML documents, you can apply CSS documents
to Flash content.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
On Oct 8, 1:58 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> No. It is just bad application. Use flash for what flash can do best,
> this is *not* one of those applications.
What (in your opinion) does flash do best?
Chaddy2222 wrote:
> On Oct 9, 1:47 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 8:41 am, Chaddy2222
>>> wrote:
>>>> Oh yeah and I would have been able to read the bloody thing.
>>> Zoom.... (Yes I know the zoom feature sucks)
>> Hmmm, apparently the deziner forgot to enable the feature. Sorry Chad
>> you're screwed! You'll be coming back to the site with some youngin with
>> fresh perfect eyes in tow to read off the pages for you, right? Yeah,
>> sure...
>>
>> Not saying there is no use for flash, but dammit it is not better than
>> html for conveying textual content on the web. Whether it better than
>> server-side for organizing and disseminating the content is also
>> debatable since in most cases the end result is neither delivered to
>> displayed on the browser any faster nor as flexible is usability once it
>> gets there! The swf of this sitewww.mortgagenews2.commaybe only 27Kb
>
> That's f***ing jygantic!.
> My XHTML docs with a lot of images would equal about 10KB I reckon.
> .
> No, actually I have a layout for a photo gallery page with about 10
> thumbnails that ways in at about 2KB!
> now try and do that with your fancy bandwith eating Flash
> applications!
Bet it's not. Given the 1Kb IP overhead for every single HTTP request...
With Flash you get two requests (depending how it is built) - one for
the UI, one for the data. In a regular site, every single image or bit
of loaded content is also generating a huge overhead. On a 1Kb GIF, you
are looking at as much as 1.5Kb worth of data that goes with it that
your browser discards. Another thing; if the page containing the Flash
is refreshed, your browser just sends one request back to the server to
check if the file has updated. Do that with your page, and every single
file is checked against the server... again, even if nothing has changed
a the server, you're looking at stacks of traffic.
This gets even better: Flash supports binary sockets, so you can scrap
all the HTTP traffic as Flash makes a direct connection with the socket
provider at the back end... and then the data gets compressed!
You also have to think about what Flash does inside it's 27Kb (in this
case) - once the initial classes are compiled inside of your SWF, reuse
of that code, extending of the classes etc etc will barely increase the
file size at all. You could double the number of their pages in that
site with virtual no increase in file size. Or add stacks of new
functionality. And so on. Could you do this on your page? No. Every new
page means another load of HTML, GIFs and CSS that has to be sent from
the server eating up all your bandwidth :) Caching helps of course, but
even then you are sending traffic.
So, it's very easy to dis Flash when you really don't understand how it
works. It's nowhere near as straight forwards as you seem to think.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Travis Newbury wrote:
> Will you marry me?
I prefer girls, but thanks for the offer ;)
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:58 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
>> No. It is just bad application. Use flash for what flash can do best,
>> this is *not* one of those applications.
>
> What (in your opinion) does flash do best?
>
Popup ads? :P
*hides*
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:26:21 -0700, Travis Newbury put finger to
keyboard and typed:
>On Oct 8, 10:56 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
>wrote:
>
>> Yes the deziner does not have ultimate control of the styling as with
>> flash, but then a potential customer doesn't have to be driving away
>> because of some poor design decisions made by the said deziner!
>
>And as time goes on, if that seems to be a problem with this site,
>and they start losing money because of the designer, they will either
>have to change or go out of business. I seriously doubt either will
>happen.
"This site" being http://www.mortgagenews2.com, for the benefit of
anyone jumping into the thread at this point.
Anyway, let's see how popular it is using some common freely-available
metrics:
Google Pagerank: 0
Compete Rank: no data
Alexa Rank: 1,697,203
Netcraft ranking: 5,098,230
Those figures are crap. A personal website might be that low; any
commercial site getting that little traffic is virtually dead.
However, that may not matter much if the income stream is good.
To see what they're charging for advertising, I registered with the
site. That was a bit of a problem in itself: despite the fact that I
have a UK keyboard their interface is mapping the keypresses directly
to a US key map and hence when I typed certain characters on my
keyboard something different showed up on the screen. Having got past
that little hurdle, I managed to register and log in. In order to
check prices, I had to actually create an advertising campaign -
there's no price list. For the 768x60 banner ad slot, the price I was
then quoted was $795.00 for 1000 impressions. The cheapest price I
could find was $595.00 for 1000 impressions of a "News Visualization"
banner (294x50 pixels). If they can sell them all (about ten slots per
page), then that's a potential income of around $7000 per 1000 page
views. That's a lot of money for a website. Using their current Alexa
rank as a basis for extrapolation, 1000 page views is going to take
them about a month to achieve, so if all that advertising is sold then
that's a very good monthly income. But that "if" is an important one,
and it's a very big one. Those prices are waaaaaay OTT, even for a
financial services website - I can't see that many advertisers paying
them that much. So, while it may look good, it's built on a flawed
business model as well as a flawed design model.
Or, to put it another way, if the site is earning anywhere near that
amount, think how much more it could earn with a more accessible
design! Given that kind of brief, and that kind of content, I'd expect
to achieve something closer to a thousand page views a day, rather
than a thousand a month.
Incidentally, if you click on any of the news stories on the front
page of that site, what happens is that it opens another website
framed within its own Flash framework. That's usually prohibited by
most website Ts&Cs, and has been held to be a breach of copyright in
previous lawsuits. I wonder if the site's operators have considered
that? Maybe that's why they're happy with an inaccessible design and
low visitor numbers - trying to sneak below the radar of the sites
they're ripping off.
Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"We dream our dreams alone with no resistance"
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:23:51 -0700, Travis Newbury put finger to
keyboard and typed:
>On Oct 8, 1:58 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
>> No. It is just bad application. Use flash for what flash can do best,
>> this is *not* one of those applications.
>
>What (in your opinion) does flash do best?
Web-based games, like those at http://www.flash-game.net. It's the one
aspect of Flash where it really is the killer app - it doesn't have
any close competitors in this field at all.
Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"A singing bird in an open cage who will only fly, only fly for freedom"
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Travis Newbury wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 1:58 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
>>> No. It is just bad application. Use flash for what flash can do best,
>>> this is *not* one of those applications.
>>
>> What (in your opinion) does flash do best?
>>
>
> Popup ads? :P
>
>
> *hides*
Yep.
Animated graphics. Interactive maps and sideshows. Entertainment
fritterware. Elements with a page...
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>>
>> And if they did it in plain css/html, they would have everything they
>> do now, but wouldn't have to add it.
>>
>
> Nah, that's just dumb. If they designed the web site without CSS, it'd
> be the same. They'd have to add it.
>
> Just as you can apply CSS to HTML documents, you can apply CSS documents
> to Flash content.
>
No, they I'm saying they have to add accessibility for the visually
impaired to this site. But if they use CSS/HTML, the accessibility is
there.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 8, 10:09 am, Jerry Stuckle
>> So are you saying it is NOT faster to develop in HTML/CSS/PHP? Or are
>> you just blowing hot air?
>
> I am saying since he is not a flash developer his statement is
> irrelevant. Answer this, who can run a 5K faster? You or me?
>
No, it's not irrelevant. And you didn't answer my question. So, from
the hot air you're blowing, my only assumption is he is correct.
>> The fact is - whether you like it or not - this is a lousy application
>> for flash. And every one of those reasons you dismiss so handily show
>> how closed minded you really are.
>
> I never said it was not a lousy application for Flash. (I do think it
> looks nice though)
>
CSS/HTML can look nice, also.
>> I'm not saying flash isn't worthwhile. But unlike you, I don't think
>> it's applicable to everything - and certainly not here.
>
> Please find where I have EVER said Flash is good for everything. I
> have repeated time and time again (Ask dorayme) that you should only
> use it when it is appropriate.
>
>
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
On Oct 8, 4:15 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> >> What (in your opinion) does flash do best?
> Animated graphics. Interactive maps and sideshows. Entertainment
> fritterware. Elements with a page...
To that list I add:
Any web video
Any simulation
Any image/audio/video synchronization
Any time you need the application screen to be exactly the same on
every system (GREAT for intranet web applications such as the LMS I
built for Siemens)
Banner ads
Anything that needs to be interactive (Filling in a form is not what I
classify as this type of interactive)
and of course, games and simple eye-candy
What it's not good for:
Complete websites
text based information site (like, but not limited to sites like
google)
menus/navigation
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 8, 4:15 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
>>>> What (in your opinion) does flash do best?
>> Animated graphics. Interactive maps and sideshows. Entertainment
>> fritterware. Elements with a page...
>
> To that list I add:
> Any web video
> Any simulation
> Any image/audio/video synchronization
> Any time you need the application screen to be exactly the same on
> every system (GREAT for intranet web applications such as the LMS I
> built for Siemens)
> Banner ads
> Anything that needs to be interactive (Filling in a form is not what I
> classify as this type of interactive)
> and of course, games and simple eye-candy
>
> What it's not good for:
> Complete websites
> text based information site (like, but not limited to sites like
> google)
> menus/navigation
I disagree, and this is exactly what I was arguing. Flash COULD be used
for ANY of those... it depends on context - meaning the audience, the
content etc...
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> No, they I'm saying they have to add accessibility for the visually
> impaired to this site. But if they use CSS/HTML, the accessibility is
> there.
No it's not, not without engineering your site in a particular way. Same
goes for a Flash site.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
On Oct 8, 4:25 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> >> So are you saying it is NOT faster to develop in HTML/CSS/PHP? Or are
> >> you just blowing hot air?
> > I am saying since he is not a flash developer his statement is
> > irrelevant. Answer this, who can run a 5K faster? You or me?
> No, it's not irrelevant. And you didn't answer my question. So, from
> the hot air you're blowing, my only assumption is he is correct.
Of course it's irrelevant. He has no clue how to create a Flash so
how could he possibly be able to compare the time to create a site
using both methods?
It is exactly the same as answering my question who runs a 5K faster,
you or me. You can not answer that because you have no idea how fast
I can run.
> > I never said it was not a lousy application for Flash. (I do think it
> > looks nice though)
> CSS/HTML can look nice, also.
So what. Again, irrelevant. "Is that Blond pretty? Redheads can be
pretty too...
Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:26:21 -0700, Travis Newbury put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> On Oct 8, 10:56 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes the deziner does not have ultimate control of the styling as with
>>> flash, but then a potential customer doesn't have to be driving away
>>> because of some poor design decisions made by the said deziner!
>> And as time goes on, if that seems to be a problem with this site,
>> and they start losing money because of the designer, they will either
>> have to change or go out of business. I seriously doubt either will
>> happen.
>
> "This site" being http://www.mortgagenews2.com, for the benefit of
> anyone jumping into the thread at this point.
>
> Anyway, let's see how popular it is using some common freely-available
> metrics:
>
> Google Pagerank: 0
> Compete Rank: no data
> Alexa Rank: 1,697,203
> Netcraft ranking: 5,098,230
>
> Those figures are crap. A personal website might be that low; any
> commercial site getting that little traffic is virtually dead.
> However, that may not matter much if the income stream is good.
>
> To see what they're charging for advertising, I registered with the
> site. That was a bit of a problem in itself: despite the fact that I
> have a UK keyboard their interface is mapping the keypresses directly
> to a US key map and hence when I typed certain characters on my
> keyboard something different showed up on the screen.
That's kinda weird... Flash doesn't contain any language stuff. I think
your machine is buggered, or they really have done something funky
inside that SWF (it's not default behavior).
I agree with the rest of your comments though, but it's not the way
ranking works. It's a combination of inbound links + content. Get enough
inbound links, make sure the content is published as an alternative
stream (RSS, or an alternative metatag), or provide a text version of
the content on the side. Remember earlier I was talking about Flash just
being one UI of many applicable to site - well these guys got that wrong
in this case.
> Incidentally, if you click on any of the news stories on the front
> page of that site, what happens is that it opens another website
> framed within its own Flash framework. That's usually prohibited by
> most website Ts&Cs, and has been held to be a breach of copyright in
> previous lawsuits. I wonder if the site's operators have considered
> that? Maybe that's why they're happy with an inaccessible design and
> low visitor numbers - trying to sneak below the radar of the sites
> they're ripping off.
Grey area, but I do sort of agree. It's pretty bad practice -- and
wouldn't work in any of MY sites... I have breakout code in all my sites
to prevent anything we work on being re-framed by a 3rd party.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 8, 4:25 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> So are you saying it is NOT faster to develop in HTML/CSS/PHP? Or are
>>>> you just blowing hot air?
>>> I am saying since he is not a flash developer his statement is
>>> irrelevant. Answer this, who can run a 5K faster? You or me?
>> No, it's not irrelevant. And you didn't answer my question. So, from
>> the hot air you're blowing, my only assumption is he is correct.
>
> Of course it's irrelevant. He has no clue how to create a Flash so
> how could he possibly be able to compare the time to create a site
> using both methods?
>
> It is exactly the same as answering my question who runs a 5K faster,
> you or me. You can not answer that because you have no idea how fast
> I can run.
>
>>> I never said it was not a lousy application for Flash. (I do think it
>>> looks nice though)
>> CSS/HTML can look nice, also.
>
> So what. Again, irrelevant. "Is that Blond pretty? Redheads can be
> pretty too...
>
>
C'mon guys, keep this light :) This is an interesting discussion so
far. Yes of course CSS+HTML sites can look pretty... so long as you
stick with the page metaphor. It rapidly gets complicated if you try to
do anything a little different. Which is also fine; that's where Flash
sits perfectly.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
In article
<1191834887.217066.321050@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury
> On Oct 7, 4:28 pm, SpaceGirl
> > We live in a multimedia world. The WWW is changing every day, and we're
> > moving further away from the flat page metaphor for describing
> > information. Flash is just one technology that enables this.
> >
> > Web sites are about communicating. There is no one "official" way to do
> > this. Something delivered via the WWW can be in whatever form works best
> > for your audience. I wouldn't, for example, dream of advocating Flash to
> > replace Google.com - it's perfectly possible (for the most) to do it,
> > but it's the wrong medium / wrong tool for the job.
>
> Will you marry me?
And have your babies, grow old(er) together, sort though the 4x6
prints of life... aw shucks, I am such a sucker for a love
story...
Look, I don't want to rain on your parade but be prepared for
your kids to *choose* dialup, block all but text, be sighted but
*still* go for a voice reader in an act of rebellion...
--
dorayme
Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:48:09 GMT
> Andy Dingley scribed:
>
>>> The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
>>> web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
>> Example please.
>>
>> Followed by a compulsory education program for the multitude of Flash
>> coders who don't appreciate this.
>>
>>
>> If Flash is so wonderful and so easy to produce, wwhy is so much of it
>> so bad?
>
> Probably because it's _not_ that easy to produce and only argumentally
> possible in the first place. In one of his more lucid moments, Onideus
> sent me to some url (probably Adobe) which had stuff on how to make Flash
> "entities". I got dizzy just looking at it. Sure, maybe if I were a kid
> just starting out, I might "jump into the fray" so to speak, but it isn't
> simple by any means. Furthermore, it's still proprietary no matter how you
> sugar-coat it.
>
Proprietary is not always bad though. Look at the mess of the browser
market - not ONE browser meets the specifications the browser
manufactures agreed. Even worse than that, each implements most of the
standards slightly differently. Flash works the same everywhere, on
almost all platforms. If only Open software could even come close to
that. This is the problem though: There are a lot of very smart geeks in
the world and they all have their own arrogant belief that their way is
best, without actually thinking about Users. This is another reason why
so much OS software is horrible to look at. Created by programmers, who
can only think like programmers.
Average folks aren't programmers - or designers for that matter.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Adrienne Boswell wrote:
> You know me (sort of), and I recently had to do this when I was visiting
> friends in Castaic (and had to wipe out their computer). I was
> attempting to get the train schedule - I could get it, but it was very
> hard to read (the schedule is just badly done, no one but the folks at
> Metrolink seem to understand it). I use the Internet on my phone to get
> phone numbers instead of calling 411 and getting charged some ridiculous
> amount. It's not something that I would want to do all the time.
>
>
> On a brighter note - the boss called me (whilst on vacation) and
> announced that everyone was going to be surfing on their phone, and so I
> had to do whatever I could to get the site ready for phones. I called
> her back in a few minutes and told her it already was. Then I told her
> this was one of the reasons I was such a B---H about valid, semantic
> code, and NOT opening off site links in new windows. I said "Wha da ya
> gonna do, open up a new PHONE?" Smile. Now, I just have to get her
> weaned off IE6.
LOL cute.
Well my phone has tabbed browsing, and I use it quite a lot when out and
about (often to much hassle to get out my laptop).
In a few weeks my nice iPhone comes... this will probably dramatically
increase the amount of time I spend surfing on the go. It has unlimited
bandwidth and no data charges, unlike my current phone.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
dorayme wrote:
> Openwave® Phone Simulator 7.0, Version 7.0.107, is a
> Windows-based application. And, for my Mac, thar's the rub. But I
> suppose I could look to installing it on a Win box I have. Thanks
> for this. I have it bookmarked.
Adobe Creative Suite 3... all the apps in that (PhotoShop etc) now have
a Phone emulator built in, so you can design UIs in Ilustrator, Flash or
PhotoShop that will work on whatever handsets you choose. There are
1000s in the library that ships with the suite. The applet that ships
with it is called Adobe Device Central.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>
>> Certainly *plenty* of people are getting e-mail by phone. That *is*
>> the Internet, you know. When you say "browse the Internet", you're
>> really referring specifically to the Web.
>>
>
> Text messaging is not email. A lot of people I know use their phone for
> text messaging. No one uses it for email. Those who need a mobile
> email device (like my wife) have a blackberry.
SMS (text messages) are sent via IP these days. That's the Internet.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-10-06, Jerry Stuckle
>>> Ben C wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> As more people start to browse the web on phones (for which it has to
>>>> become a bit cheaper, but it will) designers will start testing their
>>>> sites more on phone browsers and it will all start to work better.
>>>>
>>>> There is also the argument that in Europe people like to talk to their
>>>> friends on their phones, not play games, watch cartoons, or browse the
>>>> web. But this argument now falls down as people have started using the
>>>> web mainly to talk to their (so-called) friends anyway.
>>> Sure, the same is true over here.
>>
>> Wherever over there is... It's in Japan that some of that gimmicky stuff
>> on phones actually caught on.
>>
>
> The U.S.
>
>>> But web access from a cell phone is slow. But instant messaging is
>>> not using the web. And it has nothing to do with the internet.
>>
>> I was thinking of things like FaceBook, not instant messaging. Part of
>> what "Web 2.0" consists of is porting good old internet things, like
>> email, instant messaging and discussion groups, to the web.
>
> Which haven't caught on at all. No one I know accesses facebook, etc.
> from a cell phone. Neither do they do any of the rest.
>
> Those who need that access have blackberrys and wireless pda's. Some
> even have wireless cards for their laptops. But no one I know is
> accessing the web from their cell phones - at least not with any
> regularity.
>
-yet-. Now that large screen format phones, such as the iPhone are
around, with unlimited data contracts by default + free wifi, we're
going to see an explosion in mobile browsing I think. Everyone is
rushing to copy the iPhone feature for feature. There are 5 or 6 similar
"web" phones out this Christmas, and most networks (in Europe anyway)
are bundling unrestricted web access & unlimited data contracts with
these phones. This is a HUGE market change. Until now, very few networks
offered uncapped data rates unless you were on a business contract.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Neredbojias wrote:
> Excuse me for being a bit unknowing since I don't have a cell phone, don't
> plan to get one, and never have used one for the Net, but despite how the
> site renders, isn't it just a little hard to operate said phone in said
> mode with all them little buttons and such? The few times I've used
> someone's phone for a call, I've experienced problems with the buttons
> reacting to pushing, just hitting the right button you want, and other
> micro-anomolia like that.
Many phones don't have ANY buttons these days, so the "size" is
irrelevant. It's part of the phones OS and often can be adjusted. The
buttons are virtual, drawn on the screen.
But then I'm a girl, and I have small hands, so I really never had
problems typing on my regular Sony phone either (okay, I'll admit it...
I have 2 cellphones and about to get a 3rd).
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
In article
<1191861203.575604.40330@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury
> On Oct 8, 10:09 am, Jerry Stuckle
> > So are you saying it is NOT faster to develop in HTML/CSS/PHP? Or are
> > you just blowing hot air?
>
> I am saying since he is not a flash developer his statement is
> irrelevant. Answer this, who can run a 5K faster? You or me?
>
> > The fact is - whether you like it or not - this is a lousy application
> > for flash. And every one of those reasons you dismiss so handily show
> > how closed minded you really are.
>
> I never said it was not a lousy application for Flash. (I do think it
> looks nice though)
>
> > I'm not saying flash isn't worthwhile. But unlike you, I don't think
> > it's applicable to everything - and certainly not here.
>
> Please find where I have EVER said Flash is good for everything. I
> have repeated time and time again (Ask dorayme) that you should only
> use it when it is appropriate.
I can confirm this. But this motherhood statement is just one of
a whole nest of them that Travis gets off the shelf for these
discussions. Here is another: that if using it makes money, that
is ok. And another: if using it does not make money, the free
market will come riding to the rescue of us all and kill the sob
thing dead and it will be replaced by competitors...
It is terrible, I have a whole hard disk full of Travis's
collection (not his fault, I just hoard and collect stuff...)
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> And have your babies, grow old(er) together, sort though the 4x6
> prints of life... aw shucks, I am such a sucker for a love
> story...
>
> Look, I don't want to rain on your parade but be prepared for
> your kids to *choose* dialup, block all but text, be sighted but
> *still* go for a voice reader in an act of rebellion...
The chances are slim though... unless you happen to live out in the sticks.
There will always be some people who refuse to move with technology, and
it can happen with a snap of a finger. Suddenly left behind, not
understanding what folks are talking about, sliding out of society :)
Mehehe doomed I say, doomed!!!
Just kidding :P
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
In article <5mvb1mFfgpsqU2@mid.individual.net>,
SpaceGirl
> Travis Newbury wrote:
>
> > Will you marry me?
>
>
> I prefer girls, but thanks for the offer ;)
Travis, don't give up. First go see 'Normal' Tom Wilkinson,
Jessica Lange...
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article <5mvb1mFfgpsqU2@mid.individual.net>,
> SpaceGirl
>
>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>>
>>> Will you marry me?
>>
>> I prefer girls, but thanks for the offer ;)
>
> Travis, don't give up. First go see 'Normal' Tom Wilkinson,
> Jessica Lange...
>
LOL
Now now, Dorayme, put the scissors down sweetie...
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Mark Goodge wrote:
> "This site" being http://www.mortgagenews2.com, for the benefit of
> anyone jumping into the thread at this point.
> that little hurdle, I managed to register and log in. In order to
> check prices, I had to actually create an advertising campaign -
> there's no price list.
Now there's a killer of a bad idea IMO. Personally I despise sites where
your must register just to get basic information, list rate and prices.
Slam the font door and lock...great business practice!
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
In article <5mvl6uFfhakkU2@mid.individual.net>,
SpaceGirl
> dorayme wrote:
>
> > Openwave® Phone Simulator 7.0, Version 7.0.107, is a
> > Windows-based application. And, for my Mac, thar's the rub. But I
> > suppose I could look to installing it on a Win box I have. Thanks
> > for this. I have it bookmarked.
>
> Adobe Creative Suite 3... all the apps in that (PhotoShop etc) now have
> a Phone emulator built in, so you can design UIs in Ilustrator, Flash or
> PhotoShop that will work on whatever handsets you choose. There are
> 1000s in the library that ships with the suite. The applet that ships
> with it is called Adobe Device Central.
Something to look forward to then... have not got to latest
versions...
--
dorayme
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 8, 4:15 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
>>>> What (in your opinion) does flash do best?
>> Animated graphics. Interactive maps and sideshows. Entertainment
>> fritterware. Elements with a page...
>
> To that list I add:
> Any web video
> Any simulation
> Any image/audio/video synchronization
> Any time you need the application screen to be exactly the same on
> every system (GREAT for intranet web applications such as the LMS I
> built for Siemens)
> Banner ads
> Anything that needs to be interactive (Filling in a form is not what I
> classify as this type of interactive)
> and of course, games and simple eye-candy
>
> What it's not good for:
> Complete websites
> text based information site (like, but not limited to sites like
> google)
> menus/navigation
>
>
We are in agreement there Travis.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Travis Newbury wrote:
>> What it's not good for:
>> Complete websites
>> text based information site (like, but not limited to sites like
>> google)
>> menus/navigation
>
> I disagree, and this is exactly what I was arguing. Flash COULD be used
> for ANY of those... it depends on context - meaning the audience, the
> content etc...
>
And that's where I strongly disagree. That's when a website gets really
frustrating really fast.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>>
>> And if they did it in plain css/html, they would have everything they
>> do now, but wouldn't have to add it.
>>
>
> Nah, that's just dumb. If they designed the web site without CSS, it'd
> be the same. They'd have to add it.
>
> Just as you can apply CSS to HTML documents, you can apply CSS documents
> to Flash content.
>
To get some insight I traversed your sig links.
> x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
>
> http://www.northleithmill.com
>
> -.-
>
> Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Not sure are they are solely just splash pages, or do they employ some
mysterious navigational method that eludes me?
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>
>> No, they I'm saying they have to add accessibility for the visually
>> impaired to this site. But if they use CSS/HTML, the accessibility is
>> there.
>
> No it's not, not without engineering your site in a particular way. Same
> goes for a Flash site.
>
Not true. Absolutely plain HTML markup with no CSS or special
"engineering" is accessible by default! A screen reader can read it, a
text-only browser can access it, a cell phone can display it, anyone can
adjust the font-size to suit both resolution and viewport, and a robot
can index it.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Travis Newbury wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 4:15 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
>>>>> What (in your opinion) does flash do best?
>>> Animated graphics. Interactive maps and sideshows. Entertainment
>>> fritterware. Elements with a page...
>>
>> To that list I add:
>> Any web video
>> Any simulation
>> Any image/audio/video synchronization
>> Any time you need the application screen to be exactly the same on
>> every system (GREAT for intranet web applications such as the LMS I
>> built for Siemens)
>> Banner ads
>> Anything that needs to be interactive (Filling in a form is not what I
>> classify as this type of interactive)
>> and of course, games and simple eye-candy
>>
>> What it's not good for:
>> Complete websites
>> text based information site (like, but not limited to sites like
>> google)
>> menus/navigation
>
> I disagree, and this is exactly what I was arguing. Flash COULD be used
> for ANY of those... it depends on context - meaning the audience, the
> content etc...
>
Sure, and you can use a sledge hammer to drive a screw. But that
doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 8, 4:25 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> So are you saying it is NOT faster to develop in HTML/CSS/PHP? Or are
>>>> you just blowing hot air?
>>> I am saying since he is not a flash developer his statement is
>>> irrelevant. Answer this, who can run a 5K faster? You or me?
>> No, it's not irrelevant. And you didn't answer my question. So, from
>> the hot air you're blowing, my only assumption is he is correct.
>
> Of course it's irrelevant. He has no clue how to create a Flash so
> how could he possibly be able to compare the time to create a site
> using both methods?
>
Bullshit. Tell me he's wrong. And prove it.
Anyone can have an opinion about anything. Including him. You evade
the question and try to call it irrelevant. So the only assumption
anyone can make is that it is true.
> It is exactly the same as answering my question who runs a 5K faster,
> you or me. You can not answer that because you have no idea how fast
> I can run.
>
Nope, and quite frankly, I don't care. And it has nothing to do with
the discussion at hand.
>>> I never said it was not a lousy application for Flash. (I do think it
>>> looks nice though)
>> CSS/HTML can look nice, also.
>
> So what. Again, irrelevant. "Is that Blond pretty? Redheads can be
> pretty too...
>
>
A typical troll - always trying to change the subject when you don't
have a good response.
So again, I'm right.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>>
>>> Certainly *plenty* of people are getting e-mail by phone. That *is*
>>> the Internet, you know. When you say "browse the Internet", you're
>>> really referring specifically to the Web.
>>>
>>
>> Text messaging is not email. A lot of people I know use their phone
>> for text messaging. No one uses it for email. Those who need a
>> mobile email device (like my wife) have a blackberry.
>
> SMS (text messages) are sent via IP these days. That's the Internet.
>
While you can send an SMS message from the internet to a phone, that's
an interface from the internet to the phones. Most text messaging is
directly between two phones and never touches the internet. It follows
a similar path that regular phone calls do - and those don't go over the
internet.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:18:58
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> Over here in the good ol' USA, our vegetable competitions are
>> generally a bit different. Last year's national contest was won by a
>> grammatically- challenged Australian with a logic-recognition
>> problem. (Not mentioning any names.)
>
> Are you meaning to deny outright that I grew 120 lbs of wonderful
> tomatoes in a Melbourne backyard in the 1960s?
Nope, I would never deny your tomatoes.
> My sence of gramer
> and ligoc tells me you are so denying this. Now, where is that
> Officer White, i have new harsh instructions for him...
It might be wise to base your conclusions on other criteria. :)
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:11:15
GMT SpaceGirl scribed:
>>> If Flash is so wonderful and so easy to produce, wwhy is so much of
>>> it so bad?
>>
>> Probably because it's _not_ that easy to produce and only
>> argumentally possible in the first place. In one of his more lucid
>> moments, Onideus sent me to some url (probably Adobe) which had stuff
>> on how to make Flash "entities". I got dizzy just looking at it.
>> Sure, maybe if I were a kid just starting out, I might "jump into the
>> fray" so to speak, but it isn't simple by any means. Furthermore,
>> it's still proprietary no matter how you sugar-coat it.
>>
>
> Proprietary is not always bad though. Look at the mess of the browser
> market - not ONE browser meets the specifications the browser
> manufactures agreed. Even worse than that, each implements most of the
> standards slightly differently. Flash works the same everywhere, on
> almost all platforms. If only Open software could even come close to
> that. This is the problem though: There are a lot of very smart geeks
> in the world and they all have their own arrogant belief that their
> way is best, without actually thinking about Users. This is another
> reason why so much OS software is horrible to look at. Created by
> programmers, who can only think like programmers.
>
> Average folks aren't programmers - or designers for that matter.
Yep, browsers do pretty much suck at html/css interpolation - all of
them. My personal ranking (for everything), best-to-worst, is Mozilla,
Ie6, and Opera. Ie7 is waaaaay down on the list. But none of them are
anywhere near "right as rain".
Also, I think I'm getting to like Flash/Flex more. In the above "Flash
Wars", I saw some pretty darn good sites. Even if they weren't all they
should be, they could have been with the right touch.
I'll have to just hitch up mah trousers and learn the damn stuff before
technology overtakes me - again. Despite its nostaglic exigency,
html/css does seem very much like a dead end in the future - especially
with the browser-barons' lack of concordance.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:26:39
GMT SpaceGirl scribed:
>> Excuse me for being a bit unknowing since I don't have a cell phone,
>> don't plan to get one, and never have used one for the Net, but
>> despite how the site renders, isn't it just a little hard to operate
>> said phone in said mode with all them little buttons and such? The
>> few times I've used someone's phone for a call, I've experienced
>> problems with the buttons reacting to pushing, just hitting the right
>> button you want, and other micro-anomolia like that.
>
>
> Many phones don't have ANY buttons these days, so the "size" is
> irrelevant. It's part of the phones OS and often can be adjusted. The
> buttons are virtual, drawn on the screen.
>
> But then I'm a girl, and I have small hands, so I really never had
> problems typing on my regular Sony phone either (okay, I'll admit
> it... I have 2 cellphones and about to get a 3rd).
Isn't the iphone kinda expensive, not to mention the contract? And aren't
there "extras" as well? The cheapest service contract I've seen so far is
$60.00/mo. (Or are you getting a company phone?)
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 00:53:53
GMT William Gill scribed:
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
>>
>> ... I certainly _don't_
>> believe that the solution lies with the judges because judges _are_
>> lawyers and will generally be swayed by the associated inequitable
>> mindset intrinsically related to their "calling".
>>
>
> Judges are also human, and thus potentially swayed by many things.
> Checks and balances should be central to any solution.
Yep.
>> ... I simply cannot accept
>> the old "It's not perfect but it works" tenet.
>>
>
> ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good
> men to do nothing.Â’
> Edmund Burke
Yep again.
>> Here's one tenet I do believe in: if something's broke, fix it.
>>
>
> And don't expect ANY fix to be a permanent solution.
No, things do change. Flexibility is important, and that lacking is
really a good part of what's wrong with the legal community right now.
> The system in the
> U.S. is not good because 231 years ago several wise men found the
> "perfect system." It is good because they had the wisdom to build a
> system with methods for implementing significant change, without the
> bloodshed usually inherent to such change.
Well, I agree in principle, but not all those changes have been for the
better. I think I can sum-up my philosophy by reciting that Freedon
isn't free; it takes constant "watch-dogging" and safeguarding if you
want you and your children to have the kind of freedoms we really desire.
A "head-in-the-sand" attitude will ultimately enslave you. No matter who
gets screwed, _you_ lose. Of course, all this takes effort, and there's
the rub. When you have it good, you're not nearly as motivated as some
jihad-chanting asshole who thinks _he_ has the solution to the world's
problems as well.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article
Jerry Stuckle
> A typical troll - always trying to change the subject when you don't
> have a good response.
You can profile trolls?
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Jerry Stuckle
>
>> A typical troll - always trying to change the subject when you don't
>> have a good response.
>
> You can profile trolls?
>
There are some things common to almost all trolls - like trying to
change the subject when you pin them down.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
In article
Jerry Stuckle
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article
> > Jerry Stuckle
> >
> >> A typical troll - always trying to change the subject when you don't
> >> have a good response.
> >
> > You can profile trolls?
> >
>
> There are some things common to almost all trolls - like trying to
> change the subject when you pin them down.
You claim that it is a necessary (as distinct from a sufficient
condition)? OK. Let's go along with this for a mo. It still does
not mean Travis is a troll. There needs to be other conditions
too. I am sensitive to any one trying to beat Travis up. I am
possessive about Republicans. If there is a beating to be done of
them, I am badly wanting the job...
Anyway, I think you are quite wrong in a fundamental sense. You
have an unsophisticated view of trolling. My experience is that
the prima facie non-troll folk do the subject changing after the
initial (admittedly trollish) change in the thread. Let me
perfectly blunt: in a troll's sub-branch, I have detected as much
subject changing initiatives among the non trolls as among the
trolls.
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Jerry Stuckle
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article
>>> Jerry Stuckle
>>>
>>>> A typical troll - always trying to change the subject when you don't
>>>> have a good response.
>>> You can profile trolls?
>>>
>> There are some things common to almost all trolls - like trying to
>> change the subject when you pin them down.
>
> You claim that it is a necessary (as distinct from a sufficient
> condition)? OK. Let's go along with this for a mo. It still does
> not mean Travis is a troll. There needs to be other conditions
> too. I am sensitive to any one trying to beat Travis up. I am
> possessive about Republicans. If there is a beating to be done of
> them, I am badly wanting the job...
>
That's fine. But if he had an argument, he wouldn't keep trying to
claim someone else's opinion was irrelevant and try to change the subject.
> Anyway, I think you are quite wrong in a fundamental sense. You
> have an unsophisticated view of trolling. My experience is that
> the prima facie non-troll folk do the subject changing after the
> initial (admittedly trollish) change in the thread. Let me
> perfectly blunt: in a troll's sub-branch, I have detected as much
> subject changing initiatives among the non trolls as among the
> trolls.
>
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I have challenged him repeatedly to
come up with some facts. He refuses and tries to change the subject.
That is troll behavior. Plain and simple.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
In article
Jerry Stuckle
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article
> > Jerry Stuckle
> >
> >> dorayme wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> Jerry Stuckle
> >>>
> >>>> A typical troll - always trying to change the subject when you don't
> >>>> have a good response.
> >>> You can profile trolls?
> >>>
> >> There are some things common to almost all trolls - like trying to
> >> change the subject when you pin them down.
> >
> > You claim that it is a necessary (as distinct from a sufficient
> > condition)? OK. Let's go along with this for a mo. It still does
> > not mean Travis is a troll. There needs to be other conditions
> > too. I am sensitive to any one trying to beat Travis up. I am
> > possessive about Republicans. If there is a beating to be done of
> > them, I am badly wanting the job...
> >
>
> That's fine. But if he had an argument, he wouldn't keep trying to
> claim someone else's opinion was irrelevant and try to change the subject.
>
> > Anyway, I think you are quite wrong in a fundamental sense. You
> > have an unsophisticated view of trolling. My experience is that
> > the prima facie non-troll folk do the subject changing after the
> > initial (admittedly trollish) change in the thread. Let me
> > perfectly blunt: in a troll's sub-branch, I have detected as much
> > subject changing initiatives among the non trolls as among the
> > trolls.
> >
>
> Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I have challenged him ...
Ah! Changing the subject!
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Jerry Stuckle
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article
>>> Jerry Stuckle
>>>
>>>> dorayme wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>
>>>>>> A typical troll - always trying to change the subject when you don't
>>>>>> have a good response.
>>>>> You can profile trolls?
>>>>>
>>>> There are some things common to almost all trolls - like trying to
>>>> change the subject when you pin them down.
>>> You claim that it is a necessary (as distinct from a sufficient
>>> condition)? OK. Let's go along with this for a mo. It still does
>>> not mean Travis is a troll. There needs to be other conditions
>>> too. I am sensitive to any one trying to beat Travis up. I am
>>> possessive about Republicans. If there is a beating to be done of
>>> them, I am badly wanting the job...
>>>
>> That's fine. But if he had an argument, he wouldn't keep trying to
>> claim someone else's opinion was irrelevant and try to change the subject.
>>
>>> Anyway, I think you are quite wrong in a fundamental sense. You
>>> have an unsophisticated view of trolling. My experience is that
>>> the prima facie non-troll folk do the subject changing after the
>>> initial (admittedly trollish) change in the thread. Let me
>>> perfectly blunt: in a troll's sub-branch, I have detected as much
>>> subject changing initiatives among the non trolls as among the
>>> trolls.
>>>
>> Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I have challenged him ...
>
>
> Ah! Changing the subject!
>
Nope. Brining it back to the original subject, troll.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
In article
Jerry Stuckle
> >> Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I have challenged him ...
> >
> >
> > Ah! Changing the subject!
> >
>
> Nope. Brining it back to the original subject, troll.
So, you are saying, it is a non-troll thing to do to go back to
an earlier subject when a person does not want to pursue a
particular side thread of a thread but that one who does want to
pursue a side thread and stay on it is a troll? Methinks this
troll attribution is a murky quantity
--
dorayme
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:02:11 +0100, SpaceGirl put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>> "This site" being http://www.mortgagenews2.com, for the benefit of
>> anyone jumping into the thread at this point.
>>
>> Anyway, let's see how popular it is using some common freely-available
>> metrics:
>>
>> Google Pagerank: 0
>> Compete Rank: no data
>> Alexa Rank: 1,697,203
>> Netcraft ranking: 5,098,230
>>
>> Those figures are crap. A personal website might be that low; any
>> commercial site getting that little traffic is virtually dead.
>> However, that may not matter much if the income stream is good.
>>
>> To see what they're charging for advertising, I registered with the
>> site. That was a bit of a problem in itself: despite the fact that I
>> have a UK keyboard their interface is mapping the keypresses directly
>> to a US key map and hence when I typed certain characters on my
>> keyboard something different showed up on the screen.
>
>That's kinda weird... Flash doesn't contain any language stuff. I think
>your machine is buggered, or they really have done something funky
>inside that SWF (it's not default behavior).
It's not a problem this end. I tried it on more than one machine -
same error each time.
>I agree with the rest of your comments though, but it's not the way
>ranking works. It's a combination of inbound links + content. Get enough
>inbound links, make sure the content is published as an alternative
>stream (RSS, or an alternative metatag), or provide a text version of
>the content on the side. Remember earlier I was talking about Flash just
>being one UI of many applicable to site - well these guys got that wrong
>in this case.
Pagerank is also a measure of popularity. A Flash-only site can get
good Pagerank if enough people think it's worth linking to; what this
instance demonstrates is that no-one thinks it is.
>> Incidentally, if you click on any of the news stories on the front
>> page of that site, what happens is that it opens another website
>> framed within its own Flash framework. That's usually prohibited by
>> most website Ts&Cs, and has been held to be a breach of copyright in
>> previous lawsuits. I wonder if the site's operators have considered
>> that? Maybe that's why they're happy with an inaccessible design and
>> low visitor numbers - trying to sneak below the radar of the sites
>> they're ripping off.
>
>Grey area, but I do sort of agree. It's pretty bad practice -- and
>wouldn't work in any of MY sites... I have breakout code in all my sites
>to prevent anything we work on being re-framed by a 3rd party.
In all the cases where this has gone to court, the framer has lost.
That makes it a pretty black shade of grey, to me.
Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Wherever life may take me, I know that it won't break me"
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:24:10 +0100, SpaceGirl put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>
>-yet-. Now that large screen format phones, such as the iPhone are
>around, with unlimited data contracts by default + free wifi, we're
>going to see an explosion in mobile browsing I think. Everyone is
>rushing to copy the iPhone feature for feature. There are 5 or 6 similar
>"web" phones out this Christmas, and most networks (in Europe anyway)
>are bundling unrestricted web access & unlimited data contracts with
>these phones. This is a HUGE market change. Until now, very few networks
> offered uncapped data rates unless you were on a business contract.
There's no such thing as "unlimited data". Contracts that offer it are
either subject to a "Fair Use Policy" (which simply means that there
is a limit, but they won't tell you what it is) or they're on
contended bandwidth (which means there is a limit, but they don't know
what it is either).
In my experience, "unlimited" tariffs are more common on consumer
contracts, partly because consumers are less likely to be tech-savvy
enough to realise that "unlimited" doesn't mean there aren't any
limits and partly because consumers are less likely to push the device
to its limits anyway. Business users, on the other hand, tend to want
to know exactly what their limits are, and to have an SLA that
guarantees they'll be able to use everything up to the limit.
Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Let's see colours that have never been seen"
Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:26:39
> GMT SpaceGirl scribed:
>
>>> Excuse me for being a bit unknowing since I don't have a cell phone,
>>> don't plan to get one, and never have used one for the Net, but
>>> despite how the site renders, isn't it just a little hard to operate
>>> said phone in said mode with all them little buttons and such? The
>>> few times I've used someone's phone for a call, I've experienced
>>> problems with the buttons reacting to pushing, just hitting the right
>>> button you want, and other micro-anomolia like that.
>>
>> Many phones don't have ANY buttons these days, so the "size" is
>> irrelevant. It's part of the phones OS and often can be adjusted. The
>> buttons are virtual, drawn on the screen.
>>
>> But then I'm a girl, and I have small hands, so I really never had
>> problems typing on my regular Sony phone either (okay, I'll admit
>> it... I have 2 cellphones and about to get a 3rd).
>
> Isn't the iphone kinda expensive, not to mention the contract? And aren't
> there "extras" as well? The cheapest service contract I've seen so far is
> $60.00/mo. (Or are you getting a company phone?)
>
£35 per month ($70 US), but that includes all data, 200 minutes, 200
texts, plus £270 ($540) for the phone. There are no other charges on 18
month contract. So yeah, very expensive, but worth it IMO!
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>
>>> What it's not good for:
>>> Complete websites
>>> text based information site (like, but not limited to sites like
>>> google)
>>> menus/navigation
>>
>> I disagree, and this is exactly what I was arguing. Flash COULD be
>> used for ANY of those... it depends on context - meaning the audience,
>> the
>> content etc...
>>
>
> And that's where I strongly disagree. That's when a website gets really
> frustrating really fast.
>
Only because you don't understand the technology though. Flash doesn't
need to be fancy. Sometimes it can offer something small and more
efficient than HTML+CSS. While generally I'd agree that there are some
things you shouldn't really try have Flash do, completely writing it off
is terribly short sighted unless you are a secret Flash genius and know
without a doubt "it won't work". Flash is -so- powerful these days, you
can create practically anything in it (you could, for example, write
your own web browser INSIDE Flash if you wanted); I know as a Flash
person I'm not smart enough to say exactly where Flash's boundaries lay.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No, they I'm saying they have to add accessibility for the visually
>>> impaired to this site. But if they use CSS/HTML, the accessibility
>>> is there.
>>
>> No it's not, not without engineering your site in a particular way.
>> Same goes for a Flash site.
>>
>
> Not true. Absolutely plain HTML markup with no CSS or special
> "engineering" is accessible by default! A screen reader can read it, a
> text-only browser can access it, a cell phone can display it, anyone can
> adjust the font-size to suit both resolution and viewport, and a robot
> can index it.
>
Depends how you define accessible, I think. Accessibility goes quite a
way beyond "does it render on this platform" IM(A?)O.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> To get some insight I traversed your sig links.
> Not sure are they are solely just splash pages, or do they employ some
> mysterious navigational method that eludes me?
>
LOL, um well, NLM is currently empty and BSJ won't launch til the new
year :(
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
On Oct 8, 4:54 pm, SpaceGirl
> Travis Newbury wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 4:15 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> >>>> What (in your opinion) does flash do best?
> >> Animated graphics. Interactive maps and sideshows. Entertainment
> >> fritterware. Elements with a page...
>
> > To that list I add:
> > Any web video
> > Any simulation
> > Any image/audio/video synchronization
> > Any time you need the application screen to be exactly the same on
> > every system (GREAT for intranet web applications such as the LMS I
> > built for Siemens)
> > Banner ads
> > Anything that needs to be interactive (Filling in a form is not what I
> > classify as this type of interactive)
> > and of course, games and simple eye-candy
>
> > What it's not good for:
> > Complete websites
> > text based information site (like, but not limited to sites like
> > google)
> > menus/navigation
>
> I disagree, and this is exactly what I was arguing. Flash COULD be used
> for ANY of those... it depends on context - meaning the audience, the
> content etc...
>
> --
>
> x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
>
> http://www.northleithmill.com
>
> -.-
>
> Kammy has a new home:http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
On Oct 8, 4:54 pm, SpaceGirl
> >>>> What (in your opinion) does flash do best?
> >> Animated graphics. Interactive maps and sideshows. Entertainment
> >> fritterware. Elements with a page...
> > To that list I add:
> > Any web video
> > Any simulation
> > Any image/audio/video synchronization
> > Any time you need the application screen to be exactly the same on
> > every system (GREAT for intranet web applications such as the LMS I
> > built for Siemens)
> > Banner ads
> > Anything that needs to be interactive (Filling in a form is not what I
> > classify as this type of interactive)
> > and of course, games and simple eye-candy
> > What it's not good for:
> > Complete websites
> > text based information site (like, but not limited to sites like
> > google)
> > menus/navigation
> I disagree, and this is exactly what I was arguing. Flash COULD be used
> for ANY of those... it depends on context - meaning the audience, the
> content etc...
Unfortunately you are disagreeing with something that was never said.
(you had to have misread what I typed)
I stated the kinds of things Flash does BEST (Flashes strong points).
No where did I say that these were the things one HAD to do in
flash.
On Oct 8, 7:18 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> Not true. Absolutely plain HTML markup with no CSS or special
> "engineering" is accessible by default!
Even if they use frames?
On Oct 8, 7:57 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> > Of course it's irrelevant. He has no clue how to create a Flash so
> > how could he possibly be able to compare the time to create a site
> > using both methods?
> Bullshit. Tell me he's wrong. And prove it.
Ok, I will tell you and prove it too. But first I need your help.
Please tell me, how he can compare the speed of building a site with
HTML/CSS against building the same site in flash, when he has no clue
how to build it in flash? The answer is he can't. Just like you can
not tell me who can run a 5K faster. You may have an OPINION about
who can run it faster, but your OPINION is meaningless because you
haven a clue how fast I can run a 5K.
> You evade
> the question and try to call it irrelevant. So the only assumption
> anyone can make is that it is true.
Just what is the question I am evading?
> > It is exactly the same as answering my question who runs a 5K faster,
> > you or me. You can not answer that because you have no idea how fast
> > I can run.
> Nope, and quite frankly, I don't care. And it has nothing to do with
> the discussion at hand.
Are you really this lost?
> A typical troll - always trying to change the subject when you don't
> have a good response.
> So again, I'm right.
Of course you are...
On Oct 8, 10:08 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>> >> A typical troll - always trying to change the subject when you don't
> >> have a good response.
> > You can profile trolls?
> There are some things common to almost all trolls - like trying to
> change the subject when you pin them down.
Jerry, Please tell me how I changed the subject. Or better yet,
please aske me the qyuestion you say I am trying so hard to avoid.
On Oct 8, 11:01 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I have challenged him repeatedly to
> come up with some facts. He refuses and tries to change the subject.
> That is troll behavior. Plain and simple.
Plain and Simple, state the question I am trying to avoid.
On Oct 8, 5:26 pm, dorayme
> In article
> <1191861203.575604.40...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> It is terrible, I have a whole hard disk full of Travis's
> collection (not his fault, I just hoard and collect stuff...)
Cool. An entire hard disk of my philosophy. A few facts you are
wrong about, First I am not a republican. They are almost as bad as
democrats. Both want to give my hard earned money away, the
difference is who they want to give it to. I consider myself a
Republicratarian (kind of a mix of republican democrat and
libritarian.
On Oct 8, 2:25 pm, SpaceGirl
> Travis Newbury wrote:
> > Will you marry me?
> I prefer girls, but thanks for the offer ;)
So Do I! See another way we are alike...
On 2007-10-09, Neredbojias
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:11:15
> GMT SpaceGirl scribed:
[...]
>> Proprietary is not always bad though. Look at the mess of the browser
>> market - not ONE browser meets the specifications the browser
>> manufactures agreed. Even worse than that, each implements most of the
>> standards slightly differently. Flash works the same everywhere, on
>> almost all platforms. If only Open software could even come close to
>> that. This is the problem though: There are a lot of very smart geeks
>> in the world and they all have their own arrogant belief that their
>> way is best, without actually thinking about Users. This is another
>> reason why so much OS software is horrible to look at. Created by
>> programmers, who can only think like programmers.
>>
>> Average folks aren't programmers - or designers for that matter.
>
[...]
> Despite its nostaglic exigency, html/css does seem very much like a
> dead end in the future - especially with the browser-barons' lack of
> concordance.
No, this is nonsense, and SpaceGirl's interpretation of history is also
a bit suspect.
The reasons for the differences between browsers are not open standards,
but the fact that the situation is still recovering from a nasty period
of browser wars between makers of proprietary software.
It's got nothing to do with geeks not understanding Users either. The
W3C standards and specifications are a compromise between trying to
explain what browsers already do and steering them towards a common
direction. They are doing a good job.
There are two main reasons for differences between browsers now: some of
them just haven't done all the work yet to meet the specs; and the specs
are so complicated (mostly because of all the historical baggage) that
in places they aren't always that easy to follow. But this improves with
every new draft as things get pointed out and clarified.
I doubt anyone is arrogantly _deliberately_ not following the standards,
although I suspect Microsoft may be being deliberately a bit reluctant
about catching up.
On Oct 9, 7:18 pm, Travis Newbury
> On Oct 8, 7:57 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>
> > > Of course it's irrelevant. He has no clue how to create a Flash so
> > > how could he possibly be able to compare the time to create a site
> > > using both methods?
> > Bullshit. Tell me he's wrong. And prove it.
>
> Ok, I will tell you and prove it too. But first I need your help.
> Please tell me, how he can compare the speed of building a site with
> HTML/CSS against building the same site in flash, when he has no clue
> how to build it in flash? The answer is he can't. Just like you can
> not tell me who can run a 5K faster. You may have an OPINION about
> who can run it faster, but your OPINION is meaningless because you
> haven a clue how fast I can run a 5K.
>
> > You evade
> > the question and try to call it irrelevant. So the only assumption
> > anyone can make is that it is true.
>
> Just what is the question I am evading?
>
I have not much of an idea of what Jerry is talking about eather. But
speaking of questions, how exactly would you know what I can and can't
do? Considering that you don't even know me??????
While it may or may not be quicker to do it in Flash, it would cost a
lot less in legal fees to just do it in HTML, sure it gets rid of a
lot of things but if this Target case goes ahead those type of sites
will be screwed. Also considering the previous case law on web
accessibility it sets a pressident (spelling). It's been a few years
since I did legal studies.
> > > It is exactly the same as answering my question who runs a 5K faster,
> > > you or me. You can not answer that because you have no idea how fast
> > > I can run.
Well yes, but you can't really pass judgement on what I may or may not
know eather (although it's probably obvious to an extent from looking
at my site).
BTW, I think with the changes in web technologies my skills will
continue to change over time.
As an example of this a few years ago I did not even know what CSS or
HTML was!.
> > Nope, and quite frankly, I don't care. And it has nothing to do with
> > the discussion at hand.
>
> Are you really this lost?
>
> > A typical troll - always trying to change the subject when you don't
> > have a good response.
> > So again, I'm right.
>
> Of course you are...
Isn't everyone!.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:29:05 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:
>> It is terrible, I have a whole hard disk full of Travis's
>> collection (not his fault, I just hoard and collect stuff...)
>
> Cool. An entire hard disk of my philosophy. A few facts you are
> wrong about, First I am not a republican. They are almost as bad as
> democrats. Both want to give my hard earned money away, the
> difference is who they want to give it to. I consider myself a
> Republicratarian (kind of a mix of republican democrat and
> libritarian.
You ought to join the Whigs (-although their conventions are a little
hairy.)
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Jerry Stuckle
>
>>>> Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I have challenged him ...
>>>
>>> Ah! Changing the subject!
>>>
>> Nope. Brining it back to the original subject, troll.
>
> So, you are saying, it is a non-troll thing to do to go back to
> an earlier subject when a person does not want to pursue a
> particular side thread of a thread but that one who does want to
> pursue a side thread and stay on it is a troll? Methinks this
> troll attribution is a murky quantity
>
I'm saying that when trolls are pinned down, they try to change the
subject and otherwise deflect the conversation.
Trolls are also good at misquoting and taking out of context.
This describes you perfectly, troll.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 8, 11:01 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>> Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I have challenged him repeatedly to
>> come up with some facts. He refuses and tries to change the subject.
>> That is troll behavior. Plain and simple.
>
> Plain and Simple, state the question I am trying to avoid.
>
Read back through the messages. I have challenged you at least three
times. I'm not going to repeat myself again.
If you can't read, troll, then that's your problem.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 8, 7:57 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>>> Of course it's irrelevant. He has no clue how to create a Flash so
>>> how could he possibly be able to compare the time to create a site
>>> using both methods?
>> Bullshit. Tell me he's wrong. And prove it.
>
> Ok, I will tell you and prove it too. But first I need your help.
> Please tell me, how he can compare the speed of building a site with
> HTML/CSS against building the same site in flash, when he has no clue
> how to build it in flash? The answer is he can't. Just like you can
> not tell me who can run a 5K faster. You may have an OPINION about
> who can run it faster, but your OPINION is meaningless because you
> haven a clue how fast I can run a 5K.
>
And you tell me what that has to do with his opinion - or your refusal
to answer.
You're just a troll trying to deflect the question.
>> You evade
>> the question and try to call it irrelevant. So the only assumption
>> anyone can make is that it is true.
>
> Just what is the question I am evading?
>
>>> It is exactly the same as answering my question who runs a 5K faster,
>>> you or me. You can not answer that because you have no idea how fast
>>> I can run.
>> Nope, and quite frankly, I don't care. And it has nothing to do with
>> the discussion at hand.
>
> Are you really this lost?
>
>> A typical troll - always trying to change the subject when you don't
>> have a good response.
>> So again, I'm right.
>
> Of course you are...
>
Answer the question, troll.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Chaddy2222 wrote:
> On Oct 9, 7:18 pm, Travis Newbury
>> On Oct 8, 7:57 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>>
>>>> Of course it's irrelevant. He has no clue how to create a Flash so
>>>> how could he possibly be able to compare the time to create a site
>>>> using both methods?
>>> Bullshit. Tell me he's wrong. And prove it.
>> Ok, I will tell you and prove it too. But first I need your help.
>> Please tell me, how he can compare the speed of building a site with
>> HTML/CSS against building the same site in flash, when he has no clue
>> how to build it in flash? The answer is he can't. Just like you can
>> not tell me who can run a 5K faster. You may have an OPINION about
>> who can run it faster, but your OPINION is meaningless because you
>> haven a clue how fast I can run a 5K.
>>
>>> You evade
>>> the question and try to call it irrelevant. So the only assumption
>>> anyone can make is that it is true.
>> Just what is the question I am evading?
>>
> I have not much of an idea of what Jerry is talking about eather. But
> speaking of questions, how exactly would you know what I can and can't
> do? Considering that you don't even know me??????
Pretty easy, Chaddy. Travis claims your statement is irrelevant because
you don't know what he's talking about. But he refuses to refute it.
He's just trying to deflect the conversation because you have a a valid
point. Just like a troll.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:18:00 GMT
Ben C scribed:
>> Despite its nostaglic exigency, html/css does seem very much like a
>> dead end in the future - especially with the browser-barons' lack of
>> concordance.
>
> No, this is nonsense, and SpaceGirl's interpretation of history is also
> a bit suspect.
Nonsense? Okay, we'll see.
> The reasons for the differences between browsers are not open standards,
> but the fact that the situation is still recovering from a nasty period
> of browser wars between makers of proprietary software.
I wasn't arguing cause but that the browsers overall ability to perform is
essentially decrepit.
> It's got nothing to do with geeks not understanding Users either. The
> W3C standards and specifications are a compromise between trying to
> explain what browsers already do and steering them towards a common
> direction. They are doing a good job.
Oh, ho ho! Here's where we patently disagree. I believe they are doing a
totally horseshit job - particularly in those areas where they include
statements something like "...the useragent may determine how it responds
to this condition by..." When one endeavors to set standards, there is no
place for ambiguity. In addition, their box model sucks and the whole
"dom" thing (as now implimented) will in the future be looked upon as some
quirky digital primeval foible.
> There are two main reasons for differences between browsers now: some of
> them just haven't done all the work yet to meet the specs; and the specs
> are so complicated (mostly because of all the historical baggage) that
> in places they aren't always that easy to follow.
Despite the "good job" the w3c is doing?? Gosh!
> But this improves with
> every new draft as things get pointed out and clarified.
Yeah, and possibly by the year 2142 or so they may get it halfway right.
> I doubt anyone is arrogantly _deliberately_ not following the standards,
> although I suspect Microsoft may be being deliberately a bit reluctant
> about catching up.
Sandbagging equates to deliberacy but in MS's case I think the reason is
simply bucks. There's no real money in it. The ironic thing is that the
stuff they _do_ put an effort into usually fails even more dramatically.
Here is an excerpt from a discussion I ran across between some programmers
regarding certain Webapp facilities:
"It is a damn nightmare getting a standalone application installed
on the client side. It is simply much easier to install browser-based
applications using technology such as Flex than any technology that
Microsoft has so far come up with. I still have nightmares over failed .Net
installs that would take out other client applications when trying to
install our own software in my previous job."
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:45:00
GMT SpaceGirl scribed:
>>> But then I'm a girl, and I have small hands, so I really never had
>>> problems typing on my regular Sony phone either (okay, I'll admit
>>> it... I have 2 cellphones and about to get a 3rd).
>>
>> Isn't the iphone kinda expensive, not to mention the contract? And
>> aren't there "extras" as well? The cheapest service contract I've
>> seen so far is $60.00/mo. (Or are you getting a company phone?)
>>
>
> £35 per month ($70 US), but that includes all data, 200 minutes, 200
> texts, plus £270 ($540) for the phone. There are no other charges on
> 18 month contract.
Hmm, a bit cheaper in the US. (8gb iPhone: $399; all data, 450 mins, 200
texts: $59.99)
> So yeah, very expensive, but worth it IMO!
I keep forgetting how much women like to yak...
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
On Oct 9, 9:37 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 7:18 pm, Travis Newbury
> >> On Oct 8, 7:57 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>
> >>>> Of course it's irrelevant. He has no clue how to create a Flash so
> >>>> how could he possibly be able to compare the time to create a site
> >>>> using both methods?
> >>> Bullshit. Tell me he's wrong. And prove it.
> >> Ok, I will tell you and prove it too. But first I need your help.
> >> Please tell me, how he can compare the speed of building a site with
> >> HTML/CSS against building the same site in flash, when he has no clue
> >> how to build it in flash? The answer is he can't. Just like you can
> >> not tell me who can run a 5K faster. You may have an OPINION about
> >> who can run it faster, but your OPINION is meaningless because you
> >> haven a clue how fast I can run a 5K.
>
> >>> You evade
> >>> the question and try to call it irrelevant. So the only assumption
> >>> anyone can make is that it is true.
> >> Just what is the question I am evading?
>
> > I have not much of an idea of what Jerry is talking about eather. But
> > speaking of questions, how exactly would you know what I can and can't
> > do? Considering that you don't even know me??????
>
> Pretty easy, Chaddy. Travis claims your statement is irrelevant because
> you don't know what he's talking about. But he refuses to refute it.
>
> He's just trying to deflect the conversation because you have a a valid
> point. Just like a troll.
>
True. I can gather from reading his posts that he has got no
experience developing real world systems that people need to actually
use: Anyone with three quarters of a brain and who studies current
trends of how web surfing habits are going, would realise that people
are blocking things like Flash and JS more and more due to anoying and
offten moronic things that designers like to use them for!.
Until Addobie begin complying with DDA regulations in a number of
countries you can forget about useing Flash as a viable method of
delivering web content for the majority of websites!.
I am not talking about accessibility just in regards to blind people
by the way, I am talking about the general useability of Flash itself.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> SpaceGirl wrote:
>>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>>
>>>> What it's not good for:
>>>> Complete websites
>>>> text based information site (like, but not limited to sites like
>>>> google)
>>>> menus/navigation
>>>
>>> I disagree, and this is exactly what I was arguing. Flash COULD be
>>> used for ANY of those... it depends on context - meaning the
>>> audience, the
>>> content etc...
>>>
>>
>> And that's where I strongly disagree. That's when a website gets
>> really frustrating really fast.
>>
>
> Only because you don't understand the technology though. Flash doesn't
> need to be fancy. Sometimes it can offer something small and more
> efficient than HTML+CSS. While generally I'd agree that there are some
> things you shouldn't really try have Flash do, completely writing it off
> is terribly short sighted unless you are a secret Flash genius and know
> without a doubt "it won't work". Flash is -so- powerful these days, you
> can create practically anything in it (you could, for example, write
> your own web browser INSIDE Flash if you wanted); I know as a Flash
> person I'm not smart enough to say exactly where Flash's boundaries lay.
>
You keep saying this, talk is cheap. If the content is basically text
using Flash appears not to add value but lend to complications in
bandwidth (maybe not the initial download but the bottom line time to
display) and versatility for user accessibility unless carefully
engineered by the flash designer (although I have jet to witness an
example of this too)
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On Oct 9, 11:59 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> >> SpaceGirl wrote:
> >>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>
> >>>> What it's not good for:
> >>>> Complete websites
> >>>> text based information site (like, but not limited to sites like
> >>>> google)
> >>>> menus/navigation
>
> >>> I disagree, and this is exactly what I was arguing. Flash COULD be
> >>> used for ANY of those... it depends on context - meaning the
> >>> audience, the
> >>> content etc...
>
> >> And that's where I strongly disagree. That's when a website gets
> >> really frustrating really fast.
>
> > Only because you don't understand the technology though. Flash doesn't
> > need to be fancy. Sometimes it can offer something small and more
> > efficient than HTML+CSS. While generally I'd agree that there are some
> > things you shouldn't really try have Flash do, completely writing it off
> > is terribly short sighted unless you are a secret Flash genius and know
> > without a doubt "it won't work". Flash is -so- powerful these days, you
> > can create practically anything in it (you could, for example, write
> > your own web browser INSIDE Flash if you wanted); I know as a Flash
> > person I'm not smart enough to say exactly where Flash's boundaries lay.
>
> You keep saying this, talk is cheap. If the content is basically text
> using Flash appears not to add value but lend to complications in
> bandwidth (maybe not the initial download but the bottom line time to
> display) and versatility for user accessibility unless carefully
> engineered by the flash designer (although I have jet to witness an
> example of this too)
>
Nor have I really.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
On Oct 9, 9:59 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
> You keep saying this, talk is cheap. If the content is basically text
> using Flash appears not to add value but lend to complications in
> bandwidth (maybe not the initial download but the bottom line time to
> display) and versatility for user accessibility unless carefully
> engineered by the flash designer (although I have jet to witness an
> example of this too)
Yes, If the content is basically all text, then there is no advantage
to using flash, with the single exception if you want to present that
text in a highly graphical stylized manner.
Making the content accessible is NOT a huge effort on the part of the
Flash developer. It is little more than flipping a switch. So that
is not the issue. The issue is that most Flash developers (thread
contributors excluded) don't care about accessibility.
On Oct 9, 7:32 am, Jerry Stuckle
> > Plain and Simple, state the question I am trying to avoid.
> Read back through the messages. I have challenged you at least three
> times. I'm not going to repeat myself again.
> If you can't read, troll, then that's your problem.
ok, so I did answer your question and now it is you that is avoiding
it.
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 8, 7:18 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
>> Not true. Absolutely plain HTML markup with no CSS or special
>> "engineering" is accessible by default!
>
> Even if they use frames?
>
>
Not condoning the use of frames in any way, but yeah. Even slapped in
frames one can resize the text, use a keyboard to navigate, use a screen
reader, and although not always straight forward navigate with Lynx.
Now www.mortgagenews2.com in Lynx your get...
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On Oct 9, 9:09 am, Chaddy2222
wrote:
> True. I can gather from reading his posts that he has got no
> experience developing real world systems that people need to actually
> use:
Yea, Cartoon network, CNN, Turner, Disney, ABC Sports, GA Tech,
Siemens, AT&T, Chick-fil-a, Snoop Dog, Aerosmith, Rockapella, and
Atlanta Sports Council. (Can you tell I am based out of Atlanta?) Each
of these sites use Flash content (mostly flash video and video
manipulation) I created. (Read back, this is what I specialize in) I
believe these are considered real world systems that people use every
day.
> Anyone with three quarters of a brain and who studies current
> trends of how web surfing habits are going, would realise that people
> are blocking things like Flash and JS more and more due to anoying and
> offten moronic things that designers like to use them for!.
Why yes, that is the trend we are seeing... (There was some sarcasm in
there)
> Until Addobie begin complying with DDA regulations in a number of
> countries you can forget about useing Flash as a viable method of
> delivering web content for the majority of websites!.
> I am not talking about accessibility just in regards to blind people
> by the way, I am talking about the general useability of Flash itself.
Chaddy you and jerry are pretty much ignorant when it comes to Flash
aren't you?
On Oct 9, 7:33 am, Jerry Stuckle
> And you tell me what that has to do with his opinion - or your refusal
> to answer.
> You're just a troll trying to deflect the question.
Ask the question if you want an answer.
Ben C wrote:
> I doubt anyone is arrogantly _deliberately_ not following the standards,
> although I suspect Microsoft may be being deliberately a bit reluctant
> about catching up.
Great one Ben! I like how you put that! MS sure seams like the whiny
child that goes ragdoll in the supermarket and is dragged along by his
parents. If they'd pick up the pace a bit would make our jobs easier and
our code a lot more elegant.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On Oct 9, 7:31 am, Jerry Stuckle
> I'm saying that when trolls are pinned down, they try to change the
> subject and otherwise deflect the conversation.
And you seem to be afraid of the answer I may give if you actually ASK
a question
> Trolls are also good at misquoting and taking out of context.
Then stop pussy footing around and just ask the question Jerry.
Unless you are afraid of the answer. You seem to be evading asking
the question you so often refer to. Ask it! I am begging you, for
the love of God just ask your stupid question!
On Oct 9, 6:48 am, Chaddy2222
wrote:
> > Just what is the question I am evading?
> I have not much of an idea of what Jerry is talking about eather.
Thank you! ;-)
> But
> speaking of questions, how exactly would you know what I can and can't
> do? Considering that you don't even know me??????
Did you not state that you were not a flash developer earlier in this
thread? I thought you did. Anyway, what I was referring to was if
you are not a developer in both Flash and HTML/CSS, then you would not
be qualified to say which would be faster to develop a site with.
that's all.
> While it may or may not be quicker to do it in Flash, it would cost a
> lot less in legal fees to just do it in HTML, sure it gets rid of a
> lot of things but if this Target case goes ahead those type of sites
> will be screwed. Also considering the previous case law on web
> accessibility it sets a pressident (spelling). It's been a few years
> since I did legal studies.
I find it interesting in the article about this case. Target states
that their site IS accessible based on current US laws. The judge in
California just stated that she was going to leave it to a jury to
decide. I believe that information is in the OP's link.
> BTW, I think with the changes in web technologies my skills will
> continue to change over time.
> As an example of this a few years ago I did not even know what CSS or
> HTML was!.
I completely agree. if you don';t continue to learn then you end up
closing a lot of doors.
> > > So again, I'm right.
> > Of course you are...
> Isn't everyone!.
indubitably....
On Oct 9, 7:37 am, Jerry Stuckle
> Pretty easy, Chaddy. Travis claims your statement is irrelevant because
> you don't know what he's talking about. But he refuses to refute it.
How can I refute a premise that is based on an opinion and not on
facts?
> He's just trying to deflect the conversation because you have a a valid
> point. Just like a troll.
No, I have been asking you continually to ask your question (even
Chaddy has no clue what question you are talking about). But you
continue to refuse to ask it, and just start yelling "troll troll..."
Hmmmm... Changing the subject... Where have I heard that before....
Can you just ask it?
On Oct 10, 1:11 am, Travis Newbury
> On Oct 9, 7:37 am, Jerry Stuckle
>
> > Pretty easy, Chaddy. Travis claims your statement is irrelevant because
> > you don't know what he's talking about. But he refuses to refute it.
>
> How can I refute a premise that is based on an opinion and not on
> facts?
>
> > He's just trying to deflect the conversation because you have a a valid
> > point. Just like a troll.
>
> No, I have been asking you continually to ask your question (even
> Chaddy has no clue what question you are talking about). But you
> continue to refuse to ask it, and just start yelling "troll troll..."
> Hmmmm... Changing the subject... Where have I heard that before....
>
> Can you just ask it?
Hmmm, well to make things a bit more simple, from what I can gather
his question was probably a long the lines of HTML and a server side
language being better for the design of the particular site as written
about in the above posts.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:24:10 +0100, SpaceGirl put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>> -yet-. Now that large screen format phones, such as the iPhone are
>> around, with unlimited data contracts by default + free wifi, we're
>> going to see an explosion in mobile browsing I think. Everyone is
>> rushing to copy the iPhone feature for feature. There are 5 or 6 similar
>> "web" phones out this Christmas, and most networks (in Europe anyway)
>> are bundling unrestricted web access & unlimited data contracts with
>> these phones. This is a HUGE market change. Until now, very few networks
>> offered uncapped data rates unless you were on a business contract.
>
> There's no such thing as "unlimited data". Contracts that offer it are
> either subject to a "Fair Use Policy" (which simply means that there
> is a limit, but they won't tell you what it is) or they're on
> contended bandwidth (which means there is a limit, but they don't know
> what it is either).
>
> In my experience, "unlimited" tariffs are more common on consumer
> contracts, partly because consumers are less likely to be tech-savvy
> enough to realise that "unlimited" doesn't mean there aren't any
> limits and partly because consumers are less likely to push the device
> to its limits anyway. Business users, on the other hand, tend to want
> to know exactly what their limits are, and to have an SLA that
> guarantees they'll be able to use everything up to the limit.
>
> Mark
Effectively unlimited :) Yes all contracts tend to have fair usage -
even my 20Mbit cable at home has that, but we never even come close to
their "warning" level (around 10Gb a day, or 4Gb between 6pm and
midnight, which would result in my connection being throttled for 12
hours). I really cant imagine hitting the limits of an iPhone - if I
want to download THAT much data, I'll use my laptop or Mac Pro at home.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:45:00
> GMT SpaceGirl scribed:
>
>>>> But then I'm a girl, and I have small hands, so I really never had
>>>> problems typing on my regular Sony phone either (okay, I'll admit
>>>> it... I have 2 cellphones and about to get a 3rd).
>>> Isn't the iphone kinda expensive, not to mention the contract? And
>>> aren't there "extras" as well? The cheapest service contract I've
>>> seen so far is $60.00/mo. (Or are you getting a company phone?)
>>>
>> £35 per month ($70 US), but that includes all data, 200 minutes, 200
>> texts, plus £270 ($540) for the phone. There are no other charges on
>> 18 month contract.
>
> Hmm, a bit cheaper in the US. (8gb iPhone: $399; all data, 450 mins, 200
> texts: $59.99)
You have to keep in mind how worthless the USD is right now, so not sure
what that works out in real terms. If this was 1.5 years ago, in UK
money it would be around $55 a month plus $480 for the phone.
>> So yeah, very expensive, but worth it IMO!
>
> I keep forgetting how much women like to yak...
Oy :D
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Ben C wrote:
>> Despite its nostaglic exigency, html/css does seem very much like a
>> dead end in the future - especially with the browser-barons' lack of
>> concordance.
>
> No, this is nonsense, and SpaceGirl's interpretation of history is also
> a bit suspect.
Nah I'm quite aware of the history, Microsoft of course did abuse their
position, but OS software didn't really help either.
> It's got nothing to do with geeks not understanding Users either. The
> W3C standards and specifications are a compromise between trying to
> explain what browsers already do and steering them towards a common
> direction. They are doing a good job.
They ARE doing a good job, yes. I'm not going to have a go at Mozilla, I
think they do amazing work. But, innovation rarely comes from Open
Source. It's the nature of the beast - PROGRAMMERS not UI or HID experts
design these programs. When dealing with humans, the UI should come
first, the programmy stuff last.
> There are two main reasons for differences between browsers now: some of
> them just haven't done all the work yet to meet the specs; and the specs
> are so complicated (mostly because of all the historical baggage) that
> in places they aren't always that easy to follow. But this improves with
> every new draft as things get pointed out and clarified.
This is true, but it's to slow. WWW is moving SO fast now, the market is
streaming ahead of what OS can keep up with. Where are the altneratives
to Flash? Where are these miracle browsers that meet all the standards?
Where's the innovation? Answer: Closed source. Adobe. Microsoft.
> I doubt anyone is arrogantly _deliberately_ not following the standards,
> although I suspect Microsoft may be being deliberately a bit reluctant
> about catching up.
Yeah probably :(
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Neredbojias wrote:
>> It's got nothing to do with geeks not understanding Users either. The
>> W3C standards and specifications are a compromise between trying to
>> explain what browsers already do and steering them towards a common
>> direction. They are doing a good job.
>
> Oh, ho ho! Here's where we patently disagree. I believe they are doing a
> totally horseshit job - particularly in those areas where they include
> statements something like "...the useragent may determine how it responds
> to this condition by..." When one endeavors to set standards, there is no
> place for ambiguity. In addition, their box model sucks and the whole
> "dom" thing (as now implimented) will in the future be looked upon as some
> quirky digital primeval foible.
That's for sure. They do a good job in... well at least in providing a
reasonable alternative to IE we're in a situation where we are moving
towards standards being rendered "kind of" the same everywhere. But you
are right; the standards themselves are terrible, badly formed, very
hard to understand.
>> There are two main reasons for differences between browsers now: some of
>> them just haven't done all the work yet to meet the specs; and the specs
>> are so complicated (mostly because of all the historical baggage) that
>> in places they aren't always that easy to follow.
>
> Despite the "good job" the w3c is doing?? Gosh!
Yeah kinda crazy. The XHTML1.0 standards have been around since 1999 -
not ONE major browser supports the full spec yet. Not a single one! In
EIGHT years!? So much for standards... They do get 99% of it right, but
it's just... a mess really.
> "It is a damn nightmare getting a standalone application installed
> on the client side. It is simply much easier to install browser-based
> applications using technology such as Flex than any technology that
> Microsoft has so far come up with. I still have nightmares over failed .Net
> installs that would take out other client applications when trying to
> install our own software in my previous job."
:)
Or AIR... that looks promising (if it gets pst the whole "who the hell
will install this anyway? hurdle).
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> You keep saying this, talk is cheap. If the content is basically text
> using Flash appears not to add value but lend to complications in
> bandwidth (maybe not the initial download but the bottom line time to
> display) and versatility for user accessibility unless carefully
> engineered by the flash designer (although I have jet to witness an
> example of this too)
You are ignoring the user experience. This can be as important as your
content, if not MORE important, depending on the context.
Also, once again, Flash IS ACCESSIBLE. It can be screen read, it
supports CSS and tagging (as in alternative), plus it's a presentational
layer. You may as well accuse MPEG movies, or JPEG images of being
inaccessible. It's all about HOW it's used.
Look up FlashPaper, you may be surprised.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 9, 9:09 am, Chaddy2222
> wrote:
> > True. I can gather from reading his posts that he has got no
> > experience developing real world systems that people need to actually
> > use:
>
> Yea, Cartoon network, CNN, Turner, Disney, ABC Sports, GA Tech,
> Siemens, AT&T, Chick-fil-a, Snoop Dog, Aerosmith, Rockapella, and
> Atlanta Sports Council. (Can you tell I am based out of Atlanta?) Each
> of these sites use Flash content (mostly flash video and video
> manipulation) I created. (Read back, this is what I specialize in) I
> believe these are considered real world systems that people use every
> day.
>
I think with these examples where getting back to designing depending
on the target market again, some sites can use it and get away with
it.
> > Anyone with three quarters of a brain and who studies current
> > trends of how web surfing habits are going, would realise that people
> > are blocking things like Flash and JS more and more due to anoying and
> > offten moronic things that designers like to use them for!.
>
> Why yes, that is the trend we are seeing... (There was some sarcasm in
> there)
>
Hmm, actually I think as more people download IE 7 that might not be
the case as it does not have as many of the cicurity issues.
> > Until Addobie begin complying with DDA regulations in a number of
> > countries you can forget about useing Flash as a viable method of
> > delivering web content for the majority of websites!.
> > I am not talking about accessibility just in regards to blind people
> > by the way, I am talking about the general useability of Flash itself.
>
> Chaddy you and jerry are pretty much ignorant when it comes to Flash
> aren't you?
Well actually, I am aware that Flash has accessibility features built-
in, but for simple sites such as the one before in this thread it more
benofficial from a DDA pov to just use plain old HTML and CSS.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
On Oct 9, 1:12 pm, Chaddy2222
wrote:
> Well actually, I am aware that Flash has accessibility features built-
> in, but for simple sites such as the one before in this thread it more
> benofficial from a DDA pov to just use plain old HTML and CSS.
Speaking of the Target site. Does it even use Flash for essential
parts of the site? I know they use it on the main page to display a
slide show with links to products, but that is not needed to navigate
the site or buy something.
On Oct 9, 11:39 am, Chaddy2222
> Hmmm, well to make things a bit more simple, from what I can gather
> his question was probably a long the lines of HTML and a server side
> language being better for the design of the particular site as written
> about in the above posts.
And I do not disagree with that if you qualify it to mean "essential
items". Remember Target claims they do meet all the US requirements
for the site, and the Flash they use is slide show eye candy.
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
>> You keep saying this, talk is cheap. If the content is basically text
>> using Flash appears not to add value but lend to complications in
>> bandwidth (maybe not the initial download but the bottom line time to
>> display) and versatility for user accessibility unless carefully
>> engineered by the flash designer (although I have jet to witness an
>> example of this too)
>
> You are ignoring the user experience. This can be as important as your
> content, if not MORE important, depending on the context.
It ain't an experience (or at least a good one) if one cannot access it!
Adobe's own example...
http://www.adobe.com/products/flashpaper/examples/
Macromedia - FlashPaper 2 : Examples
1) Opera's screen reader gives me a "Sorry I Do Not Understand" when
selecting this "FlashPaper" for reading so I can only assume a screen
reader will also fail...have to have Chad check it I think he has Jaws...
2) The lousy, 2.5kb of text took a noticeable time to load, yes I know I
am slow with dialup, but why would I wish to add the overhead? Just to
preserve the 3 columns?
3) Relates to #2. The damn page is just like an image of a piece of
paper. That's the problem the web is not paper. Zoom is not equal to
increasing the font. If the view port is small you find yourself
up-down-right-left jocking around a peep hole.
4) In the zooming process I do not see the text as clearly as the
regular text of the surrounding HTML. I appears like a bit mapped image
of a page....
>
> Also, once again, Flash IS ACCESSIBLE. It can be screen read, it
> supports CSS and tagging (as in alternative), plus it's a presentational
> layer. You may as well accuse MPEG movies, or JPEG images of being
> inaccessible. It's all about HOW it's used.
>
Only if you build one of those nasty Adobe GoLive image slice sites! (In
all fairness GoLive is not the only "WebEditor" to create such sites,
but when you stumble upon one, peeking at the source usually reveals the
culprit.
> Look up FlashPaper, you may be surprised.
>
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>
>>> You keep saying this, talk is cheap. If the content is basically text
>>> using Flash appears not to add value but lend to complications in
>>> bandwidth (maybe not the initial download but the bottom line time to
>>> display) and versatility for user accessibility unless carefully
>>> engineered by the flash designer (although I have jet to witness an
>>> example of this too)
>>
>> You are ignoring the user experience. This can be as important as your
>> content, if not MORE important, depending on the context.
>
> It ain't an experience (or at least a good one) if one cannot access it!
>
> Adobe's own example...
>
> http://www.adobe.com/products/flashpaper/examples/
> Macromedia - FlashPaper 2 : Examples
>
> 1) Opera's screen reader gives me a "Sorry I Do Not Understand" when
> selecting this "FlashPaper" for reading so I can only assume a screen
> reader will also fail...have to have Chad check it I think he has Jaws...
Please do, it works.
There's also an Adobe paper on it:
http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility/2006/08/moving_screen_r eader_focus_in.html
This was pre Flash 9 of course.
> 2) The lousy, 2.5kb of text took a noticeable time to load, yes I know I
> am slow with dialup, but why would I wish to add the overhead? Just to
> preserve the 3 columns?
Because FP does something else. But you're being closed minded again.
Yes there is an overhead, but there are lots of benefits that outweigh
the marginal overhead.... but I'm tired of spelling everything out,
you'll come up with some other reason Why It Is Bad :)
>
> 3) Relates to #2. The damn page is just like an image of a piece of
> paper. That's the problem the web is not paper.
Says who? You? So, you are forcing YOUR limited view of what you think
the web should be on everyone else? I think finally we get to the heart
of the issue.
> Zoom is not equal to
> increasing the font. If the view port is small you find yourself
> up-down-right-left jocking around a peep hole.
Same question: PDF? Word documents? Excel documents? Movie files?
> 4) In the zooming process I do not see the text as clearly as the
> regular text of the surrounding HTML. I appears like a bit mapped image
> of a page....
IYO I guess. It looks smooth to me.
>> Also, once again, Flash IS ACCESSIBLE. It can be screen read, it
>> supports CSS and tagging (as in alternative), plus it's a
>> presentational layer. You may as well accuse MPEG movies, or JPEG
>> images of being inaccessible. It's all about HOW it's used.
>
> Only if you build one of those nasty Adobe GoLive image slice sites! (In
> all fairness GoLive is not the only "WebEditor" to create such sites,
> but when you stumble upon one, peeking at the source usually reveals the
> culprit.
?!
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:41:28 +0100, SpaceGirl put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> In my experience, "unlimited" tariffs are more common on consumer
>> contracts, partly because consumers are less likely to be tech-savvy
>> enough to realise that "unlimited" doesn't mean there aren't any
>> limits and partly because consumers are less likely to push the device
>> to its limits anyway. Business users, on the other hand, tend to want
>> to know exactly what their limits are, and to have an SLA that
>> guarantees they'll be able to use everything up to the limit.
>
>Effectively unlimited :) Yes all contracts tend to have fair usage -
>even my 20Mbit cable at home has that, but we never even come close to
>their "warning" level (around 10Gb a day, or 4Gb between 6pm and
>midnight, which would result in my connection being throttled for 12
>hours). I really cant imagine hitting the limits of an iPhone -
Well, no, especially since it isn't 3G and you can't use Bluetooth to
network it with your laptop, so you're never going to want to download
much data with it :-)
Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"Everybody's changing and I don't feel the same"
SpaceGirl
@mid.individual.net:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
>> You keep saying this, talk is cheap. If the content is basically text
>> using Flash appears not to add value but lend to complications in
>> bandwidth (maybe not the initial download but the bottom line time to
>> display) and versatility for user accessibility unless carefully
>> engineered by the flash designer (although I have jet to witness an
>> example of this too)
>
> You are ignoring the user experience. This can be as important as your
> content, if not MORE important, depending on the context.
>
> Also, once again, Flash IS ACCESSIBLE. It can be screen read, it
> supports CSS and tagging (as in alternative), plus it's a presentational
> layer. You may as well accuse MPEG movies, or JPEG images of being
> inaccessible. It's all about HOW it's used.
Accessible for who?
First, I've yet to see accessible flash.
AT support for Flash is terribly spotty, so the amount of work required to
make accessible Flash is bigger than most Flash developers want to deal
with. On the upside, the ability for Flash to be self voicing is super
cool, as is the ability to do your own captioning and all of that. There's
a lot of other possibilities with Flash (and flex) like providing tab index
and so on. But again, where are the accessible Flash websites? Simply
saying it is possible isn't enough.
--
Karl Groves
http://www.WebAccessStrategies.com
Chaddy2222
1191949974.165283.258910@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com,
> Travis Newbury wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 9:09 am, Chaddy2222
>>
>>> True. I can gather from reading his posts that he has got no
>>> experience developing real world systems that people need to
>>> actually use:
>>
>> Yea, Cartoon network, CNN, Turner, Disney, ABC Sports, GA Tech,
>> Siemens, AT&T, Chick-fil-a, Snoop Dog, Aerosmith, Rockapella, and
>> Atlanta Sports Council. (Can you tell I am based out of Atlanta?)
>> Each of these sites use Flash content (mostly flash video and video
>> manipulation) I created. (Read back, this is what I specialize in)
>> I believe these are considered real world systems that people use
>> every day.
>>
> I think with these examples where getting back to designing depending
> on the target market again, some sites can use it and get away with
> it.
Indeed. Reading this thread leaves me wondering how anyone who claims to
be an expert would not understand that any notions of usability depend
entirely on the target audience.
Also, it seem silly to me to be arguing about it so much. Reminds me of
a somewhat famous quote to the effect that you cannot convince someone
of the rightness of something if his income is dependant on him not
understanding.
--
Red
In article
<1191922145.638357.267970@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury
> On Oct 8, 5:26 pm, dorayme
> > In article
> > <1191861203.575604.40...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > It is terrible, I have a whole hard disk full of Travis's
> > collection (not his fault, I just hoard and collect stuff...)
>
> Cool. An entire hard disk of my philosophy. A few facts you are
> wrong about, First I am not a republican. They are almost as bad as
> democrats. Both want to give my hard earned money away, the
> difference is who they want to give it to. I consider myself a
> Republicratarian (kind of a mix of republican democrat and
> libritarian.
This is going into the collection like all the other stuff...
--
dorayme
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> SpaceGirl wrote:
>>
>> 3) Relates to #2. The damn page is just like an image of a piece of
>> paper. That's the problem the web is not paper.
>
> Says who? You? So, you are forcing YOUR limited view of what you think
> the web should be on everyone else? I think finally we get to the heart
> of the issue.
Well aside of the numerous accessibility studies done about the web just
casual observance of people using the web will show you. On the web
people scroll up and down not sideways. Even novice web designers
recognize this as they desperately try to center their content. We get
numerous posts on this NG. They usually make the notorious 'Scroll of
Death' sites often found on GeoCities or Tripod.
The Web is not paper. Books are the size they are because for the font
size the printer chooses with comfortable margins produces lines with
the sweet-spot of 10 words per line. A newspaper is the maximum size
that the average person can spread their arms to turn the page. Because
the page is so wide with a newspaper the content is set in columns and
the words per line average is nearly halved that of books to aid legibly
with the poorer contrast and paper - printing quality. Design is
influenced by the medium. But with paper the printer, artist,
calligrapher has control of that canvas. The web designer does not. All
they can do is disenfranchise some of their audience. You do not know
whether or not your sites are viewed on 2.5 inch display of a cell
phone, 540 pixel abortion of WebTV on an old TV, squeeze under 700
pixels on an old 13 inch VGA monitor or many feet displayed on a wall
with a projector. Or maybe no canvas at all! The Web is not paper, pain
and simple. Paper has dimensions and the Web does not.
As an artist and with my graphical perspective with my first websites I
approached web design like paper. My approach has evolved as the Web as
evolved and as learned more about the Web from actually using it.
Being accessible and flexible in web design does not necessarily equate
to plain and boring. It does take creativity. Doing it in flash does
make it creative either. There also is no one answer for all sites. You
can try to control all aspects of the presentation of a site, but it
comes at a price. The more your control the more you will limit
accessibility.
I am not against flash, any more than images or other media (well maybe
background music!!!!). All have their place. What I am saying is that
flash, at least at this state, is not a replacement for html.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
In article
Jerry Stuckle
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article
> > Jerry Stuckle
> >
> >>>> Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I have challenged him ...
> >>>
> >>> Ah! Changing the subject!
> >>>
> >> Nope. Brining it back to the original subject, troll.
> >
> > So, you are saying, it is a non-troll thing to do to go back to
> > an earlier subject when a person does not want to pursue a
> > particular side thread of a thread but that one who does want to
> > pursue a side thread and stay on it is a troll? Methinks this
> > troll attribution is a murky quantity
> >
>
> I'm saying that when trolls are pinned down, they try to change the
> subject and otherwise deflect the conversation.
>
> Trolls are also good at misquoting and taking out of context.
>
> This describes you perfectly, troll.
I don't think so because I have not misquoted you, every side
issue can be unfairly cast as taking something out of context,
and it is you rather than me who keeps wanting to go back to the
original context. You were the one that accused Travis of being a
troll. Now I object to this strongly. I took you up on this
business, we were having a discussion about your conception of
trolling and I was interested in seeing if you had deeply
considered the matter, distinguishing trolling from other things,
good and bad. But you are showing signs of impatience and being
content to throw names about.
Now, about the *original* context (no, I am not changing the
subject), what was that? This thread is a big party with lots of
independent conversations going on.
--
dorayme
On 2007-10-09, SpaceGirl wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>>> Despite its nostaglic exigency, html/css does seem very much like a
>>> dead end in the future - especially with the browser-barons' lack of
>>> concordance.
>>
>> No, this is nonsense, and SpaceGirl's interpretation of history is also
>> a bit suspect.
>
> Nah I'm quite aware of the history, Microsoft of course did abuse their
> position, but OS software didn't really help either.
Can you provide an example of OS software that "didn't help"??
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
On Oct 9, 5:01 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> I am not against flash, any more than images or other media (well maybe
> background music!!!!). All have their place. What I am saying is that
> flash, at least at this state, is not a replacement for html.
No, it isn't. But does that mean that we should be regulated on where
and how we use it?
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 9, 5:01 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
>> I am not against flash, any more than images or other media (well maybe
>> background music!!!!). All have their place. What I am saying is that
>> flash, at least at this state, is not a replacement for html.
>
> No, it isn't. But does that mean that we should be regulated on where
> and how we use it?
>
The gods wont strike your down if your make an all flash site where html
would be more appropriate, but your may pay a price...
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On Oct 9, 3:08 pm, Karl Groves
> Accessible for who?
> First, I've yet to see accessible flash.
> AT support for Flash is terribly spotty, so the amount of work required to
> make accessible Flash is bigger than most Flash developers want to deal
> with.
It is not that it is too much effort to make it accessible, but rather
Flash developers either don't know about accessibility, or they don't
care. It is easy enough to meet all the US government standards.
(Adobe has a plethora of white papers and documentation about this)
On Oct 9, 9:02 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> > No, it isn't. But does that mean that we should be regulated on where
> > and how we use it?
> The gods wont strike your down if your make an all flash site where html
> would be more appropriate, but your may pay a price...
Why is it always an "all flash" site? I do not think you can find a
flash lover in this group that says an all flash site is a good thing,
present company included
On Oct 9, 9:02 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
> Take care,
Just a side note.... Based on our conversations in this thread, and
when we made them. I believe you and I need to get a life....
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Travis Newbury wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 5:01 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
>>> I am not against flash, any more than images or other media (well maybe
>>> background music!!!!). All have their place. What I am saying is that
>>> flash, at least at this state, is not a replacement for html.
>>
>> No, it isn't. But does that mean that we should be regulated on where
>> and how we use it?
>>
> The gods wont strike your down if your make an all flash site where html
> would be more appropriate, but your may pay a price...
Like, for instance, people avoiding it?
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 9, 7:31 am, Jerry Stuckle
>> I'm saying that when trolls are pinned down, they try to change the
>> subject and otherwise deflect the conversation.
>
> And you seem to be afraid of the answer I may give if you actually ASK
> a question
>
>> Trolls are also good at misquoting and taking out of context.
>
> Then stop pussy footing around and just ask the question Jerry.
> Unless you are afraid of the answer. You seem to be evading asking
> the question you so often refer to. Ask it! I am begging you, for
> the love of God just ask your stupid question!
>
I have, Travis. But you just keep trying to change the subject. Go
back and read.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 9, 9:02 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
>>> No, it isn't. But does that mean that we should be regulated on where
>>> and how we use it?
>> The gods wont strike your down if your make an all flash site where html
>> would be more appropriate, but your may pay a price...
>
> Why is it always an "all flash" site? I do not think you can find a
> flash lover in this group that says an all flash site is a good thing,
> present company included
>
It was Spacey that was making such assertions.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 9, 9:02 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"
>> Take care,
>
> Just a side note.... Based on our conversations in this thread, and
> when we made them. I believe you and I need to get a life....
>
>
Ditto! I need to get some work done.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Jerry Stuckle
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article
>>> Jerry Stuckle
>>>
>>>>>> Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I have challenged him ...
>>>>> Ah! Changing the subject!
>>>>>
>>>> Nope. Brining it back to the original subject, troll.
>>> So, you are saying, it is a non-troll thing to do to go back to
>>> an earlier subject when a person does not want to pursue a
>>> particular side thread of a thread but that one who does want to
>>> pursue a side thread and stay on it is a troll? Methinks this
>>> troll attribution is a murky quantity
>>>
>> I'm saying that when trolls are pinned down, they try to change the
>> subject and otherwise deflect the conversation.
>>
>> Trolls are also good at misquoting and taking out of context.
>>
>> This describes you perfectly, troll.
>
> I don't think so because I have not misquoted you, every side
> issue can be unfairly cast as taking something out of context,
> and it is you rather than me who keeps wanting to go back to the
> original context. You were the one that accused Travis of being a
> troll. Now I object to this strongly. I took you up on this
> business, we were having a discussion about your conception of
> trolling and I was interested in seeing if you had deeply
> considered the matter, distinguishing trolling from other things,
> good and bad. But you are showing signs of impatience and being
> content to throw names about.
>
> Now, about the *original* context (no, I am not changing the
> subject), what was that? This thread is a big party with lots of
> independent conversations going on.
>
No, you have not misquoted me, but you have taken my comments out of
context.
And of course you object to my calling him a troll. Trolls stick together.
And the original context, which Travis has still refused to answer, has
to do with flash development. Go back and read.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 9, 7:32 am, Jerry Stuckle
>>> Plain and Simple, state the question I am trying to avoid.
>> Read back through the messages. I have challenged you at least three
>> times. I'm not going to repeat myself again.
>> If you can't read, troll, then that's your problem.
>
> ok, so I did answer your question and now it is you that is avoiding
> it.
>
>
No, you haven't answered anything - other than calling Chaddy's comments
"irrelevant" because you don't think he knows anything about flash.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 9, 9:09 am, Chaddy2222
> wrote:
>> True. I can gather from reading his posts that he has got no
>> experience developing real world systems that people need to actually
>> use:
>
> Yea, Cartoon network, CNN, Turner, Disney, ABC Sports, GA Tech,
> Siemens, AT&T, Chick-fil-a, Snoop Dog, Aerosmith, Rockapella, and
> Atlanta Sports Council. (Can you tell I am based out of Atlanta?) Each
> of these sites use Flash content (mostly flash video and video
> manipulation) I created. (Read back, this is what I specialize in) I
> believe these are considered real world systems that people use every
> day.
>
>> Anyone with three quarters of a brain and who studies current
>> trends of how web surfing habits are going, would realise that people
>> are blocking things like Flash and JS more and more due to anoying and
>> offten moronic things that designers like to use them for!.
>
> Why yes, that is the trend we are seeing... (There was some sarcasm in
> there)
>
>> Until Addobie begin complying with DDA regulations in a number of
>> countries you can forget about useing Flash as a viable method of
>> delivering web content for the majority of websites!.
>> I am not talking about accessibility just in regards to blind people
>> by the way, I am talking about the general useability of Flash itself.
>
> Chaddy you and jerry are pretty much ignorant when it comes to Flash
> aren't you?
>
>
Not at all, troll.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
In article
Jerry Stuckle
> No, you have not misquoted me, but you have taken my comments out of
> context.
I see, so when you said "This describes you perfectly", you did
not quite mean all of it. You meant the "take out of context"
bit. But you have called Travis a troll on the basis of a
perception he has not answered a query. I was pursuing this
context. It was something that actually arose, I did not force
the divergence, I just wanted to look at it intensely to distract
myself from the terrible flu that I am suffering and because I am
wondering what your purpose of calling people names is, I want to
know if there is something behind it beyond you being pissed off.
>
> And of course you object to my calling him a troll. Trolls stick together.
>
You see, there you go again, trying to wound with barbs.
> And the original context, which Travis has still refused to answer, has
> to do with flash development. Go back and read.
I will leave you and Travis to deal with that one, I am concerned
to stick on the topic this sub-thread is on. Why not join me in
pursuing a policy that it is a sin to change any subject, even to
change it back to what it was in pursuing the truth no matter
where it leads and never returning to anything? Methinks your
idea of it being the mark of a troll to change the subject has an
inner contradiction.
No, I can't say I feel any better... got any ideas about helping
the flu abate? I have not done anything to deserve this!
--
dorayme
SpaceGirl wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>
>> http://www.adobe.com/products/flashpaper/examples/
>
>> Zoom is not equal to
>> increasing the font. If the view port is small you find yourself
>> up-down-right-left jocking around a peep hole.
>
> Same question: PDF? Word documents? Excel documents? Movie files?
I think Mr Little is right here. That little slider bar on the FP sample
is just a kewl gimmick. It doesn't make the content more usable. As far
as usability goes, zoom generally sucks compared to actual text enlargement.
SpaceGirl, I don't think you'll ever really comprehend the issue until
you find yourself in the situation where these sites cause you the same
kind of eye strain they give us. You haven't experienced the problem
yourself so you can't understand how bad it really is. And it *is* bad.
It's great you get such enjoyment out of all these "rich" content sites.
However, I don't think it's as high on everybody's list as you say. The
younger crowd apparently needs constant stimulation to keep their
attention but not everyone falls into that group.
>> 4) In the zooming process I do not see the text as clearly as the
>> regular text of the surrounding HTML. I appears like a bit mapped image
>> of a page....
>
> IYO I guess. It looks smooth to me.
I imagine the particular display unit and O/S has something to do with
that. You've no doubt got a high-end graphic display. Not all of us are
so lucky.
>>> Also, once again, Flash IS ACCESSIBLE. It can be screen read, it
>>> supports CSS
Flash may now support author-defined CSS, but that's not really
impressive. If it ever gets to the point where I can set my own minimum
font-size, I'll stop trashing it.
--
Berg
On Oct 10, 7:01 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> >> SpaceGirl wrote:
>
> >> 3) Relates to #2. The damn page is just like an image of a piece of
> >> paper. That's the problem the web is not paper.
>
> > Says who? You? So, you are forcing YOUR limited view of what you think
> > the web should be on everyone else? I think finally we get to the heart
> > of the issue.
>
> Well aside of the numerous accessibility studies done about the web just
> casual observance of people using the web will show you. On the web
> people scroll up and down not sideways. Even novice web designers
> recognize this as they desperately try to center their content. We get
> numerous posts on this NG. They usually make the notorious 'Scroll of
> Death' sites often found on GeoCities or Tripod.
>
> The Web is not paper. Books are the size they are because for the font
> size the printer chooses with comfortable margins produces lines with
> the sweet-spot of 10 words per line. A newspaper is the maximum size
> that the average person can spread their arms to turn the page. Because
> the page is so wide with a newspaper the content is set in columns and
> the words per line average is nearly halved that of books to aid legibly
> with the poorer contrast and paper - printing quality. Design is
> influenced by the medium. But with paper the printer, artist,
> calligrapher has control of that canvas. The web designer does not. All
> they can do is disenfranchise some of their audience. You do not know
> whether or not your sites are viewed on 2.5 inch display of a cell
> phone, 540 pixel abortion of WebTV on an old TV, squeeze under 700
> pixels on an old 13 inch VGA monitor or many feet displayed on a wall
> with a projector. Or maybe no canvas at all! The Web is not paper, pain
> and simple. Paper has dimensions and the Web does not.
>
I doubt SpaceGirls visitors would be useing WebTV, or Dial-up for that
matter, they would all have broadband high graphics displays and Flash
and JS enabled.
> As an artist and with my graphical perspective with my first websites I
> approached web design like paper. My approach has evolved as the Web as
> evolved and as learned more about the Web from actually using it.
>
> Being accessible and flexible in web design does not necessarily equate
> to plain and boring. It does take creativity. Doing it in flash does
> make it creative either. There also is no one answer for all sites. You
> can try to control all aspects of the presentation of a site, but it
> comes at a price. The more your control the more you will limit
> accessibility.
>
It would be 1%! which is not much for the type of sites that SpaceGirl
works on, mainly Arts type sites.
> I am not against flash, any more than images or other media (well maybe
> background music!!!!). All have their place. What I am saying is that
> flash, at least at this state, is not a replacement for html.
>
I agree with this though.
BTW I can read the text on the main page of SpaceGirls site with my
screenreader, Jaws 5.0 (quite an old version mind you).
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
On Oct 10, 5:08 am, Karl Groves
> SpaceGirl
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
> >> You keep saying this, talk is cheap. If the content is basically text
> >> using Flash appears not to add value but lend to complications in
> >> bandwidth (maybe not the initial download but the bottom line time to
> >> display) and versatility for user accessibility unless carefully
> >> engineered by the flash designer (although I have jet to witness an
> >> example of this too)
>
> > You are ignoring the user experience. This can be as important as your
> > content, if not MORE important, depending on the context.
>
> > Also, once again, Flash IS ACCESSIBLE. It can be screen read, it
> > supports CSS and tagging (as in alternative), plus it's a presentational
> > layer. You may as well accuse MPEG movies, or JPEG images of being
> > inaccessible. It's all about HOW it's used.
>
> Accessible for who?
> First, I've yet to see accessible flash.
http://www.northleithmill.com/
> AT support for Flash is terribly spotty, so the amount of work required to
> make accessible Flash is bigger than most Flash developers want to deal
> with. On the upside, the ability for Flash to be self voicing is super
> cool, as is the ability to do your own captioning and all of that. There's
> a lot of other possibilities with Flash (and flex) like providing tab index
> and so on. But again, where are the accessible Flash websites? Simply
> saying it is possible isn't enough.
>
I can read the text from the above Flash site with my Screenreader.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
On Oct 9, 10:06 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> I have, Travis. But you just keep trying to change the subject. Go
> back and read.
Your wasting me time now.
On Oct 10, 12:16 am, dorayme
> I will leave you and Travis to deal with that one...
Nope, he is alone with it now. I have gotten bored with his mantra.
On Oct 9, 11:09 pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
> On 2007-10-09, SpaceGirl wrote:
> > Ben C wrote:
> >>> Despite its nostaglic exigency, html/css does seem very much like a
> >>> dead end in the future - especially with the browser-barons' lack of
> >>> concordance.
>
> >> No, this is nonsense, and SpaceGirl's interpretation of history is also
> >> a bit suspect.
>
> > Nah I'm quite aware of the history, Microsoft of course did abuse their
> > position, but OS software didn't really help either.
>
> Can you provide an example of OS software that "didn't help"??
I mean, didn't actually bring anything new to the table. Where has
almost all the desktop innovation been over the last 5 or 6 years? OS
X... which is not open source. MS have steadily made Windows worse,
and most Linux desktops are poor Windows clones. Innovation... please?
The biggest innovation in desktops we're going to see THIS year is OS
X Leopard.
As for browsers... Opera, which is not Open Source, is the only place
we've seen any browser innovation in 5 or 6 years.
So from the point of view of the end user, Open Source has added a big
fat zero *directly* to the experience that they get when they use a
computer, although you could argue FireFox's market penetration
indirectly "encouraged" MS to re-vamp IE.
> I mean, didn't actually bring anything new to the table. Where has
> almost all the desktop innovation been over the last 5 or 6 years? OS
> X... which is not open source. MS have steadily made Windows worse,
> and most Linux desktops are poor Windows clones. Innovation... please?
> The biggest innovation in desktops we're going to see THIS year is OS
> X Leopard.
Because desktops are no longer the focus?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/10/gphone_mobile_os/
"Google has not make any official comment on the rumours surrounding
its mobile plans, but the company's chief executive Eric Schmidt has
said several times that the mobile market represents the biggest
potential growth area for the company."
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:18:11
GMT Chaddy2222 scribed:
> http://www.northleithmill.com/
>
....
> I can read the text from the above Flash site with my Screenreader.
Does absolutely nothing on my box.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:16:26
GMT dorayme scribed:
> No, I can't say I feel any better... got any ideas about helping
> the flu abate? I have not done anything to deserve this!
Believe it or not, something that's always helped to relieve my discomfort
during ailments is watching "The Three Stooges" for hours on the couch
while wearing pajamas with a flap in the back. I guess it soothes the
mental strain of reality while alleviating certain difficulties related to
diarrhea.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:07:16 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:
> On Oct 10, 12:16 am, dorayme
>> I will leave you and Travis to deal with that one...
>
> Nope, he is alone with it now. I have gotten bored with his mantra.
Mantras are generally boring, anyway, but oh those womantras!
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
On Oct 10, 10:39 pm, Neredbojias
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:18:11
> GMT Chaddy2222 scribed:
>
>
>
> >http://www.northleithmill.com/
>
> ...
> > I can read the text from the above Flash site with my Screenreader.
>
> Does absolutely nothing on my box.
>
Well, yeah their is not much content but I can read what it says with
my screenreader.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:58:38
GMT SpaceGirl scribed:
>> Oh, ho ho! Here's where we patently disagree. I believe they are
>> doing a totally horseshit job - particularly in those areas where
>> they include statements something like "...the useragent may
>> determine how it responds to this condition by..." When one
>> endeavors to set standards, there is no place for ambiguity. In
>> addition, their box model sucks and the whole "dom" thing (as now
>> implimented) will in the future be looked upon as some quirky digital
>> primeval foible.
>
> That's for sure. They do a good job in... well at least in providing a
> reasonable alternative to IE we're in a situation where we are moving
> towards standards being rendered "kind of" the same everywhere. But
> you are right; the standards themselves are terrible, badly formed,
> very hard to understand.
Yes, so how can you call it a "good job"? The fact is they're a bunch of
idiots on-a-par with the "top-5%-of-the-graduating-class" idiots
Microsoft hires to fuck up their company. There is more to intelligence
than high IQ and academic productivity, but, unfortunately, the schleps
of the world haven't seemed to learn this yet.
Even Onideus, with all his self-image-degrading rants, has shown me more
brains than any w3c mope.
>>> There are two main reasons for differences between browsers now:
>>> some of them just haven't done all the work yet to meet the specs;
>>> and the specs are so complicated (mostly because of all the
>>> historical baggage) that in places they aren't always that easy to
>>> follow.
>>
>> Despite the "good job" the w3c is doing?? Gosh!
>
> Yeah kinda crazy. The XHTML1.0 standards have been around since 1999 -
> not ONE major browser supports the full spec yet. Not a single one! In
> EIGHT years!? So much for standards... They do get 99% of it right,
> but it's just... a mess really.
Xhtml? Well, it would be fair to say that xhtml's full intent or
capabilities are beyond my ken, but from what I've seen so far, it is
completely superfluous and actually detrimental to the standardization of
hypertext rendering in general.
>> "It is a damn nightmare getting a standalone application
>> installed on the client side. It is simply much easier to install
>> browser-based applications using technology such as Flex than any
>> technology that Microsoft has so far come up with. I still have
>> nightmares over failed .Net installs that would take out other client
>> applications when trying to install our own software in my previous
>> job."
>
>:)
>
> Or AIR... that looks promising (if it gets pst the whole "who the hell
> will install this anyway? hurdle).
Can't fairly comment - don't know it. I need to learn Flex (which will
surely take some time.)
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:43:49
GMT SpaceGirl scribed:
>>> £35 per month ($70 US), but that includes all data, 200 minutes, 200
>>> texts, plus £270 ($540) for the phone. There are no other charges on
>>> 18 month contract.
>>
>> Hmm, a bit cheaper in the US. (8gb iPhone: $399; all data, 450 mins,
>> 200 texts: $59.99)
>
> You have to keep in mind how worthless the USD is right now, so not
> sure what that works out in real terms. If this was 1.5 years ago, in
> UK money it would be around $55 a month plus $480 for the phone.
Hmm, right now the lb. is worth almost exactly $2.04. I remember a smaller
(numeric) divergence, but I also remember when the lb. was more'n 3$ worth
of gelt, too. Anyway, 1.5 years ago may as well be in the Jurassic so just
admit you're getting snookered.
>>> So yeah, very expensive, but worth it IMO!
>>
>> I keep forgetting how much women like to yak...
>
> Oy :D
:) -But it's true. To wit: your emphasis on cell phonery.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 9, 10:06 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>> I have, Travis. But you just keep trying to change the subject. Go
>> back and read.
>
> Your wasting me time now.
>
Still evading, I see, troll. Can't even be bothered to go back and
read. You expect everyone to do things for you.
You are a waste of time.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 10, 12:16 am, dorayme
>> I will leave you and Travis to deal with that one...
>
> Nope, he is alone with it now. I have gotten bored with his mantra.
>
And you never did answer the question. And now you're bowing out.
Thank you for leaving, troll. Don't let the door slam you in the arse
on the way out.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
On 2007-10-10, Neredbojias
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:58:38
> GMT SpaceGirl scribed:
>
>
>>> Oh, ho ho! Here's where we patently disagree. I believe they are
>>> doing a totally horseshit job - particularly in those areas where
>>> they include statements something like "...the useragent may
>>> determine how it responds to this condition by..." When one
>>> endeavors to set standards, there is no place for ambiguity. In
>>> addition, their box model sucks and the whole "dom" thing (as now
>>> implimented) will in the future be looked upon as some quirky digital
>>> primeval foible.
>>
>> That's for sure. They do a good job in... well at least in providing a
>> reasonable alternative to IE we're in a situation where we are moving
>> towards standards being rendered "kind of" the same everywhere. But
>> you are right; the standards themselves are terrible, badly formed,
>> very hard to understand.
>
> Yes, so how can you call it a "good job"?
You have to bear in mind how difficult a job it is, diplomatically as
well as technically. Then you have to ask how could it have been done
better, and if you can't come up with too many ideas, conclude that they
are probably are actually doing a good job.
How does the box model suck anyway? If you didn't have to worry about
history or what existing browsers did, what box model would you design?
Chaddy2222 wrote:
> Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
> a lot of you would be interested.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
> --
> Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
>
Does anyone know a setting to keep from opening
a thread view of this monster thread (in both a.html and a.w.webmaster)
when I open Thunderbird? It's like being renditioned!
Chaddy2222 wrote:
> http://www.northleithmill.com/
> I can read the text from the above Flash site with my Screenreader.
And the FlashPaper demo?
http://www.adobe.com/products/flashpaper/examples/
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
In article <5LmdnWY3WKXFT5HanZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle
> Travis Newbury wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 10:06 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> >> I have, Travis. But you just keep trying to change the subject. Go
> >> back and read.
> >
> > Your wasting me time now.
> >
>
> Still evading, I see, troll. Can't even be bothered to go back and
> read. You expect everyone to do things for you.
>
> You are a waste of time.
OK, you don't want to discuss trolling, and you seem not to be
having any luck with Travis. How about... about... say... er...
discussing what is and what is not a waste of time in life? This
is not an uninteresting subject to pursue considering it touches
on what a being ought and ought not to be, what are the truly
worthwhile things...? Eh?
--
dorayme
In article <13gpm2kq2skeud9@corp.supernews.com>,
mbstevens
> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> > Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
> > a lot of you would be interested.
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
> > --
> > Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
> >
> Does anyone know a setting to keep from opening
> a thread view of this monster thread (in both a.html and a.w.webmaster)
> when I open Thunderbird? It's like being renditioned!
In the online reader MT-Newswatcher, it is beaut, in two ways:
(1) All the read posts have disappeared and are not even on the
computer
(2) When the reader is opened, only the thread name shows, not
the unread individual posts and one can just read one after the
other without ever having to even see the list of unreads. Each
post has a next button, or the space bar is used to go forward.
I settled on this newsreader in Egypt to cope with things when
flown there by the CIA in one its sweeps of Newtown, Sydney. I
also have extensive techniques for surviving and yes,
flourishing, in killfiles.
--
dorayme
On Oct 10, 6:40 pm, dorayme
> OK, you don't want to discuss trolling, and you seem not to be
> having any luck with Travis.
I got bored... I would much rather fill your HR with more Travis
witisizms...
Speaking of that (ok this really has nothing to do with that but I
needed a transition to a new topic)
It seems Siemens is considering me to do a world tour training their
people in the use of Flash and Flash video in training. One of my
stops would be Siemens AG in Australia. I believe I would be staying
in Archerville? Of course this is not until Spring 08.
So.... what are you doing in the spring...
In article
<1192064603.851115.297150@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury
> On Oct 10, 6:40 pm, dorayme
> > OK, you don't want to discuss trolling, and you seem not to be
> > having any luck with Travis.
>
> I got bored... I would much rather fill your HR with more Travis
> witisizms...
>
> Speaking of that (ok this really has nothing to do with that but I
> needed a transition to a new topic)
>
> It seems Siemens is considering me to do a world tour training their
> people in the use of Flash and Flash video in training. One of my
> stops would be Siemens AG in Australia. I believe I would be staying
> in Archerville? Of course this is not until Spring 08.
>
> So.... what are you doing in the spring...
There is no Archerville in Australia as far as I know? Siemens
have their Head Office in Melbourne. I had dealings with them a
bit when I was project manager of a chemical R & D plant in
Sydney, nice equipment.
If I am still alive next spring, considering the present flu I am
experiencing, ... ?
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article <5LmdnWY3WKXFT5HanZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle
>
>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>>> On Oct 9, 10:06 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> I have, Travis. But you just keep trying to change the subject. Go
>>>> back and read.
>>> Your wasting me time now.
>>>
>> Still evading, I see, troll. Can't even be bothered to go back and
>> read. You expect everyone to do things for you.
>>
>> You are a waste of time.
>
> OK, you don't want to discuss trolling, and you seem not to be
> having any luck with Travis. How about... about... say... er...
> discussing what is and what is not a waste of time in life? This
> is not an uninteresting subject to pursue considering it touches
> on what a being ought and ought not to be, what are the truly
> worthwhile things...? Eh?
>
Naw, you're just two trolls hanging out together.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> <1192064603.851115.297150@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Travis Newbury
>
>> On Oct 10, 6:40 pm, dorayme
>>> OK, you don't want to discuss trolling, and you seem not to be
>>> having any luck with Travis.
>> I got bored... I would much rather fill your HR with more Travis
>> witisizms...
>>
>> Speaking of that (ok this really has nothing to do with that but I
>> needed a transition to a new topic)
>>
>> It seems Siemens is considering me to do a world tour training their
>> people in the use of Flash and Flash video in training. One of my
>> stops would be Siemens AG in Australia. I believe I would be staying
>> in Archerville? Of course this is not until Spring 08.
>>
>> So.... what are you doing in the spring...
>
> There is no Archerville in Australia as far as I know? Siemens
> have their Head Office in Melbourne. I had dealings with them a
> bit when I was project manager of a chemical R & D plant in
> Sydney, nice equipment.
>
> If I am still alive next spring, considering the present flu I am
> experiencing, ... ?
>
Sounds like typical Travis - another thing he got wrong! LOL!
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
In article <3uidnfF1--sQDZDanZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article
> > <1192064603.851115.297150@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Travis Newbury
> >
> >
> > There is no Archerville in Australia as far as I know?
> >
>
> Sounds like typical Travis - another thing he got wrong! LOL!
This is not at all nice, Mr Stuckle! It looks to be plain mean.
Surely he has not offended you that badly?
I think I am going to have to take you under my wing. Last night
I saw a program for the worst of the worst prisoners in a
Phillipines jail. The governor introduced dancing to the inmates.
They figured on UTube in the end, they became friendly and happy
from formerly being mean and violent.
What I am saying to you Jerry here is that you have nothing to
fear from me taking you into my fold. I am instituting some novel
character building programs of my own. It is true that I have
resorted to some less dainty practices in the past, (like when I
sent men to find the guys who beat up poor Luigi on the German
French border, like the many times I have sent Officer Bud White
to deal with poor Boji...), but this program has given me fresh
ideas.
You like dancing (I am thinking, stirring "gym" pop beats...)?
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article <3uidnfF1--sQDZDanZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <1192064603.851115.297150@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Travis Newbury
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no Archerville in Australia as far as I know?
>>>
>> Sounds like typical Travis - another thing he got wrong! LOL!
>
> This is not at all nice, Mr Stuckle! It looks to be plain mean.
> Surely he has not offended you that badly?
>
> I think I am going to have to take you under my wing. Last night
> I saw a program for the worst of the worst prisoners in a
> Phillipines jail. The governor introduced dancing to the inmates.
> They figured on UTube in the end, they became friendly and happy
> from formerly being mean and violent.
>
> What I am saying to you Jerry here is that you have nothing to
> fear from me taking you into my fold. I am instituting some novel
> character building programs of my own. It is true that I have
> resorted to some less dainty practices in the past, (like when I
> sent men to find the guys who beat up poor Luigi on the German
> French border, like the many times I have sent Officer Bud White
> to deal with poor Boji...), but this program has given me fresh
> ideas.
>
> You like dancing (I am thinking, stirring "gym" pop beats...)?
>
ROFLMAO! Troll!
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
On Oct 10, 9:50 pm, dorayme
> > It seems Siemens is considering me to do a world tour training their
> > people in the use of Flash and Flash video in training. One of my
> > stops would be Siemens AG in Australia. I believe I would be staying
> > in Archerville? Of course this is not until Spring 08.
> > So.... what are you doing in the spring...
> There is no Archerville in Australia as far as I know?
My bad, it is Archerfield.
> If I am still alive next spring, considering the present flu I am
> experiencing, ... ?
I got my flu shot 2 weeks ago. with luck it will prevent me from
going through the same.
On Oct 10, 11:13 pm, dorayme
> like when I
> sent men to find the guys who beat up poor Luigi
Luigi! It has been a LONG time since I have seen him around here.
Also, anyone ever hear what happened to brucie? I miss some of the
old regulars.
> As for browsers... Opera, which is not Open Source, is the only place
> we've seen any browser innovation in 5 or 6 years.
Most innovation has been in mobile browsers.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,138313-c,mozilla/article.h tml
"After a couple of experiences dipping a toe into the mobile market,
Mozilla Corp. said it plans to get serious about developing a mobile
browser.
Mozilla has recently hired two new developers to help work on the
project and plans to release Mobile Firefox some time in the next year
or two."
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:02:05 GMT
Chaddy2222 scribed:
>> >http://www.northleithmill.com/
>>
>> ...
>> > I can read the text from the above Flash site with my Screenreader.
>>
>> Does absolutely nothing on my box.
>>
> Well, yeah their is not much content but I can read what it says with
> my screenreader.
Oh, okay, that was your point...
I think it's suppose to do something, though, because I looked fleetingly
at the source. Whatever.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:40:48 GMT
dorayme scribed:
>> Still evading, I see, troll. Can't even be bothered to go back and
>> read. You expect everyone to do things for you.
>>
>> You are a waste of time.
>
> OK, you don't want to discuss trolling, and you seem not to be
> having any luck with Travis. How about... about... say... er...
> discussing what is and what is not a waste of time in life? This
> is not an uninteresting subject to pursue considering it touches
> on what a being ought and ought not to be, what are the truly
> worthwhile things...? Eh?
One big waste of time in life could be reading your posts.
< g r i n >
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
On Oct 11, 10:37 am, Phil Payne
> > As for browsers... Opera, which is not Open Source, is the only place
> > we've seen any browser innovation in 5 or 6 years.
>
> Most innovation has been in mobile browsers.
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,138313-c,mozilla/article.h tml
>
> "After a couple of experiences dipping a toe into the mobile market,
> Mozilla Corp. said it plans to get serious about developing a mobile
> browser.
>
> Mozilla has recently hired two new developers to help work on the
> project and plans to release Mobile Firefox some time in the next year
> or two."
When it's out and on my phone then we can talk about it. Right now,
its hot air. I remember the amazing feature list of FireFox 2...
almost all of the interesting/new features were dropped before it was
launched. Same is happening now with FireFox 3 - most of the more
interesting/new things are slowly dropping off the feature list.
dorayme wrote:
> In article <13gpm2kq2skeud9@corp.supernews.com>,
> mbstevens
>
>> Chaddy2222 wrote:
>>> Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
>>> a lot of you would be interested.
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
>>> --
>>> Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
>>>
>> Does anyone know a setting to keep from opening
>> a thread view of this monster thread (in both a.html and a.w.webmaster)
>> when I open Thunderbird? It's like being renditioned!
>
> In the online reader MT-Newswatcher, it is beaut, in two ways:
>
> (1) All the read posts have disappeared and are not even on the
> computer
>
> (2) When the reader is opened, only the thread name shows, not
> the unread individual posts and one can just read one after the
> other without ever having to even see the list of unreads. Each
> post has a next button, or the space bar is used to go forward.
>
> I settled on this newsreader in Egypt to cope with things when
> flown there by the CIA in one its sweeps of Newtown, Sydney. I
> also have extensive techniques for surviving and yes,
> flourishing, in killfiles.
>
I was using Pan for years, but my latest version just died (won't
download any more messages.) Pan does a lot more than thunderbird,
and better, when it runs right -- but keeping it going is a problem.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:49:12
GMT Ben C scribed:
>>> That's for sure. They do a good job in... well at least in providing
>>> a reasonable alternative to IE we're in a situation where we are
>>> moving towards standards being rendered "kind of" the same
>>> everywhere. But you are right; the standards themselves are
>>> terrible, badly formed, very hard to understand.
>>
>> Yes, so how can you call it a "good job"?
>
> You have to bear in mind how difficult a job it is, diplomatically as
> well as technically. Then you have to ask how could it have been done
> better, and if you can't come up with too many ideas, conclude that
> they are probably are actually doing a good job.
Well, I don't look at it (nor most things) quite that way. Just because
I may not have plentiful experience within the scope of the subject per
se does not preclude my right or ability to criticize the results. Yes,
I have lots of experience in _using_ the standards but little in
actually formulating them to be viably progressive. My decision
regarding their worth or lack thereof is based upon the ease-of-use with
which they may be instituted and the reliability they demonstrate in
performing. As both of these areas are currently somewhat of a joke
often enough to be notable, I feel quite confident that my opinion is
the correct one.
> How does the box model suck anyway? If you didn't have to worry about
> history or what existing browsers did, what box model would you
> design?
I am not nor profess to be an expert in designing box models, but first
and foremost, said model should be logical _and_ easy to use. I'd
approach the problem by "reverting" to a model wherein the "100%"
designation includes borders/margins/padding and see, by empirical
testing, how that might be accommodated. I would re-base top and bottom
percentage designations applied on margins, etc., to height as opposed
to width. I would strive to make the immediate container the default
container, not the ephemeral "body". Assuming I had the time, I would
look at the whole DOM structure because it is quite flawed. An html
document isn't a "tree" at all, it's a hologram, and all the bs
currently being disseminated about "semantic markup" is bupkis. Sure,
semantics _are_ pertinent to markup, but when improperly foundationed,
they mean next-to-nothing.
In short, I would have to re-evaluated the whole trend of html
"progress" made over the last 10 years or so and undoubtedly start fresh
from primitive beginnings. And as I've already intimated, I'm no expert
so why should my results be any "better" than those of "the pros"? The
trouble here is that "the pros" lack inherent sense, political acuity
and guidance in real-world methods. Perhaps they simply need a wise
leader, but it's rather passe now, anyway, since too much damage has
already been done under the cretinous format extant.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Neredbojias wrote:
>
> Well, I don't look at it (nor most things) quite that way. Just because
> I may not have plentiful experience within the scope of the subject per
> se does not preclude my right or ability to criticize the results. Yes,
> I have lots of experience in _using_ the standards but little in
> actually formulating them to be viably progressive. My decision
> regarding their worth or lack thereof is based upon the ease-of-use with
> which they may be instituted and the reliability they demonstrate in
> performing. As both of these areas are currently somewhat of a joke
> often enough to be notable, I feel quite confident that my opinion is
> the correct one.
>
You probably have more experience than you might think. Every day you
deal with things that are a byproduct of my old favorite "Law of
unintended consequences." They occur in contracts, laws, and
"standards." Some principles are the same, the difference between
standards, contracts, and laws are primarily who they govern, their
enforceability, and available mechanisms of enforcement. Break a law,
and you could get incarcerated, break a contract you could get sued,
break a standard you could get,... what not used? That works when you
control the market. Don't make it according to the standard, and no one
will buy it, but can anyone MAKE millions of users stop using any
particular UA? Users don't usually care that the UA doesn't achieve the
desired effect the "right way" they just care that it does what they
want (at least some of the time.) Thus began the Holy Crusade of HTML,
the browser wars. (Ever notice the metaphor between religion and
HTML/CSS in some discussions here?)
It's ALWAYS easier to start with a clean slate, with no legacy
complications, but history is almost always a factor. Similarly,
evolution. We certainly wouldn't want a ease-of-use to preclude
adaptability. The constant "tinkering" is a pendulum pushed back and
forth. Unfortunately some energy may increase the momentum rather than
dissipate it. SGML started out in the academic and scientific user
community, and it was easier to enforce the S of SGML, don't use the
standard and no one will read/share your work. Would you be happy if
SGML/HTML were limited to rules that only suit the exchange of scholarly
work?
You have every right to be personally unhappy with the current state of
things, and you may indeed feel quite confident that your opinion is
the correct one. However, I might add "by some definition of
'correct.'"
just found 10,000 ways that won't work. (another of my favorites)."
Let's just hope it doesn't take them that many tries to get the
standards "right."
The point being, you may well be shooting the messengers for the message
they bear. It is a difficult task, and you should applaud their
willingness to at least make the effort, even if you are not satisfied
with the result. The alternative being "Abandon hope all ye who enter
here." (i.e. We can't fix the standards so get rid of them.)
None of this means you should let those who chose to right/write the
standards just do as the please. That's where your "right or ability to
criticize the results" comes in.
On 2007-10-11, Neredbojias
[...]
>> How does the box model suck anyway? If you didn't have to worry about
>> history or what existing browsers did, what box model would you
>> design?
>
> I am not nor profess to be an expert in designing box models, but first
> and foremost, said model should be logical _and_ easy to use. I'd
> approach the problem by "reverting" to a model wherein the "100%"
> designation includes borders/margins/padding and see, by empirical
> testing, how that might be accommodated.
For CSS3, the box-sizing: [content-box | border-box] property has been
proposed.
> I would re-base top and bottom percentage designations applied on
> margins, etc., to height as opposed to width.
There are some unforseen consequences to doing that. The height of an
element often can't be known until its descendents have been formatted.
But its descendents may contain floats (which affect their containers'
heights, by displacing text for example). The positions of the floats
and therefore how the text flows around them is affected by the top
margin of the container in the case where a float spreads from one block
box down into a vertically adjacent one.
So you would have a circularity: top margin height depends on content
height, which depends on floats, which depends on top margin height.
Not insoluble, but since the way text wraps around lines and floats is
not a nice smooth function, the only practical solution would be a lot
of iteration.
On 2007-10-10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Travis Newbury wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 12:16 am, dorayme
>>> I will leave you and Travis to deal with that one...
>>
>> Nope, he is alone with it now. I have gotten bored with his mantra.
>
> And you never did answer the question.
What question was that? The older posts in the thread are no longer
on my NNTP server.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2007-10-10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>>> Nope, he is alone with it now. I have gotten bored with his mantra.
>> And you never did answer the question.
>
> What question was that? The older posts in the thread are no longer
> on my NNTP server.
Nobody knows. Most reasonable people KFed the participants or the thread
when it passed 200 posts (in two NGs), and the rest of us just watched,
mouths agape, the way people stand like idiots during a multi-car pileup
where bodies and wrecked automobiles lie around in a twisted, gory mess.
The people who were arguing about the question forgot what the question
was dozens of posts ago, too, which I think is the real reason nobody's
answered or restated it. Meanwhile, the would-be participants have also
lost interest. The boiler has cooled; the steam is gone. Nothing left
but a few still-hot words and some half-hearted name-calling.
All I know anymore is that you are a troll for asking, and I am a troll
for responding to you. ;-)
--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
Optional module of the UIP: I hereby declare this thread to be dead.
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2007-10-10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 12:16 am, dorayme
>>>> I will leave you and Travis to deal with that one...
>>> Nope, he is alone with it now. I have gotten bored with his mantra.
>> And you never did answer the question.
>
> What question was that? The older posts in the thread are no longer
> on my NNTP server.
>
Chaddy told Travis that he (Chaddy) had the opinion that
http://www.mortgagenews2.com could be built more quickly in CSS/HTML
with server-side scripting language than in Flash. The site would have
to be accessible to the visually disabled.
Travis's only answer was that since Chaddy didn't know anything about
Flash, Chaddy's opinion was irrelevant.
I challenged Travis on that statement - to indicate how it could be done
more quickly in Flash. Travis has never answered the question, and
continued to insist that Chaddy's statement was irrelevant. Nothing more.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
John Hosking wrote:
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> On 2007-10-10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>
>>>> Nope, he is alone with it now. I have gotten bored with his mantra.
>>> And you never did answer the question.
>>
>> What question was that? The older posts in the thread are no longer
>> on my NNTP server.
>
> Nobody knows. Most reasonable people KFed the participants or the thread
> when it passed 200 posts (in two NGs), and the rest of us just watched,
> mouths agape, the way people stand like idiots during a multi-car pileup
> where bodies and wrecked automobiles lie around in a twisted, gory mess.
>
> The people who were arguing about the question forgot what the question
> was dozens of posts ago, too, which I think is the real reason nobody's
> answered or restated it. Meanwhile, the would-be participants have also
> lost interest. The boiler has cooled; the steam is gone. Nothing left
> but a few still-hot words and some half-hearted name-calling.
>
> All I know anymore is that you are a troll for asking, and I am a troll
> for responding to you. ;-)
>
>
Not at all. It's a reasonable question.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
In article
<1192094563.741437.290870@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury
> On Oct 10, 9:50 pm, dorayme
> > There is no Archerville in Australia as far as I know?
>
> My bad, it is Archerfield.
Queensland.
By the way, the US 60th Operations Group's 21st Airlift Squadron,
was based there:
http://www.travis.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id =4280
"The 21st Airlift Squadron was activated at Archer Field,
Brisbane, Australia, April 3, 1942, as the 21st Transportation
Squadron. Throughout World War II the squadron remained in the
New Guinea-Australia theatre airlifting various types of cargo.
In July 1942, the unit was redesignated the 21st Troop Carrier
Squadron and began flying the C-46 Commando and the C-47
Skytrain".
--
dorayme
In article
Neredbojias
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:40:48 GMT
> dorayme scribed:
>
> >> Still evading, I see, troll. Can't even be bothered to go back and
> >> read. You expect everyone to do things for you.
> >>
> >> You are a waste of time.
> >
> > OK, you don't want to discuss trolling, and you seem not to be
> > having any luck with Travis. How about... about... say... er...
> > discussing what is and what is not a waste of time in life? This
> > is not an uninteresting subject to pursue considering it touches
> > on what a being ought and ought not to be, what are the truly
> > worthwhile things...? Eh?
>
> One big waste of time in life could be reading your posts.
>
> < g r i n >
So, you are sort of saying that anyone who reads my posts could
be being sucked into the general hopelessness of my non life?
Well, there would be worse things to be sucked into. Meaning and
importance are not everything, you know. Significance can be very
very bloody painful. Don't be too quick to dismiss a life of
triviality, insignificance, hopelessness and despair...
Actually, I am feeling a bit better today, in fact it happened
yesterday afternoon, I realised I was going to survive this flu.
Sorry!
Do me a favour Boji, when you read my posts, read slowly,
carefully weigh up each word; make up in your slowness and
thoroughness for the rude impatience and dismissal of most...
While in a weakened state, I even had warmer feelings towards
Blinkey. I have now decided it is ok for you to talk to him. So
there, feel free. The more I am pissed off with GG posts, the
warmer and cuddlier Blinkey appears to me... I am shedding any
silly personal feelings and trying to develop a more professional
attitude.
--
dorayme
In article
"Chris F.A. Johnson"
> On 2007-10-10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > Travis Newbury wrote:
> >> On Oct 10, 12:16 am, dorayme
> >>> I will leave you and Travis to deal with that one...
> >>
> >> Nope, he is alone with it now. I have gotten bored with his mantra.
> >
> > And you never did answer the question.
>
> What question was that? The older posts in the thread are no longer
> on my NNTP server.
Touche!
--
dorayme
In article <470e609e$1_1@news.bluewin.ch>,
John Hosking
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> > On 2007-10-10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >> Travis Newbury wrote:
>
> >>> Nope, he is alone with it now. I have gotten bored with his mantra.
> >> And you never did answer the question.
> >
> > What question was that? The older posts in the thread are no longer
> > on my NNTP server.
>
> Nobody knows. Most reasonable people KFed the participants or the thread
> when it passed 200 posts (in two NGs), and the rest of us just watched,
> mouths agape, the way people stand like idiots during a multi-car pileup
> where bodies and wrecked automobiles lie around in a twisted, gory mess.
>
> The people who were arguing about the question forgot what the question
> was dozens of posts ago, too, which I think is the real reason nobody's
> answered or restated it. Meanwhile, the would-be participants have also
> lost interest. The boiler has cooled; the steam is gone. Nothing left
> but a few still-hot words and some half-hearted name-calling.
>
> All I know anymore is that you are a troll for asking, and I am a troll
> for responding to you. ;-)
Inside everyone is a repressed urge to troll about, the urge very
strong (because very repressed) in those who have led a life of
great focus in an essentially meaningless world. The
contradiction, the godlessness of it all, can finally break the
containing walls...
--
dorayme
On Oct 11, 4:31 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> I challenged Travis on that statement - to indicate how it could be done
> more quickly in Flash. Travis has never answered the question, and
> continued to insist that Chaddy's statement was irrelevant. Nothing more.
Finally!
But now I am going to be a prick and not answer...
(dorayme, ad that one to the drive.)
In article
<1192143909.732681.100840@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury
> On Oct 11, 4:31 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> > I challenged Travis on that statement - to indicate how it could be done
> > more quickly in Flash. Travis has never answered the question, and
> > continued to insist that Chaddy's statement was irrelevant. Nothing more.
>
> Finally!
>
> But now I am going to be a prick and not answer...
>
> (dorayme, ad that one to the drive.)
I'm moving all to a dedicated external HD, "Travis_500GB", your
output is too much now to fit on normal convenient media...
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> <1192143909.732681.100840@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> Travis Newbury
>
>> On Oct 11, 4:31 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>>> I challenged Travis on that statement - to indicate how it could be done
>>> more quickly in Flash. Travis has never answered the question, and
>>> continued to insist that Chaddy's statement was irrelevant. Nothing more.
>> Finally!
>>
>> But now I am going to be a prick and not answer...
>>
>> (dorayme, ad that one to the drive.)
>
> I'm moving all to a dedicated external HD, "Travis_500GB", your
> output is too much now to fit on normal convenient media...
>
Extreme ZIP compression should get that down to about 250 Gb. And if
you go for the "Pro" version and employ the EEG (Extreme Extraneous
Gaseous) filter, well, geez! We might be in floppy territory!!!
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Why is it that when you transport something by car, it is called a
shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it is called cargo?
dorayme wrote:
> In article <470e609e$1_1@news.bluewin.ch>,
> John Hosking
>
>> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>> On 2007-10-10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>>>>> Nope, he is alone with it now. I have gotten bored with his mantra.
>>>> And you never did answer the question.
>>> What question was that? The older posts in the thread are no longer
>>> on my NNTP server.
>> Nobody knows. Most reasonable people KFed the participants or the thread
>> when it passed 200 posts (in two NGs), and the rest of us just watched,
>> mouths agape, the way people stand like idiots during a multi-car pileup
>> where bodies and wrecked automobiles lie around in a twisted, gory mess.
>>
>> The people who were arguing about the question forgot what the question
>> was dozens of posts ago, too, which I think is the real reason nobody's
>> answered or restated it. Meanwhile, the would-be participants have also
>> lost interest. The boiler has cooled; the steam is gone. Nothing left
>> but a few still-hot words and some half-hearted name-calling.
>>
>> All I know anymore is that you are a troll for asking, and I am a troll
>> for responding to you. ;-)
>
> Inside everyone is a repressed urge to troll about, the urge very
> strong (because very repressed) in those who have led a life of
> great focus in an essentially meaningless world. The
> contradiction, the godlessness of it all, can finally break the
> containing walls...
>
So that's your excuse for being a troll? ROFLMAO!
Get a life.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 11, 4:31 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>> I challenged Travis on that statement - to indicate how it could be done
>> more quickly in Flash. Travis has never answered the question, and
>> continued to insist that Chaddy's statement was irrelevant. Nothing more.
>
> Finally!
>
> But now I am going to be a prick and not answer...
>
> (dorayme, ad that one to the drive.)
>
>
>
You always were the prick - even the other three times I challenged you
to prove it.
But you can't, prick and troll. Because Chaddy is right.
ROFLMAO!
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:07:50
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> One big waste of time in life could be reading your posts.
>>
>> < g r i n >
>
> So, you are sort of saying that anyone who reads my posts could
> be being sucked into the general hopelessness of my non life?
> Well, there would be worse things to be sucked into. Meaning and
> importance are not everything, you know. Significance can be very
> very bloody painful. Don't be too quick to dismiss a life of
> triviality, insignificance, hopelessness and despair...
>
> Actually, I am feeling a bit better today, in fact it happened
> yesterday afternoon, I realised I was going to survive this flu.
> Sorry!
>
> Do me a favour Boji, when you read my posts, read slowly,
> carefully weigh up each word; make up in your slowness and
> thoroughness for the rude impatience and dismissal of most...
>
> While in a weakened state, I even had warmer feelings towards
> Blinkey. I have now decided it is ok for you to talk to him. So
> there, feel free. The more I am pissed off with GG posts, the
> warmer and cuddlier Blinkey appears to me... I am shedding any
> silly personal feelings and trying to develop a more professional
> attitude.
Mmm, well, that might be for the best. -So long as you don't become an
emotionless Neptunian trogg or something. As for Blinkey, I think he just
doesn't like a lot of nonsense. He's probably a perfectionist, something
I've been accused of more than once.
Glad the flu is abating. You're sick enough when you're well.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article
Neredbojias
> You're sick enough when you're well.
I take that as a compliment.
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:40:26
GMT William Gill scribed:
> It's ALWAYS easier to start with a clean slate, with no legacy
> complications, but history is almost always a factor.
Hmm, I dunno. I see what you're saying, but, excepting those extremely
few and true "gems of inspiration", scientific advancement is based on
previous discovery and achievement. Even Einstein's special relativity
theory was based on considerable previous work. Of course html
advancement isn't exactly scientific advancement, but some of the
processes can be of the same kind - notably discarding hypotheses when
they become untenable. A "clean slate" is a general term, not to be
taken here in the absolute.
> You have every right to be personally unhappy with the current state of
> things, and you may indeed feel quite confident that your opinion is
> the correct one. However, I might add "by some definition of
> 'correct.'"
> just found 10,000 ways that won't work. (another of my favorites)."
> Let's just hope it doesn't take them that many tries to get the
> standards "right."
>
> The point being, you may well be shooting the messengers for the
message
> they bear. It is a difficult task, and you should applaud their
> willingness to at least make the effort, even if you are not satisfied
> with the result. The alternative being "Abandon hope all ye who enter
> here." (i.e. We can't fix the standards so get rid of them.)
Well, yes - absolutely: get rid of the ones which don't work right. As
for applauding efforts which result in inept output - you've got to be
kidding!
> None of this means you should let those who chose to right/write the
> standards just do as the please. That's where your "right or ability
to
> criticize the results" comes in.
My right to criticize is inarguable. I have the right to criticize Allah
in Mecca whether the Moslems there say so or not. The point of this
plaint is the point of that criticism not the improbable question of my
right to live and act freely with responsibility. Too much politics and
religion have made the typical man schizoid regarding the question of his
rights, and in shedding that tumor at least, the USA probably does lead
the world in progressive advancement.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:48:09
GMT Ben C scribed:
>>> How does the box model suck anyway? If you didn't have to worry about
>>> history or what existing browsers did, what box model would you
>>> design?
>>
>> I am not nor profess to be an expert in designing box models, but
first
>> and foremost, said model should be logical _and_ easy to use. I'd
>> approach the problem by "reverting" to a model wherein the "100%"
>> designation includes borders/margins/padding and see, by empirical
>> testing, how that might be accommodated.
>
> For CSS3, the box-sizing: [content-box | border-box] property has been
> proposed.
Sounds interesting, I'll have to look into that.
>> I would re-base top and bottom percentage designations applied on
>> margins, etc., to height as opposed to width.
>
> There are some unforseen consequences to doing that. The height of an
> element often can't be known until its descendents have been formatted.
Hah, unforeseen by whom?
> But its descendents may contain floats (which affect their containers'
> heights, by displacing text for example). The positions of the floats
> and therefore how the text flows around them is affected by the top
> margin of the container in the case where a float spreads from one
block
> box down into a vertically adjacent one.
>
> So you would have a circularity: top margin height depends on content
> height, which depends on floats, which depends on top margin height.
Are you seriously telling me _you_ couldn't fix this with the pertinent
(empirical) programming knowledge? I know you're smarter than that.
> Not insoluble, but since the way text wraps around lines and floats is
> not a nice smooth function, the only practical solution would be a lot
> of iteration.
Not a lot; one - two passes at most.
Anyway, all this isn't really _my_ point. My point is that you do what
it takes to make it work right - meaning facilely and correctly within
the scope of its _correct_ definition. That's what's so horrible about
those "useragent-optional" thingies in the specs. There _are_ no
options; either do it right or take a hike. As for legacy and history, -
an old and hackneyed excuse. Nobody expects perfect html/css, etc., in
one day but many more-or-less expect near-perfect html/css, etc., _some_
day. From everything I've seen so far, that day simply will not come
without considerable and radical change. Much of what exists now needs
to be excised and transformed before things can approach a truly
"unimpaired" state. -And by that time, some Flash derivative will
probably have taken over the whole schlemeil with flying colors...
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
On Oct 12, 6:31 am, Jerry Stuckle
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> > On 2007-10-10, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >> Travis Newbury wrote:
> >>> On Oct 10, 12:16 am, dorayme
> >>>> I will leave you and Travis to deal with that one...
> >>> Nope, he is alone with it now. I have gotten bored with his mantra.
> >> And you never did answer the question.
>
> > What question was that? The older posts in the thread are no longer
> > on my NNTP server.
>
> Chaddy told Travis that he (Chaddy) had the opinion thathttp://www.mortgagenews2.comcould be built more quickly in CSS/HTML
> with server-side scripting language than in Flash. The site would have
> to be accessible to the visually disabled.
>
> Travis's only answer was that since Chaddy didn't know anything about
> Flash, Chaddy's opinion was irrelevant.
>
> I challenged Travis on that statement - to indicate how it could be done
> more quickly in Flash. Travis has never answered the question, and
> continued to insist that Chaddy's statement was irrelevant. Nothing more.
>
Regarding your original question, read SpaceGirls comments in this
thread on Flex, it's the new development toy that Addobie has
recently bought out.
But I reckon sertenly for any kind of user input server side
programming pisses all over client side.
As an example of this SYN FM (syn.org.au) have recently started a
service where by listeners to the online stream can SMS the studio for
free through the website.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
"SpaceGirl"
news:5mvk76FfjpchU1@mid.individual.net...
> Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:26:21 -0700, Travis Newbury put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>> On Oct 8, 10:56 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes the deziner does not have ultimate control of the styling as with
>>>> flash, but then a potential customer doesn't have to be driving away
>>>> because of some poor design decisions made by the said deziner!
>>> And as time goes on, if that seems to be a problem with this site,
>>> and they start losing money because of the designer, they will either
>>> have to change or go out of business. I seriously doubt either will
>>> happen.
>>
>> "This site" being http://www.mortgagenews2.com, for the benefit of
>> anyone jumping into the thread at this point.
>>
>> Anyway, let's see how popular it is using some common freely-available
>> metrics:
>>
>> Google Pagerank: 0
>> Compete Rank: no data
>> Alexa Rank: 1,697,203
>> Netcraft ranking: 5,098,230
>>
>> Those figures are crap. A personal website might be that low; any
>> commercial site getting that little traffic is virtually dead.
>> However, that may not matter much if the income stream is good.
>>
>> To see what they're charging for advertising, I registered with the
>> site. That was a bit of a problem in itself: despite the fact that I
>> have a UK keyboard their interface is mapping the keypresses directly
>> to a US key map and hence when I typed certain characters on my
>> keyboard something different showed up on the screen.
>
> That's kinda weird... Flash doesn't contain any language stuff. I think
> your machine is buggered, or they really have done something funky inside
> that SWF (it's not default behavior).
>
>
> I agree with the rest of your comments though, but it's not the way
> ranking works. It's a combination of inbound links + content. Get enough
> inbound links, make sure the content is published as an alternative stream
> (RSS, or an alternative metatag), or provide a text version of the content
> on the side. Remember earlier I was talking about Flash just being one UI
> of many applicable to site - well these guys got that wrong in this case.
>
>> Incidentally, if you click on any of the news stories on the front
>> page of that site, what happens is that it opens another website
>> framed within its own Flash framework. That's usually prohibited by
>> most website Ts&Cs, and has been held to be a breach of copyright in
>> previous lawsuits. I wonder if the site's operators have considered
>> that? Maybe that's why they're happy with an inaccessible design and
>> low visitor numbers - trying to sneak below the radar of the sites
>> they're ripping off.
>
> Grey area, but I do sort of agree. It's pretty bad practice -- and
> wouldn't work in any of MY sites... I have breakout code in all my sites
> to prevent anything we work on being re-framed by a 3rd party.
>
I'm not advocating anything here - just want to alleviate my ignorance...
What's bad about your site being framed in someone else's site? Wouldn't
that increase your site's exposure? I understand that the other site could
be making some financial gain from using your site that way, but how does
that hurt you instead of help you?
Wings wrote:
> "SpaceGirl"
> news:5mvk76FfjpchU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:26:21 -0700, Travis Newbury put finger to
>>> keyboard and typed:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 8, 10:56 am, "Jonathan N. Little"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes the deziner does not have ultimate control of the styling as with
>>>>> flash, but then a potential customer doesn't have to be driving away
>>>>> because of some poor design decisions made by the said deziner!
>>>> And as time goes on, if that seems to be a problem with this site,
>>>> and they start losing money because of the designer, they will either
>>>> have to change or go out of business. I seriously doubt either will
>>>> happen.
>>> "This site" being http://www.mortgagenews2.com, for the benefit of
>>> anyone jumping into the thread at this point.
>>>
>>> Anyway, let's see how popular it is using some common freely-available
>>> metrics:
>>>
>>> Google Pagerank: 0
>>> Compete Rank: no data
>>> Alexa Rank: 1,697,203
>>> Netcraft ranking: 5,098,230
>>>
>>> Those figures are crap. A personal website might be that low; any
>>> commercial site getting that little traffic is virtually dead.
>>> However, that may not matter much if the income stream is good.
>>>
>>> To see what they're charging for advertising, I registered with the
>>> site. That was a bit of a problem in itself: despite the fact that I
>>> have a UK keyboard their interface is mapping the keypresses directly
>>> to a US key map and hence when I typed certain characters on my
>>> keyboard something different showed up on the screen.
>> That's kinda weird... Flash doesn't contain any language stuff. I think
>> your machine is buggered, or they really have done something funky inside
>> that SWF (it's not default behavior).
>>
>>
>> I agree with the rest of your comments though, but it's not the way
>> ranking works. It's a combination of inbound links + content. Get enough
>> inbound links, make sure the content is published as an alternative stream
>> (RSS, or an alternative metatag), or provide a text version of the content
>> on the side. Remember earlier I was talking about Flash just being one UI
>> of many applicable to site - well these guys got that wrong in this case.
>>
>>> Incidentally, if you click on any of the news stories on the front
>>> page of that site, what happens is that it opens another website
>>> framed within its own Flash framework. That's usually prohibited by
>>> most website Ts&Cs, and has been held to be a breach of copyright in
>>> previous lawsuits. I wonder if the site's operators have considered
>>> that? Maybe that's why they're happy with an inaccessible design and
>>> low visitor numbers - trying to sneak below the radar of the sites
>>> they're ripping off.
>> Grey area, but I do sort of agree. It's pretty bad practice -- and
>> wouldn't work in any of MY sites... I have breakout code in all my sites
>> to prevent anything we work on being re-framed by a 3rd party.
>>
> I'm not advocating anything here - just want to alleviate my ignorance...
> What's bad about your site being framed in someone else's site? Wouldn't
> that increase your site's exposure? I understand that the other site could
> be making some financial gain from using your site that way, but how does
> that hurt you instead of help you?
>
>
>
You mean using YOUR bandwidth to give someone else credit for YOUR
content is good?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
In article
Jerry Stuckle
> > I'm not advocating anything here - just want to alleviate my ignorance...
> > What's bad about your site being framed in someone else's site? Wouldn't
> > that increase your site's exposure? I understand that the other site could
> > be making some financial gain from using your site that way, but how does
> > that hurt you instead of help you?
> >
> >
> >
>
> You mean using YOUR bandwidth to give someone else credit for YOUR
> content is good?
Credit, schmredit, not everyone looks after number one as the
highest priority.
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Jerry Stuckle
>
>>> I'm not advocating anything here - just want to alleviate my ignorance...
>>> What's bad about your site being framed in someone else's site? Wouldn't
>>> that increase your site's exposure? I understand that the other site could
>>> be making some financial gain from using your site that way, but how does
>>> that hurt you instead of help you?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> You mean using YOUR bandwidth to give someone else credit for YOUR
>> content is good?
>
> Credit, schmredit, not everyone looks after number one as the
> highest priority.
>
No problem. You want to pay my hosting bill for the next year? I won't
even give you credit for it.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
In article
Jerry Stuckle
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article
> > Jerry Stuckle
> >
> >>> I'm not advocating anything here - just want to alleviate my ignorance...
> >>> What's bad about your site being framed in someone else's site? Wouldn't
> >>> that increase your site's exposure? I understand that the other site
> >>> could
> >>> be making some financial gain from using your site that way, but how does
> >>> that hurt you instead of help you?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> You mean using YOUR bandwidth to give someone else credit for YOUR
> >> content is good?
> >
> > Credit, schmredit, not everyone looks after number one as the
> > highest priority.
> >
>
> No problem. You want to pay my hosting bill for the next year? I won't
> even give you credit for it.
OK, send me details, your credit card number, password etc... I
need these to deal with your creditors... Send email with subject
"My Credit Card for philanthropic Troll" so I look out for it.
I suppose it is not quite btw to point out that you have
committed the Aristotelian reasoning mistake that is translated
into English a little clumsily as "Generalising one bad
consequence in order to undermine and distract attention from the
initial criticism".
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Jerry Stuckle
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article
>>> Jerry Stuckle
>>>
>>>>> I'm not advocating anything here - just want to alleviate my ignorance...
>>>>> What's bad about your site being framed in someone else's site? Wouldn't
>>>>> that increase your site's exposure? I understand that the other site
>>>>> could
>>>>> be making some financial gain from using your site that way, but how does
>>>>> that hurt you instead of help you?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You mean using YOUR bandwidth to give someone else credit for YOUR
>>>> content is good?
>>> Credit, schmredit, not everyone looks after number one as the
>>> highest priority.
>>>
>> No problem. You want to pay my hosting bill for the next year? I won't
>> even give you credit for it.
>
> OK, send me details, your credit card number, password etc... I
> need these to deal with your creditors... Send email with subject
> "My Credit Card for philanthropic Troll" so I look out for it.
>
> I suppose it is not quite btw to point out that you have
> committed the Aristotelian reasoning mistake that is translated
> into English a little clumsily as "Generalising one bad
> consequence in order to undermine and distract attention from the
> initial criticism".
>
Not at all. If you're stealing my content and my bandwidth, then you
should be paying my bills. No mistake here at all - at least not on my end.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Jerry Stuckle
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article
>>> Jerry Stuckle
>>>
>>>>> I'm not advocating anything here - just want to alleviate my ignorance...
>>>>> What's bad about your site being framed in someone else's site? Wouldn't
>>>>> that increase your site's exposure? I understand that the other site
>>>>> could
>>>>> be making some financial gain from using your site that way, but how does
>>>>> that hurt you instead of help you?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You mean using YOUR bandwidth to give someone else credit for YOUR
>>>> content is good?
>>> Credit, schmredit, not everyone looks after number one as the
>>> highest priority.
>>>
>> No problem. You want to pay my hosting bill for the next year? I won't
>> even give you credit for it.
>
> OK, send me details, your credit card number, password etc... I
> need these to deal with your creditors... Send email with subject
> "My Credit Card for philanthropic Troll" so I look out for it.
>
> I suppose it is not quite btw to point out that you have
> committed the Aristotelian reasoning mistake that is translated
> into English a little clumsily as "Generalising one bad
> consequence in order to undermine and distract attention from the
> initial criticism".
>
Oh, and I said YOU pay MY bills - you don't need my credit card number
for that!
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
In article <-I2dncBqGMfL3Y3anZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle
> Not at all. If you're stealing my content and my bandwidth, then you
> should be paying my bills. No mistake here at all - at least not on my end.
It is not beyond possibility that I have misunderstood you. I
have made mistakes now and then. Once in 1961. Once in 1978. And
once in 1989.
It is just that when I see your name now, it is like a ball to a
dog, I just run to catch it without thinking deeply...
--
dorayme
In article <-I2dncNqGMfm3Y3anZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle
> Oh, and I said YOU pay MY bills - you don't need my credit card number
> for that!
C'mon Jerry, you know how bureaucratic these companies can be. Be
a good lad and just do it. To smooth the way as it were... I
won't let anyone else see it...
You know, I think I am feeling well enough for a swim out at
Coogee today... You would die to see the sort of day it is in
Sydney.
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article <-I2dncBqGMfL3Y3anZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle
>
>> Not at all. If you're stealing my content and my bandwidth, then you
>> should be paying my bills. No mistake here at all - at least not on my end.
>
> It is not beyond possibility that I have misunderstood you. I
> have made mistakes now and then. Once in 1961. Once in 1978. And
> once in 1989.
>
> It is just that when I see your name now, it is like a ball to a
> dog, I just run to catch it without thinking deeply...
>
Yea, trolls generally do feel that way about me.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
dorayme wrote:
> In article <-I2dncNqGMfm3Y3anZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle
>
>> Oh, and I said YOU pay MY bills - you don't need my credit card number
>> for that!
>
> C'mon Jerry, you know how bureaucratic these companies can be. Be
> a good lad and just do it. To smooth the way as it were... I
> won't let anyone else see it...
>
> You know, I think I am feeling well enough for a swim out at
> Coogee today... You would die to see the sort of day it is in
> Sydney.
>
Not at all. Sydney's a pretty city.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:18:39 -0700, Wings put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>I'm not advocating anything here - just want to alleviate my ignorance...
>What's bad about your site being framed in someone else's site? Wouldn't
>that increase your site's exposure? I understand that the other site could
>be making some financial gain from using your site that way, but how does
>that hurt you instead of help you?
It's not always bad. Sometimes it can be perfectly acceptable, or even
desirable. But not always, and it's always a bad thing to assume it's
OK without asking.
There are three main reasons why it can be bad. Firstly, it uses the
framed site's bandwidth and hosting costs without contributing towards
them. Secondly, it can give a misleading impression that the framed
site's editorial or content policy is the same as as that of the
framing site. And, finally, it can display the framed site in such a
way as to obscure the framed site's own advertising or navigation,
thus reducing the framed site's potential income.
Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Come on you target for faraway laughter, come on you stranger, you legend, you martyr, and shine!"
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:18:39
GMT Wings scribed:
>> Grey area, but I do sort of agree. It's pretty bad practice -- and
>> wouldn't work in any of MY sites... I have breakout code in all my
>> sites to prevent anything we work on being re-framed by a 3rd party.
>>
> I'm not advocating anything here - just want to alleviate my
> ignorance... What's bad about your site being framed in someone else's
> site? Wouldn't that increase your site's exposure? I understand that
> the other site could be making some financial gain from using your
> site that way, but how does that hurt you instead of help you?
What's bad is that the "hosting" site can associate whatever it wants to
with the content of your site/page. Would you want a picture of your
mother located beneath a Hitler-adorned banner stating "Arbeit macht frei"?
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
On Oct 13, 11:03 am, Neredbojias
> Would you want a picture of your
> mother located beneath a Hitler-adorned banner stating "Arbeit macht frei"?
Would she be naked?
"dorayme"
news:doraymeRidThis-20B280.12473313102007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article
> Jerry Stuckle
>
>> > I'm not advocating anything here - just want to alleviate my
>> > ignorance...
>> > What's bad about your site being framed in someone else's site?
>> > Wouldn't
>> > that increase your site's exposure? I understand that the other site
>> > could
>> > be making some financial gain from using your site that way, but how
>> > does
>> > that hurt you instead of help you?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You mean using YOUR bandwidth to give someone else credit for YOUR
>> content is good?
>
But near as I can see the same bandwidth is being used whether one is
looking at your site in a frame on someone else's site as is used if they
are at your site directly. I'm still missing something here...
"Mark Goodge"
news:2g21h3drgfo3gitcmu0qmvhmcdq0i33bbt@news.markshouse.net. ..
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:18:39 -0700, Wings put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>I'm not advocating anything here - just want to alleviate my ignorance...
>>What's bad about your site being framed in someone else's site? Wouldn't
>>that increase your site's exposure? I understand that the other site could
>>be making some financial gain from using your site that way, but how does
>>that hurt you instead of help you?
>
> It's not always bad. Sometimes it can be perfectly acceptable, or even
> desirable. But not always, and it's always a bad thing to assume it's
> OK without asking.
>
> There are three main reasons why it can be bad. Firstly, it uses the
> framed site's bandwidth and hosting costs without contributing towards
> them. Secondly, it can give a misleading impression that the framed
> site's editorial or content policy is the same as as that of the
> framing site. And, finally, it can display the framed site in such a
> way as to obscure the framed site's own advertising or navigation,
> thus reducing the framed site's potential income.
>
That makes sense. Thanks, Mark.
"Neredbojias"
news:Xns99C851FF956C4nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:18:39
> GMT Wings scribed:
>
>>> Grey area, but I do sort of agree. It's pretty bad practice -- and
>>> wouldn't work in any of MY sites... I have breakout code in all my
>>> sites to prevent anything we work on being re-framed by a 3rd party.
>>>
>> I'm not advocating anything here - just want to alleviate my
>> ignorance... What's bad about your site being framed in someone else's
>> site? Wouldn't that increase your site's exposure? I understand that
>> the other site could be making some financial gain from using your
>> site that way, but how does that hurt you instead of help you?
>
> What's bad is that the "hosting" site can associate whatever it wants to
> with the content of your site/page. Would you want a picture of your
> mother located beneath a Hitler-adorned banner stating "Arbeit macht
> frei"?
>
Haha. I got the point. Thanks.
"Jonathan N. Little"
news:2379a$470aa60d$40cba7a5$21888@NAXS.COM...
> Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> "This site" being http://www.mortgagenews2.com, for the benefit of
>> anyone jumping into the thread at this point.
>
>
>
>> that little hurdle, I managed to register and log in. In order to
>> check prices, I had to actually create an advertising campaign -
>> there's no price list.
>
> Now there's a killer of a bad idea IMO. Personally I despise sites where
> your must register just to get basic information, list rate and prices.
> Slam the font door and lock...great business practice!
>
You got this one right! I just spent $170 on a pulldown projector screen.
The first site I went to didn't get my money - just for that reason. Even if
I might save a buck, I refuse to jump through the hoops. (Maybe for $2, but
thern I don't know, right)?
Wings wrote:
> "dorayme"
> news:doraymeRidThis-20B280.12473313102007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
>> In article
>> Jerry Stuckle
>>
>>>> I'm not advocating anything here - just want to alleviate my
>>>> ignorance...
>>>> What's bad about your site being framed in someone else's site?
>>>> Wouldn't
>>>> that increase your site's exposure? I understand that the other site
>>>> could
>>>> be making some financial gain from using your site that way, but how
>>>> does
>>>> that hurt you instead of help you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You mean using YOUR bandwidth to give someone else credit for YOUR
>>> content is good?
> But near as I can see the same bandwidth is being used whether one is
> looking at your site in a frame on someone else's site as is used if they
> are at your site directly. I'm still missing something here...
>
>
>
When they're looking at your site, they know they're looking at your site.
If I frame your site in mine, they think they're looking at my site and
my content.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
"Neredbojias"
news:Xns99C7B6213AC3nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:07:50
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
>>> One big waste of time in life could be reading your posts.
>>>
>>> < g r i n >
>>
>> So, you are sort of saying that anyone who reads my posts could
>> be being sucked into the general hopelessness of my non life?
>> Well, there would be worse things to be sucked into. Meaning and
>> importance are not everything, you know. Significance can be very
>> very bloody painful. Don't be too quick to dismiss a life of
>> triviality, insignificance, hopelessness and despair...
>>
>> Actually, I am feeling a bit better today, in fact it happened
>> yesterday afternoon, I realised I was going to survive this flu.
>> Sorry!
>>
>> Do me a favour Boji, when you read my posts, read slowly,
>> carefully weigh up each word; make up in your slowness and
>> thoroughness for the rude impatience and dismissal of most...
>>
>> While in a weakened state, I even had warmer feelings towards
>> Blinkey. I have now decided it is ok for you to talk to him. So
>> there, feel free. The more I am pissed off with GG posts, the
>> warmer and cuddlier Blinkey appears to me... I am shedding any
>> silly personal feelings and trying to develop a more professional
>> attitude.
>
> Mmm, well, that might be for the best. -So long as you don't become an
> emotionless Neptunian trogg or something. As for Blinkey, I think he just
> doesn't like a lot of nonsense. He's probably a perfectionist, something
> I've been accused of more than once.
>
> Glad the flu is abating. You're sick enough when you're well.
>
Haha. Great barb. I'm stealing that. Got someone here I can use it on.
In article
<1192295316.979905.176360@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury
> On Oct 13, 11:03 am, Neredbojias
> > Would you want a picture of your
> > mother located beneath a Hitler-adorned banner stating "Arbeit macht frei"?
>
> Would she be naked?
Has Boji, my favorite hm/ha, fallen under a corollary of Godwin's
law?
--
dorayme
On Oct 13, 2:56 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> When they're looking at your site, they know they're looking at your site.
> If I frame your site in mine, they think they're looking at my site and
> my content.
We are obviously talking hypothetically as no one would look at your
site anyway...
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2:56 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>> When they're looking at your site, they know they're looking at your site.
>> If I frame your site in mine, they think they're looking at my site and
>> my content.
>
> We are obviously talking hypothetically as no one would look at your
> site anyway...
>
>
ROFLMAO!
I'll bet I get a hell of a lot more traffic off of any of my sites than
you do from all of them together, troll.
Of course, it's not hard - all of your sites together get about 10 hits
a day - of which 9 are you.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:08:36
GMT Travis Newbury scribed:
> On Oct 13, 11:03 am, Neredbojias
>> Would you want a picture of your
>> mother located beneath a Hitler-adorned banner stating "Arbeit macht
>> frei"?
>
> Would she be naked?
Eew! -A naked _mother_? Spacegirl was right; you _are_ a perv.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:27:46
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> > Would you want a picture of your
>> > mother located beneath a Hitler-adorned banner stating "Arbeit
>> > macht frei"?
>>
>> Would she be naked?
>
> Has Boji, my favorite hm/ha, fallen under a corollary of Godwin's
> law?
What's an hm/ha, anyway?
All I know about Godwin's Law is when you started a fine, robust repartee a
very short time ago in this same thread but then petered-out in typical
lackadaisical fashion. Was it nap time or what?
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:50:46 GMT
Wings scribed:
>> What's bad is that the "hosting" site can associate whatever it wants to
>> with the content of your site/page. Would you want a picture of your
>> mother located beneath a Hitler-adorned banner stating "Arbeit macht
>> frei"?
>>
> Haha. I got the point. Thanks.
Sure thing, pardner. And as someone else already mentioned, unscupulous
dobadnicks can even make your site look like part of theirs, too.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:09:18
GMT Wings scribed:
>> Glad the flu is abating. You're sick enough when you're well.
>>
> Haha. Great barb. I'm stealing that. Got someone here I can use it on.
Well, I can't take all the credit. Dorayme is the kind of person with a
gift to inspire great wit by simply relating circumstances from the
unorthodoxy of her daily existence. It's amazing (in a rather vacuous
way).
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
On Oct 13, 8:00 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> > We are obviously talking hypothetically as no one would look at your
> > site anyway...
> ROFLMAO!
> I'll bet I get a hell of a lot more traffic off of any of my sites than
> you do from all of them together, troll.
Name one
> Of course, it's not hard - all of your sites together get about 10 hits
> a day - of which 9 are you.
I have many time stated the sties I work on. They include Cartoon
network, Siemens, Disney, Aerosmith, Snoopdogg, Chick Fil a, CBS
Sportsline.
Lets see you list.
On Oct 13, 8:00 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> > We are obviously talking hypothetically as no one would look at your
> > site anyway...
> ROFLMAO!
> I'll bet I get a hell of a lot more traffic off of any of my sites than
> you do from all of them together, troll.
Hey, I just did a google search for "JDS Computer Training Corp"
No site to be found. Why? Or do your skills as a web developer just
suck so much that you can't even get into google? Makes me think,
hmmm, all talk and no show...
Your just too easy Jerry.
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 13, 8:00 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>>> We are obviously talking hypothetically as no one would look at your
>>> site anyway...
>> ROFLMAO!
>> I'll bet I get a hell of a lot more traffic off of any of my sites than
>> you do from all of them together, troll.
>
> Name one
>
>> Of course, it's not hard - all of your sites together get about 10 hits
>> a day - of which 9 are you.
>
> I have many time stated the sties I work on. They include Cartoon
> network, Siemens, Disney, Aerosmith, Snoopdogg, Chick Fil a, CBS
> Sportsline.
>
> Lets see you list.
>
>
ROFLMAO! In your dreams! And what exactly did you do when you "worked"
on those sites - see if they worked in IE?
And BTW - I can verify at least one of those sites very quickly - since
they have been one of my training customers, and all I have to do is
make a phone call. I won't tell you which one - want me to make that
call? How about a little bet they never heard of you - say $10,000
(U.S)? I can put it up. Can you?
Go away, you stoopid troll.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 13, 8:00 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>>> We are obviously talking hypothetically as no one would look at your
>>> site anyway...
>> ROFLMAO!
>> I'll bet I get a hell of a lot more traffic off of any of my sites than
>> you do from all of them together, troll.
>
> Hey, I just did a google search for "JDS Computer Training Corp"
>
> No site to be found. Why? Or do your skills as a web developer just
> suck so much that you can't even get into google? Makes me think,
> hmmm, all talk and no show...
>
> Your just too easy Jerry.
>
>
Nope, don't have a site and don't need one. I have more business via
word of mouth than I can handle. But you wouldn't understand that, you
stoopid troll.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
In article
Jerry Stuckle
> Travis Newbury wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 2:56 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> >> When they're looking at your site, they know they're looking at your site.
> >> If I frame your site in mine, they think they're looking at my site and
> >> my content.
> >
> > We are obviously talking hypothetically as no one would look at your
> > site anyway...
> >
> >
>
> ROFLMAO!
>
> I'll bet I get a hell of a lot more traffic off of any of my sites than
> you do from all of them together, troll.
>
> Of course, it's not hard - all of your sites together get about 10 hits
> a day - of which 9 are you.
May I ask you a very personal question Jerry? How old are you?
--
dorayme
In article
Neredbojias
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:27:46
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> > Would you want a picture of your
> >> > mother located beneath a Hitler-adorned banner stating "Arbeit
> >> > macht frei"?
> >>
> >> Would she be naked?
> >
> > Has Boji, my favorite hm/ha, fallen under a corollary of Godwin's
> > law?
>
> What's an hm/ha, anyway?
>
Half man/half ape
> All I know about Godwin's Law is when you started a fine, robust repartee a
> very short time ago in this same thread but then petered-out in typical
> lackadaisical fashion. Was it nap time or what?
I petered out? That is not like me.
--
dorayme
In article
Neredbojias
> Dorayme is the kind of person with a
> gift to inspire great wit by simply relating circumstances from the
> unorthodoxy of her daily existence.
I tell you only the most humdrum things. But there are others, no
humdrum about them. Like:
Recently a new neighbour moved in next door to me. I was pleased
that this party was nice and quiet. Today I found out why. It was
me. I had moved in next door to myself. I heard my voice speaking
to someone on the telephone, it was quite unmistakable. My god,
this is going to complicate matters.
--
dorayme
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> Jerry Stuckle
>
>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>>> On Oct 13, 2:56 pm, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> When they're looking at your site, they know they're looking at your site.
>>>> If I frame your site in mine, they think they're looking at my site and
>>>> my content.
>>> We are obviously talking hypothetically as no one would look at your
>>> site anyway...
>>>
>>>
>> ROFLMAO!
>>
>> I'll bet I get a hell of a lot more traffic off of any of my sites than
>> you do from all of them together, troll.
>>
>> Of course, it's not hard - all of your sites together get about 10 hits
>> a day - of which 9 are you.
>
> May I ask you a very personal question Jerry? How old are you?
>
Old enough that I don't have to answer that question.
I've most probably been programming far longer than you've been alive.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
In article
Jerry Stuckle
> dorayme wrote:
> > May I ask you a very personal question Jerry? How old are you?
> >
>
> Old enough that I don't have to answer that question.
>
OK, its just that some of your answers to Travis seem
playgroundishly combative. Look, it may be that you are a cat, my
daughter had a cat called Jerry, recently deceased and I was
wondering... well, if I may probe a little further, do you have
memories of the bully cat down the street beating you up, once so
bad that you had to go the vet twice and have some op work...?
--
dorayme
On Oct 13, 9:03 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> > Your just too easy Jerry.
> Nope, don't have a site and don't need one. I have more business via
> word of mouth than I can handle. But you wouldn't understand that, you
> stoopid troll.
Good comeback
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:22:57
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> >> > Would you want a picture of your
>> >> > mother located beneath a Hitler-adorned banner stating "Arbeit
>> >> > macht frei"?
>> >>
>> >> Would she be naked?
>> >
>> > Has Boji, my favorite hm/ha, fallen under a corollary of Godwin's
>> > law?
>>
>> What's an hm/ha, anyway?
>>
>
> Half man/half ape
Believe it or not, you're partially right.
Of course in no way am I or was I ever an actual _ape_, but sometimes
late at night when I'm restively fidgeting in bed (non-groinally), I get
these strange and realistic dreams of the distant past - _my_ distant
past. About 40 or 50 thousand years ago, I was apparently a great
chieftain, a Cro-Magnon king named Bone Ur who had a whole bunch of
admittedly dirty, smelly, and disgusting subjects under his rule. They
worshipped and idolized me because I was good at providing both food and
recreation in the form of wooly mammoth, wooly rhinocerases, and the
wooly bully. They'd do anything I'd say except wash, so after din-din
I'd exercise my elevated prerogatives with the entirely captivated though
dumb women, and life was a ball. I think the Supreme Being is trying to
make the point that if you give of yourself and put out, your karma and
other stuff will be contented. -A word to the wise, do.
>> All I know about Godwin's Law is when you started a fine, robust
>> repartee a very short time ago in this same thread but then
>> petered-out in typical lackadaisical fashion. Was it nap time or
>> what?
>
> I petered out? That is not like me.
Well, you were probably still suffering from some vestiges of the flu,
but I was surprised.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 14 Oct 2007 02:58:54 GMT
dorayme scribed:
> In article
>
> Neredbojias
>
>> Dorayme is the kind of person with a
>> gift to inspire great wit by simply relating circumstances from the
>> unorthodoxy of her daily existence.
>
> I tell you only the most humdrum things. But there are others, no
> humdrum about them. Like:
>
> Recently a new neighbour moved in next door to me. I was pleased
> that this party was nice and quiet. Today I found out why. It was
> me. I had moved in next door to myself. I heard my voice speaking
> to someone on the telephone, it was quite unmistakable. My god,
> this is going to complicate matters.
Yeah, especially if both of you say the same thing.
Anyway, my guess is that (1) you have a split personality, or (2) your
narcisstic tendencies have run amok, or (3) you are suffering symptoms
spawned from guilt related to autosexual excesses.
My advice is to avoid the credo of keeping your hands to yourself and find
a man as quick as you can.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
> When it's out and on my phone then we can talk about it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/nov/05/google.mobi lephones