|
|
Posted by William Gill on 08/21/07 15:48
> It is your lack of knowledge about Flash development and Actionscript
> that causes you to disagree. What I am saying is that a good Flash
> developer can make a site filed with Flash that is no heavier than the
> same site with HTML and images. The Flash you are use to seeing is
> fat and bloated.
>
I admit my flash/actionscript skills are limited. I am sure they don't
match yours or your definition of a good developer, they are however
better than some "professionals" I have worked "with" mostly because
they took the "flash for flash sake" approach you appropriately disdain.
I must concede it is possible that "optimization" with the current state
of the technology may render my opinions as dated. I am an old dog and
thus cling to old tricks. I started creating the network long before I
became a user, so my personal base line is such that just because you
can build a faster processor, and a faster pipe, does not excuse
inefficient code or unnecessary volume (bloat). I am amazed at how
often a site will generate each page with each request (just because
they can), even though the request is fairly standard, easily
anticipated, and could thus be achieved via a static page (possibly
generated by a daily batch to accommodate updates).
> ... Bad Flash is. The problem comes from
> Flash was originally used my artists, ...
I once worked with one of those "artists" who insisted on resizing the
viewer's browser window to "maintain the proper aspect ratio." Never
mind the slap in the face to welcome a new visitor, or the fact that
javascript disabled browsers were forced to view his "art"
inappropriately. Do you suppose this experience may be tainting my
opinions?
> Google's product is words, and its visitors are looking for words. It
> would be dumb for them to use Flash for anything that produces those
> words. The Warcraft site is visual, about a game, its visitors are
> looking for fun and action. You can't do that with words (at lease
> not to todays kids). A site developer has to do a little research
> before they can make any decision about the technologies they will use
> on their site, and how they will use them. Blanket rules don't work.
> Every site must cater to its customers or the customers will go to
> another site that does cater to them. So using flash just because you
> can is dumb. Using Flash because it make your site better to those
> that will actually use your site is smart. And the exact opposite is
> true too. NOT using Flash when that is what your customers are
> demanding is equally as dumb.
I wonder how you and I can be in so much agreement and yet this thread
would suggest otherwise? If blanket rules, or any rules for that matter
could be condensed into some kind of formulaic approach, there would be
no need for people like us (I'm sure the people in Redmond would have
packaged it by now if that were possible). Sometimes even "good" rules
need to be broken. That's why I think of them as suggestions, or
starting points, not inflexible constraints.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|