|
|
Posted by Travis Newbury on 08/21/07 17:35
On Aug 21, 11:48 am, William Gill <nore...@example.invalid> wrote:
> 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 do not believe in Flash for Flash sake. And from those that I have
seen labeled as "professionals" I do agree, if you are looking at
bandwidth, accessibility, etc... then you are better than most.you are
probably better
> 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?
Na, you sound like you have a brain, and as you learn it seems your
opinions change.
> 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.
We don't disagree, not really.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|