|
|
Posted by SpaceGirl on 10/05/07 13:42
On Oct 5, 2:31 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net> wrote:
> 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.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|