|
|
Posted by Jonathan N. Little on 10/05/07 13:49
SpaceGirl wrote:
> 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.
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
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|