|
|
Posted by SpaceGirl on 10/08/07 13:04
On Oct 8, 1:41 pm, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 10:26 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
> > sicur...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > On Oct 8, 6:02 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net> wrote:> 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.
>
> > 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 :)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|