|
|
Posted by SpaceGirl on 10/08/07 13:12
On Oct 8, 1:29 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> 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?
>
> When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
:)
> I happen to agree. Flash is good for some things. But this could have
> been easily done without it.
Yep... maybe
>And I think it should have been.
Possibly. Really Flash doesn't bring anything to this particular site.
> It would have been smaller and faster.
I'm not sure about that. It would be interesting to time the site.
> It could have been spidered by
> the search engines (probably not applicable in this particular case).
Google etc can spider well constructed Flash movies.
> But most of all, it would have been accessible to the blind.
Yes
They could have easily added the facility though.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|