|
|
Posted by Chaddy2222 on 10/09/07 14:36
On Oct 9, 11:59 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> >> SpaceGirl wrote:
> >>> Travis Newbury wrote:
>
> >>>> What it's not good for:
> >>>> Complete websites
> >>>> text based information site (like, but not limited to sites like
> >>>> google)
> >>>> menus/navigation
>
> >>> I disagree, and this is exactly what I was arguing. Flash COULD be
> >>> used for ANY of those... it depends on context - meaning the
> >>> audience, the
> >>> content etc...
>
> >> And that's where I strongly disagree. That's when a website gets
> >> really frustrating really fast.
>
> > Only because you don't understand the technology though. Flash doesn't
> > need to be fancy. Sometimes it can offer something small and more
> > efficient than HTML+CSS. While generally I'd agree that there are some
> > things you shouldn't really try have Flash do, completely writing it off
> > is terribly short sighted unless you are a secret Flash genius and know
> > without a doubt "it won't work". Flash is -so- powerful these days, you
> > can create practically anything in it (you could, for example, write
> > your own web browser INSIDE Flash if you wanted); I know as a Flash
> > person I'm not smart enough to say exactly where Flash's boundaries lay.
>
> You keep saying this, talk is cheap. If the content is basically text
> using Flash appears not to add value but lend to complications in
> bandwidth (maybe not the initial download but the bottom line time to
> display) and versatility for user accessibility unless carefully
> engineered by the flash designer (although I have jet to witness an
> example of this too)
>
Nor have I really.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|