|
|
Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 08/14/05 06:17
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:55:28 +1000, Vampi Fangs <vampi@nwglfo.org>
wrote:
>>>several more months than that, as i recall
>>No, 32 minutes. That's exactly how long it took to build the original
>>prototype in Flash and compare the file sizes against teh .js version
>>and confirm that it supported transparencies.
>>
>>Although, to be perfectly honest what I said may have been somewhat
>>misleading. Flash is badass as far as cross compatibility and it's
>>image manipulation abilities.
>you have certainly changed your tune
>
>Message-ID: <960o111qs32fsms8n32g2vgjs8ciet1p5i@4ax.com>
>
>"Actually no, bitch, again, using Flash would be like opening Internet
>Explorer inside of Internet Explorer...why the fuck would I want to do
>that?"
Actually that's completely true...if you use Flash for the WHOLE site.
Obviously it skipped you (at the benefit of your incredible need to
show off what a Hatter addict you are) that I was talking ONLY about
the the use of animated visual effects. The ONLY portions on the blog
that use Flash are the ONLY portions that ACTUALLY would benefit from
them.
>Message-ID: <ckbo11pgq26p10vla6n0a7i4prdnirnorg@4ax.com>
>
>"Or in your case just cop out, use Flash and essentially surf from
>Internet Explorer loaded into yer shit browser."
Again, my reference was speaking about using Flash for the WHOLE site,
not specific portions that would benefit from it. It would be
EXTREMELY unlikely that you would need Flash to do the entire site
unless it was just some really fuckin next level chit...like teh new
BW site I'm working on. It'll be about 90% Flash, but for specific
reasons/effects.
>btw since when have you cared about cross browser compatibility?
I don't really care about cross browser compatibility...outside of
bragging rights anyway. It's like meeting W3C specs, it doesn't
actually mean that your site is any more or less cross browser
compatible, or that it loads any faster, or that it's actually
better...it's just about bragging rights, about saying your the best.
>it's interesting however that gecko based browsers are grabbing even
>more of the market share ... up to 37% according to
>
>http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
Actually it's more like FireFox killed Nutscrape's market share and is
now on an upswing because of advertising and hype. However the hype
won't last forever and when IE7 comes out it'll pretty much bitch slap
Firefox back down into the 15 to 20% range (or even less). The bottom
line is that FF really is just an absolute piece of fucking trash.
Like I said in another post, it's essentially Netscape with less
functionality and a "prettier" interface. The list of things that it
doesn't support is just incredible. Flash transparencies being right
up there near the top (right along with it's lack of support for
JavaScript object control functions).
>>However it is severely lacking in
>>positioning precision,
>how so?
Flash was designed for vector graphics, in which case "size" doesn't
really mean the same thing as it does with raster graphics. With
raster graphics things are based on pixels, an image is x number of
pixels by y number of pixels. So in Flash proggies like FlashMX and
SwishMax the sizing isn't based on pixels, it's based on actual
measurements (like 3.000024323 inches). The problem arises when you
use the mouse to move anything. I find that if you're careful and as
soon as you import a graphic you stick to using the keyboard controls
for positioning and make sure you're using whatever "snap to pixel"
option it has you'll be ~mostly~ okay. Essentially it takes about 10
times as much effort to gain precise positioning with Flash as it does
with CSS and division layers.
>>which is why it shouldn't be used for large
>>scale split form sites. It would be essentially impossible to use
>>Flash for the backdrop of the blog site unless I altered it to be a
>>static image...of course at that point it would be about 3 times as
>>large.
>you could consider the astounding possibility of mixing flash with
>html
Uh, I did that kiddo, did you even look at teh blog site? I meant teh
code, Dribbles.
>> And, the other thing to note is that Flash is only as good as
>>your ability to encode images properly, a skill which not very many
>>people have. So essentially Flash is badass when someone who knows
>>what they're doing, like me, uses it. In the hands of an amateur,
>>it's an absolutely useless alternative.
>guffaw
Well step the fuck up, Sunshine. Let's see you put your skillz where
your "guffaw" is. Let's see you produce something like the drop downs
I made in Flash:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog/
`, )
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|