|
|
Posted by Vampi Fangs on 08/14/05 13:04
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:17:56 -0700, Onideus Mad Hatter
<usenet@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>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.
are they? that would be a matter of opinion
>>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.
noted you have stuck to your amusing unprofessional position on this
>>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).
why?
>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).
odd ... my firefox supports wmode="transparent" with no problems
>>>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).
you'll find that the transform positioning facility in swishmax is in
pixels
> 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.
not if you use the positioning available with the transform menu
>>>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.
oh, you call that iframe abortion code?
>>> 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/
>`, )
unfortunately for you, your rudimentary shit is the subject of this
thread ... albeit that there is admittedly an improvement
if you want to see really skilled flash artisans, check this stuff out
http://www.andyfoulds.co.uk/flash_design.html
http://www.eviltree.de/zoomquilt/zoom.htm
http://www.moccusite.com/
--
V--V
"If we don't stop the Reds in South Vietnam, tomorrow they will be in
Hawaii, and next week they will be in San Francisco."
President Lyndon B. Johnson, 1966
"Our military is confronting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other
places so our people will not have to confront terrorist violence in New
York or St. Louis or Los Angeles."
President George W. Bush, 8/26/2003
http://www.issues2000.org/askme/LBJ_GWB.htm
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|