|
|
Posted by Els on 10/07/06 11:43
Chris Ianson wrote:
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote in message
> news:4426c116$0$3686$cb0e7fc6@news.centralva.net...
>> Now to Chris, it is Chris in this thread, right? ;-) It is admirable in
>> computers (in any field as well) to push the envelope. I am an age old
>> hacker and love the thrill of discovering innovative solutions that
>> break-out of the confines of the "tools at hand". But when there are
>> already technologies at hand that can not only do the job easier but
>> better, well the appeal is diminished. From what I can gather from this
>> muddled exchange is you're trying to create some media effect with a
>> dynamic panorama. Not to sound like a broken record but Flash is one
>> technologies perfectly suited to this and would do it more reliably and
>> better. You could have it the panorama scroll with mere mouse-overs on hot
>> zones, God forbid play sounds at certain positions along the way, simulate
>> a 360 degree scroll...whatever.
>
> I hear you, but in our market research almost a quarter of people couldn't
> run something with flash, or would not bother to install or activate it,
> thus instantly losing almost a quarter of our visitors. An interface in an
> iframe is, AFAIK, far more compatible. Our site is also targeted at those
> who do not often use the computer, so should work 'out of the box' on XP and
> Mac. AFAIK, iframes do.
People who "not often use the computer" aren't as likely to be using
XP as people who do use it often. Or at least that's my thought - if I
wouldn't be using my computer much, why would I bother to upgrade the
old Win98 I've grown accustomed to? Worse on a Mac - it's far more
expensive to upgrade from an old Mac to a new OSX than from Win98 to
XP. And why would I be using a large monitor?
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|