Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 09/20/07 21:07

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:01:52 -0700, SpaceGirl
<nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:

>> ...why not? I mean, recreating the Google site in Flash would be
>> exceeding simplistic, it would require almost no effort nor ingenuity
>> at all since you're pretty much designing it with no complex
>> interface. And the form would be VASTLY superior in that it could be
>> made perfect liquid in design, scaling the search result text and
>> properly anti-aliasing it to look its best on your monitor.

>Without sacrificing usability?

....huh?

>How do you use Google?

I type shit in the lil box I hit the lil button...how the fuck more
complicated do you need it to be? o_O

>I tend to shift click links that I'm interested
>in so that they open in new tabs so that I can read them all when I've
>trawled the first few results.

.....DUH!

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/Spacey_Duh.png

*shakes head*

I wish people would THINK more before they start typing...it would
make my life a lot easier.

>I also quite often use the Google cache
>(clicking cached results) so that google highlights the search terms
>in the selected document.

....and how exactly would that functionality be lost?

DUH!

Seriously Space, I don't know if you just woke up and took stupid
pills today or what, but I KNOW yer smarter than this.

>I also use the mousewheel to scroll through
>results,

....and how exactly would that functionality be lost?

DUH!

>and I sometimes right-click and save images found in google
>images.

....and how exactly would that functionality be lost?

DUH!

>So, to go through this list:
>
>1) Flash cannot open content in tabs. So you'd have to create your own
>tabbing interface

Flash doesn't need to, that should be the job of the browser.

>2) As Flash cannot render HTML properly, there is no way it could
>display cached results with the search term highlighted in them.

Oh ye of little brain. Maybe by DEFAULT Flash can't render HTML so
good...but then what the fuck is stopping you from doing it yourself?
A nice lil collection of CSS scripts and something to parse all the
tags is all you need. How the fuck do you think this works:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/Forum_Template/index.swf

What do you think that loaded message is coming out of the fuckin sky?

DUH!

>3) Mouse wheel only works in Windows, it's not supported in the other
>players (so much for cross browser)

http://blog.pixelbreaker.com/flash/swfmacmousewheel/

DUH!

....although really, who would waste the fuckin bother for, what, 5% of
Mac lusers? LOL

You know Spacey...just because no one feels that whatever piece of
shit you're running is important...yeah, that doesn't mean that it's
not possible, it just mean...where's the fuckin motivation?

>4) No right-click at all in Flash 9 player, on any platform.

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/captivate/articles/right_click.html

DUH!

>5) Flash won't work on my cell phone - it only supports Flash Lite,
>but is very basic. Flash is also very very slow on my phone. Google is
>lightening fast.

I never said the thing would be for your cell phone, or for your
fuckin toaster or for your gawd damn shitting vibrator or whatever the
fuck else they're trying franken-bitch into a computer these days.
Not that it matters, I'm more than confident that within the next five
years they'll have the full version of Flash for cell phones, toasters
and even yer lil vibrator, Honey Bunny.

>Flash is great - it's what I do for a living - but it's not perfect
>and not applicable to all sites.

WRONG! You're not perfect...but that's not really a short coming of
Flash so much as it is YOU. And trying to bitch that you can't use
Flash on your cell phone makes about as much sense as bitching that
you can't use Flash on your barbeque. Let me know when they manage to
turn any one of those into a REAL, actual computer with just as much
functionality as a desktop or laptop and maybe I'll suddenly develop
the urge to give a rats ass.

I deal in COMPUTERS...not fuckin lil handheld wannabe pieces of shit
(read fashion accessories).

>You could not replace Google with a
>Flash UI without sacrificing usability on some level.

Is that a challenge? He, he, he...

>However, you could argue that you could add new functionality instead.
>Personally I think Google Search is very very good at what it does;
>I'm not sure what Flash could add to that.

Believe me, I'm not surprised. I mean, you haven't even figured out
how to save yourself the effort of holding down the shift key when you
click a link fer Christ sake.

>> I don't understand why you and many others think that porting
>> something so uber simplistic as Google would even be anything more
>> than a sneeze of an effort. In fact...you know what...I think I will
>> actually.

>Because you've complete ignored how people actually use Google, and
>that it works on everything (requiring no plug-in). It's not half as
>simple as you think it is, for the reasons I listed earlier. Getting
>search results IS easy, the rest of it is quite hard.

*pats you on the head*

Think outside the Google box, Kiddo. Just because YOU can't do
something doesn't mean it can't be done.

>> At one point I did create an alternate, customized Google
>> search site that ran queries on their server and then returned the
>> results to my custom page...I should just take that thing and
>> reconstruct it in Flash. LOL, it'll be great, I can use it to bitch
>> slap all the Flash nay-sayers in six or eight different directions.

>Put your money where your mouth is Matt - I really doubt this can be
>done, but I'd be a very happy chick if someone managed WITHOUT loosing
>any existing functionality. I'm a strong advocate of Flash as you
>know, but I also have to temper my excitement over this technology
>with the reality of the user market; for some things usability is far,
>far more important than anything else. Google Search is a great
>example of this.

I think I'll go ahead and do it, I think it would be a good way to
establish myself as GOD of web development...and I kinda like the
sound of that. `, )

I mean, just think of the bragging rights alone!

>> Thanks for the great idea, Spacey! ^_^

>Good luck :)

*snicker* Like I'll need luck...more time would help, there's hardly
ever enough time...I kinda wish I didn't need to sleep.

>> >The future is not about any one technology; it's about the application
>> >of complimentary technologies, a mix and match of what best addresses
>> >your needs, whether that is Flash+XML/Flex or DHTML+AJAX or WFP+VBS...
>> >it doesn't really matter.

>> ...it really, really, really, REALLY does matter though. I think its
>> been too long since you designed a DHTML+AJAX site, Spacey. I think
>> you ought to try one out just so you can remember why you started
>> using Flash for all your sites. Remember having to do all that
>> browser/OS checking? LOL

>Oh I remember. For my sins I still have to maintain a few DHMTL sites,
>which I hate. It's not so long ago that I was working through client
>sites fixing them for IE7. Blah.

Yeah that's the other wondrous thing, every time a new browser version
comes out, oh, back to the drawing board, time to redo the whole damn
thing. LOL

>But this stuff only matters to us; designers and developers. Users
>don't care at all what technology you are using, so long as it works.
>Who cares if something is rendered in WFP or Flash? Chances are they
>would look identical.

Yeah, maybe if YOU were doing it, however in my lil project to port
Google to Flash...oh, oh I'm gonna exploit every last little thing
that makes Flash superior to other forms. Perfect liquid design baby,
gonna be awesome.

>The differences are all behind the scenes, and
>the users never see that. So rather than being precious about how you
>build a project, you use whatever technology best achieves the goal,
>and the users machines can actually display. 99% of the time I use
>Flash, because that best suits the sites we build, but we build all
>our Admin tools and Content Management stuff in HTML.

Yeah, but only because you don't know how to build them in Flash, or
you don't know how to build them WITH Flash in order to enhance what
they can do.

>Take BiteSizedJapan - the front end is a bleeding edge Flash 9 stuff,
>packed with video and nice animation and stacks of lovely content. The
>back end is WordPress (PHP), an in house content manager (ASP classic,
>HTML, XML) and a .NET XML bridges (C#, XML). It would be a complete
>nightmare to build all those tools in Flash - not worth the effort
>when we can plug in free things like WP, or build our own server-side
>stuff easily.

Like I said, use Flash as the front end, use other stuff for the
backend. But using antideluvian forms like HTML for your backend
instead of say XML...that's just fuckin retarded.

>> Compatibility is what makes it all matter. With Flash, you know it's
>> compatible, it simply is, it takes ALL the guess work out of the whole
>> process and speeds up creation time ten fold. Or did you forget how
>> much fun it was to get alpha transparent images to work with an

>Flash is not the same on all platforms sadly. There are slight
>differences in the players which can make life difficult. Flash
>suffers the same issue as browsers: different versions render things
>differently. There are around 4 versions of the Flash 9 player, and
>while the core language and rendering is the same in each, each also
>has new features... and new bugs. The latest version of the Flash 9
>player has new HD codecs in it, for example. If someone visits my site
>with an older Flash player they will be prompted to download a newer
>build of Flash. This, in a small way, is like telling someone "Hey, my
>site does not work in Internet Explorer 7, you must download FireFox 2
>before I can let you in". Forcing someone to download a new browser to
>gain cross-platform compatibility is not really a good solution :)

It's a good solution when the upgrade can be done automagically in
seconds with no real effort at all on the users part.

>Thankfully Flash is small, so it doesn't bother most people. But guess
>what? If you are pushing Flash 9 to the edge, you will have to do all
>that "browser check" stuff... checking what "build" of Flash 9 the
>user has, what platform they are on... all the old Browser issues are
>back :(

Not really, you just need to have it check for the latest Flash
version...no cross browser checking needed at all. Wouldn't take more
than a couple lines of code and that's it.

>> Oh and as for cross compatibility...sorry Cupcake, but that hole's
>> been filed since July 10th:http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/
>>
>> "Adobe delivers Flash Player 9 for Solaris Sparc and Solaris x86
>> platforms."
>>
>> LOL...maybe now you doorknobs will start griping that's it's not
>> compatible with Windows 3.11 or yer fuckin Commodore 64. *snicker*

>It would be nice if *all* the features (mousewheel please!! the AS3
>event is ignored!!) were supported in linux, and osx... which account
>for 10% of all computers.

Once again...
http://blog.pixelbreaker.com/flash/swfmacmousewheel/

[Back to original message]