Posted by Chaddy2222 on 10/08/07 16:07

On Oct 9, 1:47 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net> wrote:
> Travis Newbury wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 8:41 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-sicur...@yahoo.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >> Oh yeah and I would have been able to read the bloody thing.
> > Zoom.... (Yes I know the zoom feature sucks)
>
> Hmmm, apparently the deziner forgot to enable the feature. Sorry Chad
> you're screwed! You'll be coming back to the site with some youngin with
> fresh perfect eyes in tow to read off the pages for you, right? Yeah,
> sure...
>
> Not saying there is no use for flash, but dammit it is not better than
> html for conveying textual content on the web. Whether it better than
> server-side for organizing and disseminating the content is also
> debatable since in most cases the end result is neither delivered to
> displayed on the browser any faster nor as flexible is usability once it
> gets there! The swf of this sitewww.mortgagenews2.commaybe only 27Kb

That's f***ing jygantic!.
My XHTML docs with a lot of images would equal about 10KB I reckon.
</goes and checks>.
No, actually I have a layout for a photo gallery page with about 10
thumbnails that ways in at about 2KB!
now try and do that with your fancy bandwith eating Flash
applications!
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz


> but that cannot be the whole story. A lot more must have been
> parsed|processed to take 4+ minutes to display the friggin textual page
> on a dialup connection.
>

[Back to original message]