Posted by Chaddy2222 on 10/08/07 17:08

On Oct 9, 2:33 am, Travis Newbury <TravisNewb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 10:09 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > So are you saying it is NOT faster to develop in HTML/CSS/PHP? Or are
> > you just blowing hot air?
>
> I am saying since he is not a flash developer his statement is
> irrelevant. Answer this, who can run a 5K faster? You or me?
>
I think my point was that it would be better from a useability point
of view if the site was done useing HTML and CSS a long with server
side scripting as it would be more accessible etc.
Take a shit load of codeing though, infact I would have probably just
used a pre-fad CMS and slaped the content in. But I am an info /
content type of bloke really.

> > The fact is - whether you like it or not - this is a lousy application
> > for flash. And every one of those reasons you dismiss so handily show
> > how closed minded you really are.
>
> I never said it was not a lousy application for Flash. (I do think it
> looks nice though)
>
Well yes, we gathered that. BTW you didn't say it was that bad at
first eather (actually come to think about it you took the marketing
angle, which is obviously not what the site owners did.
You can tell that the designer was given too much control as it's
looks great but is a bloated pile of shite, much like the majority of
Flash sites.
BTW I like YouTube and am considering useing some Flash based stuff
for audio content.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

> > I'm not saying flash isn't worthwhile. But unlike you, I don't think
> > it's applicable to everything - and certainly not here.
>
> Please find where I have EVER said Flash is good for everything. I
> have repeated time and time again (Ask dorayme) that you should only
> use it when it is appropriate.

[Back to original message]