Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 08/14/05 14:22

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:04:28 +1000, Vampi Fangs <vampi@nwglfo.org>
wrote:

>>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

No, Stupid, I wasn't talking about aesthetics, I was talking about the
functionality. Apparently you missed the 4 or 5 versions that came
BEFORE the Flash one that worked off JavaScript and CSS. Even
Reaper's best attempts at streamlining teh code couldn't hold up to
the Flash version.

>>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

And yet my "unprofessional position" produces far more cross browser
and more W3C compliant code than most corp sites, Kiddo. So I must be
doing something right.

>>>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?

Because MS will start a major marketing campaign pushing teh new
browser (along with their new OS), right now MS isn't really doing
anything as far as trying to advertise IE. The second they do,
FireFox is gonna take a serious tumble unless they can match it...and
they simply haven't got teh money to do it.

>>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

Does with mine too, someone else said it didn't, might be a Linux or
Mac issue.

>>>>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

You'll find reading isn't quite the same as doing, Kiddo. Experience
is something you lack. But here, let me help to edify you. Take this
portion of the blog and replicate it a few dozen times in SwishMax:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog/A2.png
Then post yer results and we can properly expose your naivety.

>> 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

And how well do you think that's going to work with replicated/tiled
images, Stupid?

Here's yer test:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog/A2.png

Like I said, replicate it a few dozen times...at an arbitrary location
(ie not centered, left side, top, bottom, etc).

>>>>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?

No, I call what's in the iframe as well the linked .js and .css files
code. As fucking deficient as you are though, you don't know HOW to
look at the actual code, do you kid? He, he, he...just another
advantage to using iframes, prevents teh lessers from copying and
pasting portions of yer 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

No, no, Sunshine. We're talking about you now. If YOU wanna talk
some shit, you best be willing to back it up with your OWN material.
After all, if you're so entirely fucking deficient that you can't even
do something as supposedly "rudimentary" as what I did, what makes
your opinion of it worth anything?

>if you want to see really skilled flash artisans, check this stuff out
>
>http://www.andyfoulds.co.uk/flash_design.html

*snicker*

Is that REALLY all the better you can find? No offense, Stupid, but
doing a piss poor job of mimicking BASIC image filters isn't
impressing me any.

>http://www.eviltree.de/zoomquilt/zoom.htm

Impressive art work...unimpressive use of Flash. Leave it to someone
like you to be unable to tell the difference.

>http://www.moccusite.com/

....wow...that is just...*shakes head*...WOW...

o_O

Are you trying to be funny or something or are you just THAT fucking
stupid? If there was ever an award for WORST use of Flash, boy that
last site you gave would win hands down...really.

Here, let me give YOU some examples of ACTUAL high end Flash use:
http://www.2advanced.com/flashindex.htm
http://www.kigot.com/

Fuckin retard, n00b job.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

[Back to original message]