| |||||||||||
open or not, flash still crapifies the webopen or not, flash still crapifies the webPosted Feb 10, 2006 6:24 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559)Parent article: Free Software Foundation launches Gnash (NewsForge)
while the era of the flash intro page is over (remember when many corps had those?...pointless animated text like WE DELIVER RESULTS), flash still rears its ugly head in various contexts. modern dhtml stacks are competent enough that this usually is not necessary. it will be interesting to see if this presents any type of threat to adobe, who are probably wondering what the hell they are going to do with flash anyway.
(Log in to post comments)
open or not, flash still crapifies the web Posted Feb 10, 2006 9:06 UTC (Fri) by nedrichards (subscriber, #23295) [Link] Not true if you require a guaranteed typeface, then you've either got Flash (possibly using something like sIFR) or giftext. Until the mythical day of font embedding comes we'll always suffer under this.
open or not, flash still crapifies the web Posted Feb 10, 2006 12:30 UTC (Fri) by jwb (subscriber, #15467) [Link] Or until the mythical day when "designers" stop trying to force their ugly, usually-too-small fonts down our throats.
open or not, flash still crapifies the web Posted Feb 10, 2006 15:26 UTC (Fri) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] What on earth could make you require a guaranteed typeface? It's exactlythat sort of thing that forces me to run privoxy, so I can filter out developer's idiotic ideas of what works, and replace it with something that actually works /here/! Of course, paralleling that is site developers that override browser default colors for no reason at all, other than that they prefer (say) dark text on a white background, when I have exactly the opposite preference. What's worst is when they simply /assume/ one's background is white, and thus specify black or dark text, without specifying a contrasting background to make it visible, or do the reverse, /assume/ one's text is black, and set background to something very light, without specifically setting text/foreground to something contrasting. I actually have quite a detailed privoxy filter for this. It's normally available at my web page, but that's currently over-bandwidth as I posted some KDE 3.5 with composite screenshots which ate up lots of bandwidth, so it's possible you'll need to save the link to use later (tho it seems to still be coming up here ATM). Anyway, for those interested: http://members.cox.net/pu61ic.1inux.dunc4n/ Duncan
open or not, flash still crapifies the web Posted Feb 10, 2006 19:06 UTC (Fri) by nedrichards (subscriber, #23295) [Link] As said downthread it's called branding, just because you don't think consistency is worth it (I could make some kind of cheap crack about KDE users here but will resist the temptation) doesn't mean that nobody else does.
open or not, flash still crapifies the web Posted Feb 10, 2006 21:40 UTC (Fri) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] You know there are people with eyes disability that cannot read black text on white background only white text on black background.
There are lots of other circumstances when desobeying the users mean they will not able to read your message.
Consistency should be with users wishes, not brand wishes.
open or not, flash still crapifies the web Posted Feb 12, 2006 23:14 UTC (Sun) by nedrichards (subscriber, #23295) [Link] There are many ways to respond to this but: http://www.macromedia.com/resources/accessibility/ is a start. Yes, accessibility is very important but slagging off a technology and player that is vital for many Users to be able to access loads of content that's already out there seems a little odd too.
What about SVG? Posted Feb 10, 2006 15:33 UTC (Fri) by edmundo (guest, #616) [Link] SVG lets you include your own font, and I've seen some rather nice interactive applications using SVG. However, I don't know very much about SVG or Flash. What does Flash give you that SVG doesn't?
What about SVG? Posted Feb 10, 2006 16:04 UTC (Fri) by busterb (subscriber, #560) [Link] Tools & Workflow Integrationhttp://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/flashpro/
What about SVG? Posted Feb 10, 2006 19:08 UTC (Fri) by nedrichards (subscriber, #23295) [Link] It's a good call, when SVG gets some really good penetration (ie more than just Firefox 1.5) which shouldn't be that far off hopefully, then you'll be able to use it for just this case, until then...
open or not, flash still crapifies the web Posted Feb 10, 2006 16:34 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] > Not true if you require a guaranteed typeface
the only reason i can think of doing this is for foreign glyphset support which flash doesn't buy you either. otherwise this is just bad design.
open or not, flash still crapifies the web Posted Feb 10, 2006 19:04 UTC (Fri) by nedrichards (subscriber, #23295) [Link] No, it's called branding and is actually quite important if you're trying to create a consistent experience across loads of channels and actually want to use a nice typeface, rather than something Microsoft thought you should have.
open or not, flash still crapifies the web Posted Feb 11, 2006 1:23 UTC (Sat) by grouch (subscriber, #27289) [Link] "No, it's called branding and is actually quite important if you're trying to create a consistent experience across loads of channels and actually want to use a nice typeface, rather than something Microsoft thought you should have."
Jeez, that sounds like it was lifted from an MS PR brochure!
No, it's called conceit. You consider any and all needs or preferences of your readers to be of no importance whatsoever; your opinion of what is a "nice typeface" is of paramount importance, to you. This tells me that you are not interested in presenting information to your readers, only a carefully crafted appearance.
A logo or trademark needs to be consistent in appearance. A typeface or font is for presenting textual information. That text is wasted if the visitor cannot read it. If you prevent your visitors from adjusting that font so that they can read it, your obsession with the appearance on your machine renders your efforts a waste.
open or not, flash still crapifies the web Posted Feb 12, 2006 23:09 UTC (Sun) by nedrichards (subscriber, #23295) [Link] http://www.macromedia.com/resources/accessibility/ and http://www.macromedia.com/resources/accessibility/flash8/
open or not, flash still crapifies the web Posted Feb 12, 2006 23:19 UTC (Sun) by nedrichards (subscriber, #23295) [Link] Nice rhetoric. MS == Evil, PR == Evil point underminded! I doubt you would be accepting of poorly designed code as you are of poor visual design. As for the rest, yes, the user should always be paramount and I think (as expressed elsewhere in the thread) that SVG will be the future technology to do it. But there's a lot of flash stuff already out there and until SVG is ready and widely deployed, not having a Free player is actually removing the choice to access Flash content from the users whose needs you claim to be paramount. Relax, if people want to work on a project then it's not actively hurting anyone else is it? Surely that's the joy of free software!
open or not, flash still crapifies the web Posted Feb 10, 2006 20:47 UTC (Fri) by hchristeller (subscriber, #4246) [Link] The only required typeface is the one that I choose to view a site with. When branding becomes more important than keeping the customer happy, that's a sure sign of a company that I don't want to do business with.
There's a difference between Posted Feb 14, 2006 0:08 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] "I should be able to override a site designer's choices if I feel the need" and "we should make sure that site design is impossible, because branding is bad".
The latter is what you seem to be saying, and I hope I clarified the thoughts enough there to make obvious what my opinion on the issue is.
No one *said* you shouldn't be able to change fonts if you want to.
Yes, there are bad ways to use Flash.
But cars can be used to run people over, too. Should we outlaw cars?
|
|||||||||||