On The Perplexing Prevalence Of Plug-Ins...

Element5 asks: "Recently I've noticed more and more Web pages are requiring plug-ins to be viewed at all. Most notable of these such pages are movie sites. Some sites are built entirely with Director or Flash (I only use Flash as an example as it is seemingly the most prevalent plug-in requirement out there). Am I the only one who finds this trend disturbing? It's almost as if Web site developers are skipping the whole process of learning HTML entirely and instead rely on an authoring tool based on a proprietary technology. Don't get me wrong, Macromedia's products are fantastic ones; but I'd much rather see them used in throw-away aspects of a Web site that can be dropped if a user doesn't have the plug-ins, or on a site which also hosts an HTML version with exactly the same features. At any rate, I'm just wondering what other people think about this trend." Read on...

I too understand the frustration behind encountering sites like this. I understand that it's hard work to create and maintain sites with multiple "versions" for browsers of varying capabilities, but I thought the primary purpose of a Web site was to make oneself seen, and wouldn't it make sense to make yourself seen by the lowest-common-denominator before adding all of the glitz and chrome? Would a static version of a site that makes extensive use of Flash be that hard to design, especially since most of the key artwork should have been done for the animation?