You've got some good input there about the end result. But it was a swing and a miss for the planning stage. We were always planning a complimentary HTML version of the leaderboard from day one of development. The Flash did take longer, but seriously, an HTML display like that is built with a couple of looping tags.
And since you haven't actually used the site, you don't know that the leaderboard is just a piece of the puzzle. If you wanted to know what checkpoint team 11 was at, you'd probably go to the team 11 page. That'd be the fastest method. If you really liked team 11, you'd add them to your 'My favorite teams' page. So you'd find their info even faster. I'd work on making it faster but I've already moved on from that project, so I've done all that I can.
On the Macromedia site, compare the use of the Flash shopping cart to a HTML shopping cart. The lack of page reloads makes the system easier to use. Only the relevant parts of the screen/app are changing on clicks. Vendors find better conversion rates with systems like this compared to identical HTML systems. Which means more money for the vendor. Vendors sure do love their money!
I'd equate a talentless WebDev more with someone who doesn't understand that to advance and have talent it will involve learning and working with new technologies. A talentless WebDev would still make static HTML sites. A talented WebDev will be making database driven sites or applications. Luckily in 1999 I managed to move past static sites and since then I've worked on some great projects.
All your Flash rage is still based on animation and intros. I couldn't produce a worthwhile Flash animation if my life depended on it. I agree and think they're dated and add minimal value to every site.
I can on the otherhand produce some pretty nice Flash apps (as long as I have a design resource to make it cute). Here's a couple of links.
Now this is just one man's opinion, but I think both of those sites are way better with their Flash versions compared to the HTML versions. I'll let you make your own decision.
Let's see you got 1 and 1/2 out of your 4 points correct.
1) Bandwidth hungry.
Not always true. Think about Flash applications. One Flash movie load of 200K can replace a dozen or more page views at 100K each. So 200K vs. 1200K. Which is less?
I work for a web design shop and browser compatability is the one thing that ends taking the most amount of time for our UI guy. Well that and supporting Macs.
Lynx, we haven't supported lynx on a project we've done in ages, people on slashdot love lynx. Yeah. You ever seen a log report for a website recently? atleast 80% IE, split 50/50 IE4/IE5. That was a couple months ago, I'll assume it's high on the IE 5 tip now. Netscape 19.9 percent and.1% for lynx, opera and others.
Slashdot readers are the people that use computers, not the people that are used BY computers, which is the mass market websites are looking for.
If you're a business working on a large project are you going to tell your UI guy to spend a weeks worth of his time and your money to support.1% of the market. No freakin' way. You'd be outta business.
For dynamic website, using Cold Fusion at my web shop, graphical interface with forms and javascript for usability are a requirement, not an option. Or clients want it and they're customers want it. We don't seem to ever get a single email that says, you're site sucks because that javascript that makes the page change when i select something from a drop down menu works.
And on the admin side of all our sites we REQUIRE they're using IE5+ on a PC. Otherwise we won't support them. Our admin sides are about 5 times flashier than the front end of the sites and that's because of more javascript.
I'm all about making the web a beautiful place, and I'm glad I get to help do that. Lynx is not beautiful, it's quick and dirty for when you need info. You think the sites that lynx users look at now are going to bow down to the standards commity and change there sites? No way. Lynx will have it's market and do what it does. Everyone else will advance.
That's all I gotta say about this. I'm all for it, and I can vouch for my co-workers when I say that they're all for it too!
Yamaha is the way to go. You'll have room to run all necessary components through it including atleast one of your computers MP3 collections. Put all your money in to speakers and this reciever will satisfy your listening needs.
I do not remember where, but I heard about this last week. Intel had decided to stick with SDRAM for all general consumer level systems, since general consumers do not/will not stand for computers prices that have been dropping for years to suddenly sky rocket again.
The site with the Intel document said that they don't know wether they're going to use PC-133 or DDR. They have decided to use DDR. I don't remember if it was print or screen, but if I can find it again then I'll be back.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got some good input there about the end result. But it was a swing and a miss for the planning stage. We were always planning a complimentary HTML version of the leaderboard from day one of development. The Flash did take longer, but seriously, an HTML display like that is built with a couple of looping tags.
And since you haven't actually used the site, you don't know that the leaderboard is just a piece of the puzzle. If you wanted to know what checkpoint team 11 was at, you'd probably go to the team 11 page. That'd be the fastest method. If you really liked team 11, you'd add them to your 'My favorite teams' page. So you'd find their info even faster. I'd work on making it faster but I've already moved on from that project, so I've done all that I can.
On the Macromedia site, compare the use of the Flash shopping cart to a HTML shopping cart. The lack of page reloads makes the system easier to use. Only the relevant parts of the screen/app are changing on clicks. Vendors find better conversion rates with systems like this compared to identical HTML systems. Which means more money for the vendor. Vendors sure do love their money!
That's it. Thanks.
Wow. You're set in your ways.
f m?tabSection=leaderboard
I'd equate a talentless WebDev more with someone who doesn't understand that to advance and have talent it will involve learning and working with new technologies. A talentless WebDev would still make static HTML sites. A talented WebDev will be making database driven sites or applications. Luckily in 1999 I managed to move past static sites and since then I've worked on some great projects.
All your Flash rage is still based on animation and intros. I couldn't produce a worthwhile Flash animation if my life depended on it. I agree and think they're dated and add minimal value to every site.
I can on the otherhand produce some pretty nice Flash apps (as long as I have a design resource to make it cute). Here's a couple of links.
http://www.subaruprimalquest.com/race2003/index.c
http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/store/
Now this is just one man's opinion, but I think both of those sites are way better with their Flash versions compared to the HTML versions. I'll let you make your own decision.
Let's see you got 1 and 1/2 out of your 4 points correct.
y /features/flash/
i ng+Flash&btnG=Google+Search
1) Bandwidth hungry.
Not always true. Think about Flash applications. One Flash movie load of 200K can replace a dozen or more page views at 100K each. So 200K vs. 1200K. Which is less?
2) Annoying advertising.
Yep!
3) Section 508 compliance.
You're not even close to right here. Flash does support section 508 compliance. It's just like any web technology, you have to take the time to do it. http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/accessibilit
4) Google does index Flash
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Google+index
Conclusion. You don't know what you're talking about. I hope you get modded down now that these facts have been linked for you.
I work for a web design shop and browser compatability is the one thing that ends taking the most amount of time for our UI guy. Well that and supporting Macs. .1% for lynx, opera and others.
Slashdot readers are the people that use computers, not the people that are used BY computers, which is the mass market websites are looking for. .1% of the market. No freakin' way. You'd be outta business.
Lynx, we haven't supported lynx on a project we've done in ages, people on slashdot love lynx. Yeah. You ever seen a log report for a website recently? atleast 80% IE, split 50/50 IE4/IE5. That was a couple months ago, I'll assume it's high on the IE 5 tip now. Netscape 19.9 percent and
If you're a business working on a large project are you going to tell your UI guy to spend a weeks worth of his time and your money to support
For dynamic website, using Cold Fusion at my web shop, graphical interface with forms and javascript for usability are a requirement, not an option. Or clients want it and they're customers want it. We don't seem to ever get a single email that says, you're site sucks because that javascript that makes the page change when i select something from a drop down menu works.
And on the admin side of all our sites we REQUIRE they're using IE5+ on a PC. Otherwise we won't support them. Our admin sides are about 5 times flashier than the front end of the sites and that's because of more javascript.
I'm all about making the web a beautiful place, and I'm glad I get to help do that. Lynx is not beautiful, it's quick and dirty for when you need info. You think the sites that lynx users look at now are going to bow down to the standards commity and change there sites? No way. Lynx will have it's market and do what it does. Everyone else will advance.
That's all I gotta say about this. I'm all for it, and I can vouch for my co-workers when I say that they're all for it too!
Yamaha is the way to go. You'll have room to run all necessary components through it including atleast one of your computers MP3 collections. Put all your money in to speakers and this reciever will satisfy your listening needs.
And ditch that Sony DVD and get the APEX 600A.
I do not remember where, but I heard about this last week. Intel had decided to stick with SDRAM for all general consumer level systems, since general consumers do not/will not stand for computers prices that have been dropping for years to suddenly sky rocket again.
The site with the Intel document said that they don't know wether they're going to use PC-133 or DDR. They have decided to use DDR. I don't remember if it was print or screen, but if I can find it again then I'll be back.