"Responsive, intuitive and attractive" are all design properties.
Yes, but a designer doesn't develop the responsive interface, they usually create static designs and need to communicate to the developer how the interface reacts to the user, and I've seen developers get that wrong all too often.
Why are you talking to designers about code? Again, it sounds like you have poor communication skills and compensate by assuming that nobody can communicate effectively with "the other side".
I never said nobody can communicate effectively with "the other side", I merely said that someone with intimate knowledge of both sides would have a better chance of communicating with both sides, and if they're in charge of both design and development there is no need for that communication at all. It appears that I'm not the one with the communication problem in this case.
As to why I'm talking to designers about code, again it's about communication (that you seem to think I lack) - often programming constraints mean constraints are then placed on the design, and I like to explain to designers why something can't be done. Usually they're grateful for this, but sometimes I go a bit over their heads.
I happen to be employed as a designer/developer, at least when I'm not reading Slashdot. I'm a front-end interface developer and I do everything from concept design, graphic design, and animation, through to development and deployment.
Granted, there are better designers and developers than I, as I'm unable to specialise in either, but not many designer/developer teams can create the kind of responsive, intuitive and attractive user experiences that I do. Something goes missing when you start having to communicate your ideas to someone who doesn't understand both sides.
I will agree that people like me are rare however.. Most designers look at me strangely when I start talking about code, and most developers have absolutely no sense of aesthetics or design.
The difference between things like AJAX, HTML forms, and Flash is that AJAX works on almost everything, including screen reader systems, HTML forms works on all but the very first browsers, and Flash works on IE, Mozilla, and those few browsers that emulate one of their plugin interfaces. That means Flash is the least likely one to work.
Bullshit. I'll agree that HTML forms are the most compatible, but Flash is much more widespread than the requirements for an AJAX application, once you've finished coding workarounds for the specific browser peculiarities. Even so, AJAX has limited audio support, no video support, and is limited by the same usability constraints that Flash is. You're comparing apples to oranges.
As another poster pointed out, Flash breaks everything that made the web the web.
I trimmed your post because it was too full of bullshit to bother quoting. As mentioned before, AJAX (which the slashdot herd seem to be championing at the moment) is limited by the exaxt same usability problems that Flash is. You can (and must) code around these limitations in both Flash and AJAX. Also, AJAX applications are just as (if not more so) limited from being indexed by search engines as Flash applications. However, there are methods available to ensure that every piece of text in your site (be it AJAX, Flash, or HTML) gets indexed and linked to by search engines. Lastly, your point that Flash uses vector graphics for text is merely pointing out your ignorance.
I don't advocate the use of Flash when a perfectly good HTML site will suffice. However there are times when a higher level of interaction, or integration with media (sound, video) is required (and I'm not talking about intros or adverts). Flash wins here, and in comparison, AJAX is a joke which combines all the problems of Flash with none of the advantages.
Flash is a niche application and won't ever be anything more than that.
Actually Flash is the most widespread and ubiquitous software platform. If you write for the Flash platform, you are targetting more people than any other platform available today.
Because they license the player to the platforms that they are prohibiting installation on. That's precisely why they are prohibiting it. They're not limiting the product from further growth, just ensuring that they earn revenue from companies that want Flash installed on a particular platform.
As you say, Flash's popularity is an essential selling point. They are leveraging that point to earn revenue from licensing the player to less ubiquitous platforms.
Some owl species (particularly nocturnal ones) have one ear higher than the other, so that they can locate the position of a sound vertically as well as horizontally, due to one ear receiving the just sound before the other does.
Actually, you may be impressed to know that Dune 1 and 2 only used 32 colours, as they shared the same graphics with the Amiga versions. However, you're partially correct, as Dune 1 was one of the first games to use a 256 colour mode despite the fact that it only used a fraction of the available colours.
"Also, keep in mind a trademark is just a name or a symbol as used in advertising. It might represent a few days of work by a graphic design person, or a couple of hours of brainstorming and focus groups. A patent can very well represent several years worth of someone's hard work."
I agree with your post, except where you imply that a trademark is of less value than a patent. Actually, a trademark can represent hundreds of thousands of man hours in research and development time, and billions of dollars in invested advertising revenue. High profile trademarks are worth much more than most patents.
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer: 1) say you'll do no evil 2) do evil 3) profit!
"Responsive, intuitive and attractive" are all design properties.
Yes, but a designer doesn't develop the responsive interface, they usually create static designs and need to communicate to the developer how the interface reacts to the user, and I've seen developers get that wrong all too often.
Why are you talking to designers about code? Again, it sounds like you have poor communication skills and compensate by assuming that nobody can communicate effectively with "the other side".
I never said nobody can communicate effectively with "the other side", I merely said that someone with intimate knowledge of both sides would have a better chance of communicating with both sides, and if they're in charge of both design and development there is no need for that communication at all. It appears that I'm not the one with the communication problem in this case.
As to why I'm talking to designers about code, again it's about communication (that you seem to think I lack) - often programming constraints mean constraints are then placed on the design, and I like to explain to designers why something can't be done. Usually they're grateful for this, but sometimes I go a bit over their heads.
I happen to be employed as a designer/developer, at least when I'm not reading Slashdot. I'm a front-end interface developer and I do everything from concept design, graphic design, and animation, through to development and deployment.
Granted, there are better designers and developers than I, as I'm unable to specialise in either, but not many designer/developer teams can create the kind of responsive, intuitive and attractive user experiences that I do. Something goes missing when you start having to communicate your ideas to someone who doesn't understand both sides.
I will agree that people like me are rare however.. Most designers look at me strangely when I start talking about code, and most developers have absolutely no sense of aesthetics or design.
I have access to the beta and am happy to say it supports Firefox as well. Haven't been able to test it on other browsers at this stage.
Maybe I'm in the minority...
Yes, you are.
And what exactly are they going to do with the cash on Mars?
What exploits? Please enlighten us.
The difference between things like AJAX, HTML forms, and Flash is that AJAX works on almost everything, including screen reader systems, HTML forms works on all but the very first browsers, and Flash works on IE, Mozilla, and those few browsers that emulate one of their plugin interfaces. That means Flash is the least likely one to work.
Bullshit. I'll agree that HTML forms are the most compatible, but Flash is much more widespread than the requirements for an AJAX application, once you've finished coding workarounds for the specific browser peculiarities. Even so, AJAX has limited audio support, no video support, and is limited by the same usability constraints that Flash is. You're comparing apples to oranges.
As another poster pointed out, Flash breaks everything that made the web the web.
I trimmed your post because it was too full of bullshit to bother quoting. As mentioned before, AJAX (which the slashdot herd seem to be championing at the moment) is limited by the exaxt same usability problems that Flash is. You can (and must) code around these limitations in both Flash and AJAX. Also, AJAX applications are just as (if not more so) limited from being indexed by search engines as Flash applications. However, there are methods available to ensure that every piece of text in your site (be it AJAX, Flash, or HTML) gets indexed and linked to by search engines. Lastly, your point that Flash uses vector graphics for text is merely pointing out your ignorance.
I don't advocate the use of Flash when a perfectly good HTML site will suffice. However there are times when a higher level of interaction, or integration with media (sound, video) is required (and I'm not talking about intros or adverts). Flash wins here, and in comparison, AJAX is a joke which combines all the problems of Flash with none of the advantages.
Flash is a niche application and won't ever be anything more than that.
Actually Flash is the most widespread and ubiquitous software platform. If you write for the Flash platform, you are targetting more people than any other platform available today.
Because they license the player to the platforms that they are prohibiting installation on. That's precisely why they are prohibiting it. They're not limiting the product from further growth, just ensuring that they earn revenue from companies that want Flash installed on a particular platform.
As you say, Flash's popularity is an essential selling point. They are leveraging that point to earn revenue from licensing the player to less ubiquitous platforms.
Some owl species (particularly nocturnal ones) have one ear higher than the other, so that they can locate the position of a sound vertically as well as horizontally, due to one ear receiving the just sound before the other does.
Because Java doesn't have over 90% market penetration.
Just print it on the toilet paper.
It's a shame that 604753 was taken long ago...
I don't really understand why us geeks like to hoard intellectual property so much.
Because it wants to be free?
Macromedia already has FlashPaper which converts printed documents to SWF.
Actually, you may be impressed to know that Dune 1 and 2 only used 32 colours, as they shared the same graphics with the Amiga versions. However, you're partially correct, as Dune 1 was one of the first games to use a 256 colour mode despite the fact that it only used a fraction of the available colours.
"Also, keep in mind a trademark is just a name or a symbol as used in advertising. It might represent a few days of work by a graphic design person, or a couple of hours of brainstorming and focus groups. A patent can very well represent several years worth of someone's hard work."
I agree with your post, except where you imply that a trademark is of less value than a patent. Actually, a trademark can represent hundreds of thousands of man hours in research and development time, and billions of dollars in invested advertising revenue. High profile trademarks are worth much more than most patents.
"whoa! that's X pounds!" I might be impressed if you actually worked out what X was. :)