that's good news that a lot of those quality problems look to be fixed with flash 8. i'll have to find a trial version to try out.
and searching around i find you're right about google's ability to read text from swf files, though that doesn't explain one very recent problem that i encountered with flash and google indexing. a friend's site had a flash image with a link to the next page done in html frames. google indexed the first page of her website but didn't index anything else, obviously unable to crawl the link. i suggested she put a 1 x 1 pixel transparent gif with an html link to the frames page and within 2 days google had crawled the rest of her site.
ajax vs. flash.. to me ajax (ugh! i hate people who complain about that name!) wins. some points:
- firstly, and this is very important, if a page is made entirely in flash then a search engine can't glean text from it when it comes to crawl it if all your content is compiled into a swf. true, flash will publish your text as html comments, but this is a fairly lame work-around as keywords in comments don't rank particularly highly in google's algorithms. at least with a site that uses ajax, its first state will be accessable to text crawlers.
- secondly, jpg images look crusty in flash. even with jpg quality settings set high you still get a worse looking bitmap image than if you placed the image in html. so, flash, good for vectors, crap for bitmaps.
- the quality of text rendered in a swf is fairly terrible when it's small (i.e., your normal 10-12pt 'screen' height). unless you set the text properties to be 'dynamic', which limits how you can use it.
- text is unselectable (again, unless it has been set to 'dynamic' which it rarely is) so if people want to copy and paste something from your site then tough luck to them.
i use flash all the time, but not to build whole sites with. it's perfect for small embedded sections. but what ajax ultimately has over flash is that it uses native internet technolgies, and so many things from spiders to users rely on the web being the web.
True this technology has been available for a long time, but it's false to assume that new developments and directions can only come from technologies that are themselves new.
A new realisation of how to use, or how to bundle together, existing technology, new ways of having people relate to information and to each other through existing technology, are the effectual equivalent of inventing genuinely new technology.
Blogs (minus their extensions with RSS etc.) were possible 10 years ago with a modified guestbook script, text messaging is so retro that most telecommunication companies ignored it at first because technically it seemed already archaic.
What blogs and text messaging allowed was for people to see, relate with, visualise information, and relate with each other through the information, differently. See the Wikipedia article on Web 2.0 technologies, and note these are as much conceptual differences between "Web 1.0" as anything else.
We don't need to make something new, just reconfigure it conceptually. See Duchamp for more.
Though the first actual printed manual for Rails is, I think, only just entering shops now so it's all very developmental with no pun intended.
Though probably not complete see this list on the Rails wiki for a list of webhosts.
Dreamhost.com is the first, as far as i know, major webhost to bring out full Rails support.
can i just point out the obvious? that google's concept for a start page was in no way ever original in the first place. this was never made a trolloping big deal over when it was slashdotted either, but this is?
I'm wondering why the article states 16% of computer users are Mac users, when consistantly my website stats (between 5 websites) will only ever show a 3-4% user base. And these are art & media websites, which I would imagine attracts a proportionally higher amount of Mac users.
Someone floated the idea that less mac users connect to the Internet - well nothing could be further from the truth. Those machines are geared up for connectivity. I don't know anyone with a Mac who wouldn't use it to connect to the Internet, and why wouldn't you?
Which makes me wonder, perhaps most of those 16% are Linux-based servers? Do they count?
Slashdot Mirror
That would involve eating some HumblePy first. Too filling ;)
heh. no, i think you missed the /. hype train. Posted Aug 02
The non-Microsoft applications and games that only run on Windows.
hehe. perhaps having never made a bean out of flash having used it since v4 myself contributes to my cynicality, in that case ;).
like i said, good to hear these concerns are being addressed, but boo to the fact it's taken this long to address some of the outstanding issues.
that's good news that a lot of those quality problems look to be fixed with flash 8. i'll have to find a trial version to try out.
and searching around i find you're right about google's ability to read text from swf files, though that doesn't explain one very recent problem that i encountered with flash and google indexing. a friend's site had a flash image with a link to the next page done in html frames. google indexed the first page of her website but didn't index anything else, obviously unable to crawl the link. i suggested she put a 1 x 1 pixel transparent gif with an html link to the frames page and within 2 days google had crawled the rest of her site.
ajax vs. flash .. to me ajax (ugh! i hate people who complain about that name!) wins. some points:
- firstly, and this is very important, if a page is made entirely in flash then a search engine can't glean text from it when it comes to crawl it if all your content is compiled into a swf. true, flash will publish your text as html comments, but this is a fairly lame work-around as keywords in comments don't rank particularly highly in google's algorithms. at least with a site that uses ajax, its first state will be accessable to text crawlers.
- secondly, jpg images look crusty in flash. even with jpg quality settings set high you still get a worse looking bitmap image than if you placed the image in html. so, flash, good for vectors, crap for bitmaps.
- the quality of text rendered in a swf is fairly terrible when it's small (i.e., your normal 10-12pt 'screen' height). unless you set the text properties to be 'dynamic', which limits how you can use it.
- text is unselectable (again, unless it has been set to 'dynamic' which it rarely is) so if people want to copy and paste something from your site then tough luck to them.
i use flash all the time, but not to build whole sites with. it's perfect for small embedded sections. but what ajax ultimately has over flash is that it uses native internet technolgies, and so many things from spiders to users rely on the web being the web.
try
A new realisation of how to use, or how to bundle together, existing technology, new ways of having people relate to information and to each other through existing technology, are the effectual equivalent of inventing genuinely new technology.
Blogs (minus their extensions with RSS etc.) were possible 10 years ago with a modified guestbook script, text messaging is so retro that most telecommunication companies ignored it at first because technically it seemed already archaic.
What blogs and text messaging allowed was for people to see, relate with, visualise information, and relate with each other through the information, differently. See the Wikipedia article on Web 2.0 technologies, and note these are as much conceptual differences between "Web 1.0" as anything else.
We don't need to make something new, just reconfigure it conceptually. See Duchamp for more.
Though the first actual printed manual for Rails is, I think, only just entering shops now so it's all very developmental with no pun intended.
Though probably not complete see this list on the Rails wiki for a list of webhosts. Dreamhost.com is the first, as far as i know, major webhost to bring out full Rails support.
"Need OO for a simple 10 line php script? Hell no, unless you're relying on a lot of 3rd party libraries."
Since PHP is OO (not pure OO, but few are) this seems a quaint expression to me.
"Need Ruby on Rails for a statistics generator with no front end what so ever? Nope."
As does this, since RoR isn't a language. Ruby is the language and can be used in 10 line scripts, or stats generators at will.
http://www.georgewbush.org/forum/lofiversion/index .php?t16860.html
I can't verify anything it says myself, but scan ahead to the 'Why the EV failed' headline.
no i think the chap's right. he's definately a maroon.
can i just point out the obvious? that google's concept for a start page was in no way ever original in the first place. this was never made a trolloping big deal over when it was slashdotted either, but this is?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=90026 31
Someone floated the idea that less mac users connect to the Internet - well nothing could be further from the truth. Those machines are geared up for connectivity. I don't know anyone with a Mac who wouldn't use it to connect to the Internet, and why wouldn't you?
Which makes me wonder, perhaps most of those 16% are Linux-based servers? Do they count?