On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 04:30:05PM +0100, Richard Lockwood wrote: > > My point however that what you and J.P. describe as "chaff" is > neccessary for the evolution and development of the web still holds. > Someone has to pay for all this wonderful "free" content - if you can > come up with a better globally applicable model for it than > advertising or paid content then all power to you.
You seem to be confusing two completely orthoganal points here. I haven't seen anyone (here) say that there shouldn't be paid content or advertising on the web. People are just complaining about the overuse of Flash on web sites. A lot of the annoying Flash that I see has nothing to do with advertising. > Yes, granted, there's a lot of irritating stuff being produced in Flash and > other advertising media - but there's been an awful lot of rubbish produced > in the name of "content" too, both in print and on the web. But no-one would > wish to ban the written word. The delivery method is not the culprit, the > lack of creativity is. Sure. But the difference is that I can skim-read some plain HTML and decide that it's crap in a lot less time than it takes to download and watch a crap Flash animation. It wastes a lot less of my time. > Would you throw your TV set away simply because you didn't enjoy some > of the programmes? No, but I might avoid channels that constantly used advertising techniques that annoyed me (like DOGs or constant crazy frog adverts). > I thought people like you had gone off to smash mill machinery in > about 1812. No. We've spent the last ten years building the world wide web for people like you to crap all over :) Dave... -- Let me see you make decisions / Without your television
pgpGpRwQ5GquD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
