> > I beg to differ with this. DHTML is more lightweight than > > Flash in some cases, but if you use Flash well, it's usually > > a better solution than DHTML - it's less browser-dependent, > > and often easier to debug! For example, we've used quite a > > bit of DHTML within our applications, but are switching to > > Flash where possible. We did an org chart in DHTML (drag-and-drop, > > etc), but it worked so much better in Flash. > > Whether Flash is more lightweight than DHTML is debatable. It > just depends on the application. You should take a good look at > the target visitors and their browsers, connections and hardware. > Don't use Flash if your visitors use their handphones to visit > your site. > > IMHO, building a site for the general public that is Flash > only without any possibility of viewing it in HTML is unforgivable.
I'm responding a bit late to this. However, the comparison was really between Flash and DHTML. Neither is going to work with phones or other devices - well, I take that back, Flash works fine on my PocketPC although the DHTML support in IE on PPC is pretty limited - and neither is acceptable as the sole interface for public use. DHTML doesn't degrade gracefully into vanilla HTML, though, so if you're going to pick DHTML or Flash, I'd argue that you're better off with Flash. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
