On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:21:26 +1100, Ben Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Penetration? Macromeida flogs the 98% of the world has it ? > > I do not believe this for one second. 98% penetration is not credible > for any plugin-based product. > > Not that his method is entirely scientific, but this fellow:
Agreed, its not. > http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:OGyrpuRS7vEJ:www.andyjeffries.co.uk/documents/flash_penetration.php+macromedia+flash+usage+percentage&hl=en&start=3 > > would suggest that even your 85% figure is overly generous. But let's > be nice and split the difference and say it's 78%. http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/penetration.html (No1 really knows so why debate that point, its m000t) > > lets > > assume its 85% compare that against Browsers that support > > CSS2/Javascript 1.2 (fully) > > 94% are 1.2 capable and 96% are JS capable to some extent. And that > was in January 2004: 1.2 wasn't the only technology i quoted... what about JS 1.2 & CSS2? JS is all well in good by itself, but then there is CSS 2 which goes hand and hand with "DHTML" label. DHTML is really a fluffy term to describe them both playing together (its not even dynamic per say). > http://www.onlinesitedevelopment.com/Download.html > > (my stats are the results of five minutes of googling, feel free to > shoot me down if you can demonstrate them to be massively unreliable) Not really accurate statistics - you forgot Intranet based organisations who sit behind proxies and what not where agent/technology capabilities cannot be accurately measured - further more, how does it measure those who couldn't execute the said page(s) that were sampling the information. Again.. its all based on different samples and each side could argue one for one and still no winner. I think it was a bold statement to simply say "Google rejects Flash due to not being a 100% takeup" which felt like "nup, sorry it would have to be more then that as no1 would simply reject a technology because it hasn't got a 100% takeup.. hell HTML 4.0 in some factions of the world isn't even supported 100% (client-side technologies aside)... bottom line a comprimise is/was made imho. > Not to mention that a javascript solution doesn't have to be fully 1.2 > compliant, since in this instance the developers have the luxury of > being able to code for backwards compatibility and graceful > degradation. Can't really do that with a plugin-based solution. Do they? Could you create an "Application" thats Fully Javascript enriched aswell as one thats 100% non-javasript and not reduce your application into two facets of code? If you do, i'd love to see how many if statements it took to get to that point. That being said, you could do the same with FLASH, in using XML as you're content provider. If flash isn't available then revert to plain HTML screen for screen - if it is, inrich it? - point is you're just shifting the goal posts simply because the word "plugin" was involved. > > regardless of 100% penetration as 100% of the world aren't going > > to be able to access GMAIL + GOOGLE MAPS. > > Well, yeah, my nana who doesn't own a computer isn't able to access > it, which is why we are drawing our sample from all known internet > users, rather than everyone in the world. all? general statement imho as nothing on this planet can possible come close to measuring "ALL" known internet users. Unless every single ISP sent their data logs to a central repository, some super smart AI robots picked replicas apart down to uniques and provided you with a purty graph. "all known internet users" would be "all known interent users that accessed xyz server(s)" more likely. > > > Anyway i'd wager they choose a non-flash-type solution for the simple > > fact of keeping it 100% google owned and relied on their stuff, not > > anyone elses. > > It would still be 100% google owned if they wrote it in flash, but I > maintain that market penetration would have been a factor. Google's 100% more like 99.9% - eheh gotta allow that 0.1% for Macromedia as they own the Flash player and google rely on them to provide a service? > all about seamlessness and making things that just work. I'm not aware > of them ever having done anything that required more than one of the > fairly recent mainstream browsers for a user to just plug in and start > playing. I think people are giving google a littttttttttttle too much credit for being 100% zen universal, they have picked their supported browsers and probably based on what stats they gathered via google.com itself and ran with that. There would have to be (small mind you) factions around the world who can't load GMAIL or Maps no? Any not one of us here has a clue as to what the brains trust @ google did in the way of choosing the UI for Maps... as we aren't privy to that information. An observation was made that it would cool to see it in flash? i agree it would of been cooler.. I hate screen refreshes. enough said. -- Regards, Scott Barnes http://www.mossyblog.com --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
