---------------------------------------- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:16:56 +0100 > Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? > > On Wednesday 13 February 2008 00:27:53 Da Rock wrote: >> ---------------------------------------- >> >>> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:50:40 -0500 >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> CC: email@example.com >>> Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Jonathan McKeown wrote: >>>> On Monday 11 February 2008 22:26, Chuck Robey wrote: >>>>> All you folks who are focussing on YouTube are (purposefully? I don't >>>>> know) the fact that with just about half of the entire Web using flash >>>>> in one way or antoehr, not using Flash is a huge problem, as anyone who >>>>> browses without a flashplayer knows. >>>> >>>> Just to provide a counterpoint to this sweeping generalisation, I browse >>>> without a Flash player and it's never caused me any problem at all. >>>> >>>> There are a few sites which don't work without Flash. Having checked on >>>> a number of occasions, I've found (and I stress this is a personal >>>> opinion) that heavy use of Flash is a fairly reliable marker of a site I >>>> wouldn't be interested in whatever publishing techniques were used. >>>> >>>> It's rather like the old saying in the British advertising industry: >>>> only sing in an ad if you have nothing to say. >>>> >>>> How does Flash fit in with accessibility guidelines? In many countries, >>>> a commercial site which doesn't degrade gracefully when viewed with (eg) >>>> Lynx may fall foul of legislation protecting people with disabilities >>>> such as visual impairment. >>> >>> You know, there are some folks out there who are still using their old >>> M32 TTY's, and they can't understand why any folks would need mouses. >>> Those of us who have successfully made the move to the 21st century can >>> tell them, but honestly, most of us are very tired of hearing the same >>> hoary old excuses why things aren't necessary. The majority of folks >>> doing browsing today aren't impressed that maybe some 3rd world country >>> is unhappy with flash sites, they just want their flash sites to work, >>> and ours don't. Why don't they? Because everytime someone comes up with >>> a workable plan, all the real cave-men out there trot out there >>> war-stories, and bore us all to death with their memoirs, and endlessly >>> recursive arguments. Everytime they get proven wrong on one item, they >>> just move the clock back a few months, grab the previous >>> self-justification, and start the argument all back up again. You can't >>> out-last them. >>> >>> I personally tried to fix things, got soundly beaten to death over it >>> (and I WILL NOT try that one again, under pain of death, sorry!). MY >>> flash works here and that's all I will worry about. I can't predict when >>> things will finally improve, maybe when enough folks realize they don't >>> have to put up with this. >>> >>>> In short, I think ``half of the entire Web using Flash'' may be a bit of >>>> an overstatement even if you count Flash ad banners (which frankly I can >>>> do without), and the small number of Flash-only sites I encounter hasn't >>>> caused me temporary inconvenience, never mind ``a huge problem''. >>>> >>>> Jonathan >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list >>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >>>> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >>> >>> iD8DBQFHsfiQz62J6PPcoOkRAu6/AKCArtXTPwLGKD0xN+r6MG8fk+wEUwCglafp >>> Al9ztYns1ZHDV7IQ8foSU7o= >>> =1fY6 >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> email@example.com mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >>> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" >> >> That was a right pretty speech there, and I agree with the sentiments of >> moving forward with technology. However, I disagree that this is merely a >> case backward compatibility. Are you aware that the w3 consortium has web >> accessibility drafting committee? >> >> Consider also the facts that I have brought forward that Adobe has singled >> out OS's that are not allowed to run Flash Player. >> >> Consider also the fact that most designers simply use flash because they >> can't design properly and use other more accessible methods to achieve the >> same thing. >> >> I agree that a fix needs to be found, but this is not a "cave man" >> mentality, and we're not bringing up old war stories. The fact that this >> has not been all that successful given the larger number of sites now >> designed with flash player 9 which has been the number one problem here. If >> you have a fix I am sure we would all welcome the knowledge and use it- I >> certainly would. I merely point out (hopefully reaching some web designers >> and other flash fans) that flash is not the only way to go, and is >> certainly not preferable. > > Let me be the one to point out the (next) controversial thing: here's a > perfect example why using linux binaries for stuff like this is a dead end. > > And don't even start about the PC-BSD folks who want to make flash9 work.... > via WINE. > > We need a native flash or a replacement for the animation side, and where > flash is merely used as a video container, we have not option but to use > youitube-dl, miro, and the like. But there too, some native solution is > needed, otherwise it will continue to work like crap if at all. > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"