On Thursday 14 February 2008 00:14, Erik Osterholm wrote: > > IMHO, for an individual to state that Flash is not a relevant issue > > simply because they choose not to employ it, is similar to patient > > claiming that cancer research is a waste of time simply because they > > are not afflicted with the condition. > > Bad analogies are like a leaky screwdriver. > > All throughout this thread, there have been people mixing up issues. > It's true that Flash is used on many, many websites, but one of the > earliest "complaints" I saw regarded Flash-only sites--sites which > require Flash in order to navigate. These sites seem fairly rare. It > is manipulative and misleading to argue that because so many sites > /make use of Flash/, then /Flash has become an integral part of the > web/. I browse with Flash disabled all of the time, only enabling it > specifically when I need it to use the web site. It certainly > happens--but it's not a constant thing. I'm aware that Flash content > exists on the pages I view, but most of the time it's supplemental, > and the page degrades quite nicely without it.