On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:23:31 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar 
<woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
> what i personally found is that webpage that can't be viewed at all 
> without flash most often doesn't have any usable information.

There are web pages that, without "Flash", won't even let you know
if you're on the correct page - the HTML source of the index page
doesn't contain anything than one "Flash" reference.

It's with "Flash" loaden pages as with orthography (in Germany at
least): If you have something OF VALUE to tell, content and form
go hand in hand. Professional web projects always honor this point
of view, containing valid (!) HTML and, if "Flash" is included,
there's always a means to bypass it, because it's an ADDITION,
and not required.

Even more important: If you're disabled through a disease of your
eyes (read: you're blind), youre happy about every page that can
be displayed with lynx (or any text mode browser). That's a sign
of quality, especially if img includes alt= and longdesc= for the
visually impaired.

> for pages that have some flash extras like adverts etc.. it's even 
> adventage not having this.

Opera simply displays an empty box, not asking be to download a
plugin that doesn't even exist. :-)

> Once again - every company can limit it's userbase just becasue it wants.
> Flash as a standard isn't bad, but because of this, it's not really a 
> standard.

"Flash" isn't a standard. If it's integrated in every major browser
on any OS (such as viewing JPG images is, for example), then I'd
be glad to review my standpoint. :-)

>From Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to