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. :-) -- Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"