I have done just fine without flash for years. For me it is very simple; if your site has flash it means: 1. I suddenly don't care 2. I will not purchase anything from you 3. I'll find alternatives who make my experience better 4. I'll save some time by not watching some retarded video
It wouldn't be the first business/site I abandon. It wouldn't be the first site at work that I simply reply to originators saying: "sorry can't view the content". Making excuses for flash isn't helping. You can't say: "I agree but I use it anyway because I want teh nekid ladies". On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:40:43AM -0400, Jason Beaudoin wrote: > <snip> > > > >> > >> This guy's day job is at a bank, and they're really into it-- it "solves" a > >> number of problems for them. So if this is the kind of thing that > >> developers are going to pick up en masse, then it's something that will > >> need to be addressed, else people who won't or can't run Flash will be > >> increasingly marginalized. > > > > Flash is only good for a few things such as "naked ladies performing > > anatomic tricks", "dude getting punched in the ding-dong" & "Trogodor > > the burninator". Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and > > having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me. > > > > What's perplexing to me is that most people sit idle watching the > > internet as we know it disintegrate in front of their eyes. Allowing > > themselves to be bombarded with ads. Removing the actual reason for why > > html exists which is indexing content so that it can be retrieved and > > used by many. Those people are all ok with being shat on as long as > > they can watch youtube or $whatever_infantile_site_here. The 14 year > > old demographic is apparently the dominating one on teh intartubez > > these days. > > > > I for one can't wait to be marginalized. > > > > While I agree with you in many respects, I will also acknowledge that > there are plenty of legitimate cases where viewing flash content is > necessary. This is particularly true in artistic communities (and > increasingly so, for the reasons Daniel pointed out). > > Flash sure is shit, I'll agree.. and philosophically, I believe its > use continues its proliferation by adobe.. but regardless, casting it > all off isn't a viable solution. For example, if a site has > information I absolutely need to access (maybe you're researching a > particular artist or company that uses flash on their site, etc..) > your options are to either not view that content, attempt opera or > gnash or some other broken open alternative, or boot up windows. > > Not viewing the content doesn't help you. > opera and/or gnash are close options, sometimes > booting windows is not an option I feel good about even considering, > and as soon as I give away this extra laptop I have, there won't be > any windows here. > > so protest if you must, but I hope you can acknowledge a user's > legitimate use, as opposed to adobe's horrific domination, or > spammer's obsession with inducing seizures. > > > regards, > ~Jason > -- > 401.837.8417 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
