On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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] > >
I agree, a flash site means "you don't want my business" for me. It's annoying.
