Flash is OK for YouTube. It's wonderful for ads, since I use Flashblock.
Now I'm not distracted with flashing and blinking ads.
That raises an entirely different issue. If you take the content is it
okay for you to block the ads? If you don't like the ads maybe you should
go somewhere else for
There's no reason to use any kind of video in any format where static
data provides more information, faster, and is easier to load and
navigate. No more Trash with Flash!!
For a while Macromedia was running a similar campaign. There are many
very useful applications of Flash and MM was trying
I couldn't agree with you more. Here is the worst offender I have had
the misfortune to use:
http://www.saccuccihonda.com/
Their home page consists of nothing but several Flash animations. I
tried opening up all the flash animations and finally gave up after it
took so long to download each
We're approaching this from different angles. In the video world, .wmv is
most certainly a web standard. And it was long before .flv (Flash).
But that
has nothing to do with your complaint about porky animations on websites.
But again, once the Flash is loaded, you shouldn't experience
The thing that makes developers run for Flash is MS's defective IE
browser. Flash is an easy way to program sophisticated user interaction
on a common platform across all browsers. The choices are either Flash or
AJAX/FJAX and Flash is more bullet proof.
The main requirement for the Internet
Flash is OK for YouTube. It's wonderful for ads, since I use Flashblock.
Now I'm not distracted with flashing and blinking ads.
That raises an entirely different issue. If you take the content is it
okay for you to block the ads? If you don't like the ads maybe you should
go somewhere else
At 12:55 PM 10/23/2007 -0400, Richard P. wrote
I couldn't agree with you more. Here is the worst offender I have had the
misfortune to use:
http://www.saccuccihonda.com/
Their home page consists of nothing but several Flash animations. I tried
opening up all the flash animations and finally
I like Flash for online movies, but not for static info or ads. No more
Trash with Flash.
Flash often enhances more than it detracts.
My reaction to the Flash you are not seeing is often Oh, cool.
* == QUICK
At 10:42 AM 10/23/2007 -0500, Tom Piwowar wrote
Flash is OK for YouTube. It's wonderful for ads, since I use Flashblock.
Now I'm not distracted with flashing and blinking ads.
That raises an entirely different issue. If you take the content is it
okay for you to block the ads? If you don't like
Flash is OK for YouTube. It's wonderful for ads, since I use Flashblock.
Now I'm not distracted with flashing and blinking ads.
I HATE FLASH for content on web sites. I can't view the site at all
without waiting for it to load, even though it was much faster without
Flash. Worse, where there
You shouldn't be experiencing slowdowns just because you're viewing Flash.
Unless maybe you've got really old version or old video drivers.
I don't know either what the fascination is. Possibly because the only other
real alternative is .wmv and some people just hate anything to do with
At 05:18 PM 10/22/2007 -0400, b_s-wilk wrote
Trash with FLASH.
My sentiments exactly. I don't use the computer for visual amusement. If
I want that, I turn on the TV. Or better yet--go to the movies.
Sue
* ==
You shouldn't be experiencing slowdowns just because you're viewing Flash.
Unless maybe you've got really old version or old video drivers.
I don't know either what the fascination is. Possibly because the only other
real alternative is .wmv and some people just hate anything to do with
We're approaching this from different angles. In the video world, .wmv is
most certainly a web standard. And it was long before .flv (Flash). But that
has nothing to do with your complaint about porky animations on websites.
But again, once the Flash is loaded, you shouldn't experience slowdowns.
14 matches
Mail list logo
