Hi all and happy Easter or Passover to anyone who celebrates either.
I've just finished working on an alternative solution to this issue, which
_uses_ JavaScript, but doesn't actually _require_ it...
It goes like this. I noticed that some of the solutions out there involve
replacing the
Here's a possible fix to the previous code:
First of all, it works only on IE - because IE is the only one who needs
this script...
Second, it removes the jump problem mentioned in the previous code by adding
two new style declarations to the page, and then switching between
visibilities.
Looking
Dave Mennenoh wrote:
How to utilize the JavaScript fix when you're using FlashVars set by
PHP? Is it possible for JS to retrieve data from PHP session variables?
I've been doing some research this am but haven't been too lucky yet.
I'm not sure I'm seeing this correctly yet... would I be on
How to utilize the JavaScript fix when you're using FlashVars set by PHP? Is
it possible for JS to retrieve data from PHP session variables? I've been
doing some research this am but haven't been too lucky yet.
Dave -
Adobe Community Expert
www.blurredistinction.com
Nevermind... one of those days. Looks like FlashObject will fit the bill
nicely.
Dave -
Adobe Community Expert
www.blurredistinction.com
www.macromedia.com/support/forums/team_macromedia/
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your
: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
John Grden wrote:
I have to ask, now that I've gone out to see the active content
center, what's the active part?
It's more like active content than active center...
active content
is a way to describe browser extensions such as Netscape
Plugins
Are you going to update Flash 8 so it publishes flash/html
that utilises the new javascript methods?
I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. ;)
___
This e-mail is intended only for the named person or entity to which
it is addressed and
mailing list
flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com |
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Active X
I have to ask, now that I've gone out to see the active content center,
what's the active part?
I mean, is it the send feedback option? I feel like a tard asking this,
but apparently it's not obvioius to me, and so, I'm guessing it's not
obvious to some others either.
One thing that's missing
John Grden wrote:
I have to ask, now that I've gone out to see the active content center,
what's the active part?
It's more like active content than active center... active content
is a way to describe browser extensions such as Netscape Plugins,
ActiveX Controls, and Java applets. It's not
Does anyone know how long it takes for this kind of update to filter
through? I, for instance NEVER accept anything from Microsoft on the
first pass. Do I have to impliment several alternatives? What happens
to a current browser if you make the switch?
Weldon
On 4/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
What happens to a current browser if you make the switch?
Nothing, it degrades gracefully.
ryanm
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
On 4/10/06, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Related question: Do you see reasons why so much of this conversation
about ActiveX changes in the Microsoft browser has avoided the source
material on the Adobe site? Reporters are frequently getting the facts
wrong (ads won't play etc), and on
it sounds like to me that you know alot more about Active Content Center
than some of us ;) In fact, I haven't heard that term until you just used
it, so I feel a need to get out there and see what's up. So, maybe an
answer to your question is we're just not up to speed on some of your
features
I wholeheartedly recommend using Flash Object for embedding Flash into
HTML. Yes, it means those with JavaScript disabled will get the
'alternative version', but in all honesty, in these days of AJAX and
standards-compliance, people who disable JavaScript are in the tiny
minority.
The benefits
HA, lol, man never occured to me, but yeah, I guess that'd be a scenario
I would think the noscript tag would be the option - doesn't seem that
there's any other option really.
On 4/10/06, GregoryN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last year I worked with a client's employee, who had both
javascript
I wouldn't disagree with you at all on that Paul. I might disagree about
the numbers in minority especially given the porn variable, but I don't
think it raises the number into the majority by any means.
But that doesn't diminish what you've said here, FlashObject has been very
easy to integrate
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John
Grden
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 8:52 AM
To: Flashcoders mailing list
Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
I wouldn't disagree with you at all on that Paul. I might disagree
Stephen Ford wrote:
What happens if a user doesn't have javascript enabled in their browser for the
recommended Macromedia solution (see link:
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent/articles/devletter.html) to this
whole Active X debacle ?
This is answered at the Adobe Active
Preamble: This is not gospel, this is not majority, this isn't anything by
my opinion :)
In the past, I've had mixed experiences with MM/Adobe's site for help. Most
of the time, I honestly have to check for the last revision date to make
sure I'm not reading something that's 2 years old. There
mailing list
flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com |
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Active X
jdowdell wrote:
It would be great if there were openwiki documentation of browser
differences, however.
This doesn't cover the variations in noscript response. But is the
most comprehensive browser comparison I've seen to date.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers
Bill
I actually think that the problem was that Adobe was too quick to
respond. They've had a solution up since the first round of worry hit
this forum. But I think it was so long ago that most forgot about it.
Then when it hit the press again they didn't remind people firmly
enough. They treated
I don't know if this falls in line with the whole law suit or not, but it
just seems so obvious to me that MS should implement a checkbox next to the
dialog when you're allow ActiveX content that says [x] Always allow this
Active X type or [x] Always allow flash content (the same way you get
that
Stephen Ford wrote:
Can anyone answer this:
What happens if a user doesn't have javascript enabled in their browser for the recommended Macromedia solution (see link: http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent/articles/devletter.html) to this whole Active X debacle ?
???
You just have
Personally what I would *like* to do is include a download link to Firefox
in the NOSCRIPT tags!
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 8:13 AM
To: flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
Subject: [Flashcoders] Active X and
i second that. Shame most clients wont go for it as a solution.
On 4/9/06, Hairy Dog Digital [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally what I would *like* to do is include a download link to Firefox
in the NOSCRIPT tags!
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You just have to write your object / embed tags code with JavaScript.
Use FlashObject and relax.
ummm, that's the problem - no JavaScript worky - no write out object at all
= screwed.
He's got a great point that we've been dealing with as well. We are using
the FlashObject code, but if a
In the early days, I remember going ape nuts over every k in file
size, and sticking to certain web safe colors and making sure the
content fit in 640x480 screens.
I still try to respect things like file size and app performance, but
on some things, I'm like, if you have a 256 color screen
You also have to consider what users are turning off Javascript.
First, Javascript is turned on by default. Second, you have to be somewhat
savvy to know what Javascript is, much less turn it off, and also know what
purpose turning it off serves. Third, you need to have a reason to turn it
off.
I second what Steven says - to give you a bit of perspective, I worked
on the relaunch of fhm.com about a year or so ago, and we looked into
what implications there would be for requiring end users to have flash
to be able to use the site. As part of this, we used a thing called
browserhawk to
While this is true, it seems very backward to need JS to view Flash
content...
On Apr 9, 2006, at 5:44 PM, Paul BH wrote:
I second what Steven says - to give you a bit of perspective, I worked
on the relaunch of fhm.com about a year or so ago, and we looked into
what implications there
I haven't seen anyone mention this yet so maybe it has a downside I
can't see. We're planning on using a noscript element inside the
flashcontent div (using FlashObject) to add the Flash content. That way
if javascript is disabled they will still get the Flash content. Only
downside is they
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Lane
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 7:05 PM
To: flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
I haven't seen anyone mention this yet so maybe it has a downside I
I agree, seems like a crazy statement.
And while I agree that modifying your implementation for a minority is
something I'd rather not do, it's not a luxury we have with some of our main
clients - You don't just go and tell a fortune 500 company um, sorry that
it failed on your lame computer at
Last year I worked with a client's employee, who had both
javascript and cookies turned off.
At first, I couldn't understand why he's doing so. My thoughts were
exactly as Steven's .
But some day he's dropped few words and I've got it: he's porn
surfer! And he was using office computer for it
36 matches
Mail list logo
