RE: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 outerHTML of the div that contains the script to generate the
flash ActiveX. So I thought - what would happen if you started off with an
objet tag, and then replaced the outerHTML with itself??? Well, it turned
out to be slightly more complicated than that, but not by much. The
outerHTML value omits the param tags, which are pretty much essential. But
with a few lines of code you can reconstruct the object and replace the
outerHTML with pretty much the same outer HTML. Sounds crazy? I didn't even
think it would work, but it was worth a try! You can see it at work on my
website - www.neo-archaic.net on the home page and the gallery page.
I think it still has a few short comings and could also do with some browser
and flash detection. Also, it does a little jump from the original to the
flash version, which I need to have a think on (hmm... Start with the object
invisible and show it after it's been replaced?).
In any case, I'm very interested in what you think about it, and any ideas
on how to improve this.
-
Here's the code:
//Replace all flash objects on the page with the same flash object,
//by rewriting the outerHTML values
//This bypasses the new IE ActiveX object activation issue
replaceFlash = function(){
//Get a list of all ActiveX objects
var objects = document.getElementsByTagName('object');
for (var i=0; iobjects.length; i++){
var d = objects[i]
//This is only tested with flash, so ignore all
other types
//The object must therefore have the attribute
type=application/x-shockwave-flash
if (d.type != application/x-shockwave-flash){
continue;
}
//Get the tag and attributes part of the outer html
of the object
var tag = d.outerHTML.split()[0] +
//The outer html omits the param tags, so we must
retrieve and insert these seperately
var lst = d.getElementsByTagName('param')
var params =
for (var j = 0; j=lst.length; j++) {
if (lst[j] != null){
params += lst[j].outerHTML
}
}
//Add up the various bits that comprise the object:
//The tag with the attributes, the params and it's
inner html
var newObject = tag + params + d.innerHTML +
/OBJECT
//And rewrite the outer html of the tag
d.outerHTML = newObject
}
}
--
Here's an example object:
object data=flash/home.swf
type=application/x-shockwave-flash
codebase=http://www.neo-archaic.net/index_old.html;
width=620
height=350
param name=movie value=flash/home.swf /
param name=wmode value=transparent /
param name=quality value=best /
p Alternative text /p
/object
---
Note that I'm using an alternative object tag, that doesn't have the
classid, codebase etc. This is a standards compliant way of handling this,
doesn't require an embed tag to work on Mozilla etc., shows the alternative
text if flash is not enabled, and is incredibly ligthweight.
So... What do you guys think?
Karina
Karina Steffens | Neo-Archaic
creative technical new media design
www.neo-archaic.net
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 forward to your comments!
(PS - the replaceFlash() function needs to be initiated on a window.onLoad()
event or equivalent.)
Karina
New code:
-
//Replace all flash objects on the page with the same flash object,
//by rewriting the outerHTML values
//This bypasses the new IE ActiveX object activation issue
replaceFlash = function(){
//Get a list of all ActiveX objects
if (navigator.appName.indexOf(Microsoft) != -1){
var objects =
document.getElementsByTagName('object');
for (var i=0; iobjects.length; i++){
var d = objects[i]
//This is only tested with flash, so ignore
all other types
//The object must therefore have the
attribute type=application/x-shockwave-flash
if (d.type !=
application/x-shockwave-flash){
continue;
}
//d.className=d.className.replace(flashInactive, flashActive);
//Get the tag and attributes part of the
outer html of the object
var tag = d.outerHTML.split()[0] +
tag = tag.replace (flashInactive,
flashActive)
//The outer html omits the param tags, so we
must retrieve and insert these seperately
var lst = d.getElementsByTagName('param')
var params =
for (var j = 0; j=lst.length; j++) {
if (lst[j] != null){
params += lst[j].outerHTML
}
}
//Add up the various bits that comprise the
object:
//The tag with the attributes, the params
and it's inner html
var newObject = tag + params + d.innerHTML +
/OBJECT
//And rewrite the outer html of the tag
d.outerHTML = newObject
d.className =
d.className.replace(flashInactive, flashActive)
}
}
}
if (navigator.appName.indexOf(Microsoft) != -1){
document.write (style.flashInactive{visibility:hidden;}
.flashActive{visibility:visible;}/style)
}
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 the right path if I understand this as something like If I'm writing my OBJECT/EMBED tags from an external JavaScript file, then how can I have PHP pass certain values to my HTML page so that I can add these to the FLASHVARs parameter in the dynamically written OBJECT and EMBED tags? If so, then it seems one approach would be to have your server's PHP engine dynamically write the .JS file which dynamically writes the HTML markup which then invokes the Flash Player. Another approach might be to instead have the PHP dynamically write some values into the HTML, which are then passed to a generic external .JS file which incorporates these when writing the markup which invokes the plugin. Another approach entirely, assuming the data lives on your server, would be to have the Flash applet itself call back to your server for the customization data, assuming you don't need to act upon that data immediately upon initial display. Are any of these close to the types of things you're working with here...? jd -- John Dowdell . Adobe Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA Weblog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd Aggregator: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/ Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 www.macromedia.com/support/forums/team_macromedia/ ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
John Are you going to update Flash 8 so it publishes flash/html that utilises the new javascript methods? M -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Dowdell Sent: 12 April 2006 19:34 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [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, ActiveX Controls, and Java applets. It's not just a PNG that sits there; it can do things itself. (There's a second sense of active content in public discourse which is semi-related, about how browser extensions usually draw direct-to-screen and cannot be composited with other browser elements, except in the special case where WMODE compositing is supported by both browser and extension.) One thing that's missing is a last modified date/time - how would I know this is THE latest and greatest? This is something I've wanted for a long time too, but my internal lobbying for this comes up against arguments about having older material appear more dated than it actually is. I've not yet been sufficiently persuasive here, but I share your goal for full metadata too. jd -- John Dowdell . Adobe Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA Weblog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd Aggregator: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/ Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 contains valuable business information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is strictly prohibited. All contents are the copyright property of Agency.com Ltd., its affiliates or a client of such agencies. If you are not the intended recipient, you are nevertheless bound to respect the worldwide legal rights of Agency.com, its affiliates and its clients. We require that unintended recipients delete the e-mail and destroy all electronic copies in their system, retaining no copies in any media. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us via e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] We appreciate your cooperation. We make no warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail and accept no liability for its content or use. Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Agency.com or any of its affiliates. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
|-+- | | John Dowdell | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | Sent by: | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | figleaf.com | | | | | | | | | 2006-04-11 07:45 PM | | | Please respond to Flashcoders | | | mailing list | | | | |-+- ---| | | | To: Flashcoders mailing list flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com | | cc: | | Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ... | ---| Andrew Lucking wrote: Good question. My perception is that this time around Adobe was slower to get *solutions* available. For whatever reasons it was only late last week that I was able to point folks to some workaround samples from Adobe. With the browser update already circulating as an optional download and rumours of it being included in this week's security patch from MS maybe folks started without Adobe's guidance? This is hard for me to understand too, because the Adobe Developer Center had the basic algorithms and examples up before anyone else started to do so. The material that was added this week was additional material, such as the hotfix to Flex 1.5 to change the way its templates handled OBJECT/EMBED. While aware of the Active Content page on the Adobe site, I only became aware of the JS solutions from Adobe last week: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/emmy/archives/2006/04/new_js_sample_c.cfm Though the article Emmy links says it was created end of March so I guess I can take some blame for not finding it first ;-) Anyhow, I get the impression most developers are all over this so really, regardless of where the solutions originated, it seems to be a relatively smooth transition (notice I didn't say painless). Cheers, A. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 is a last modified date/time - how would I know this is THE latest and greatest? I sense that there's some peice of a puzzle I'm missing here - like a workflow/tool I'm not using that would cause me to know for myself that this was the latest and greatest info etc. Thanks for your patience John, JG On 4/11/06, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 the lists there's sort of a goldrush to be handrolling other solutions. Any ideas I should consider here? Thanks. John Grden wrote: What's cool about the blog entries is I can get to the author right away with a comment or email and I usually have the benefit of other comments which might not only clarify the blog's post, but actually offer another reference. That and I now have 5+ other people I can email about the post and get help from them. Thanks, John, but I'm still confused... the Active Content Center hit tons of blogs before other news or approaches did. True, these blogs pointed to resources on a website, rather than containing a shorter set of resources themselves, but the Active Content Center was still discoverable through blogs, so it's hard for me to see that this is the key difference...? (I understand what you say about the dating of web pages, though, that's a peeve I've raised too.) Andrew Lucking wrote: Good question. My perception is that this time around Adobe was slower to get *solutions* available. For whatever reasons it was only late last week that I was able to point folks to some workaround samples from Adobe. With the browser update already circulating as an optional download and rumours of it being included in this week's security patch from MS maybe folks started without Adobe's guidance? This is hard for me to understand too, because the Adobe Developer Center had the basic algorithms and examples up before anyone else started to do so. The material that was added this week was additional material, such as the hotfix to Flex 1.5 to change the way its templates handled OBJECT/EMBED. Bill Lane wrote: 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 like the old news it was. Rather than the new news that most still think it is. Good point... by the time the newspapers had the scary articles we were probably already off the radar. This case was particularly dejavuful because Macromedia had similar material up on the website two years ago, when a stricter browser change was about to be deployed. I've gotten whiplash from trying to follow the play-by-play on this whole issue myself ;-) Weldon MacDonald wrote: What happens to a current browser if you make the switch? Here's a page which has links to both inline OBJECT/EMBED as well as tags in an external JavaScript file, so you can see both behaviors in your own updated IE... there's also a Captivate presentation on that page if you prefer not to use an updated Internet Explorer yourself. http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent/articles/before_after.html tx, jd -- John Dowdell . Adobe Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA Weblog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd Aggregator: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/ Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com -- John Grden - Blitz ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [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, ActiveX Controls, and Java applets. It's not just a PNG that sits there; it can do things itself. (There's a second sense of active content in public discourse which is semi-related, about how browser extensions usually draw direct-to-screen and cannot be composited with other browser elements, except in the special case where WMODE compositing is supported by both browser and extension.) One thing that's missing is a last modified date/time - how would I know this is THE latest and greatest? This is something I've wanted for a long time too, but my internal lobbying for this comes up against arguments about having older material appear more dated than it actually is. I've not yet been sufficiently persuasive here, but I share your goal for full metadata too. jd -- John Dowdell . Adobe Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA Weblog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd Aggregator: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/ Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 PROTECTED] wrote: |-+- | | John Dowdell | ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 the lists there's sort of a goldrush to be handrolling other solutions. Any ideas I should consider here? Thanks. John Grden wrote: What's cool about the blog entries is I can get to the author right away with a comment or email and I usually have the benefit of other comments which might not only clarify the blog's post, but actually offer another reference. That and I now have 5+ other people I can email about the post and get help from them. Thanks, John, but I'm still confused... the Active Content Center hit tons of blogs before other news or approaches did. True, these blogs pointed to resources on a website, rather than containing a shorter set of resources themselves, but the Active Content Center was still discoverable through blogs, so it's hard for me to see that this is the key difference...? (I understand what you say about the dating of web pages, though, that's a peeve I've raised too.) Andrew Lucking wrote: Good question. My perception is that this time around Adobe was slower to get *solutions* available. For whatever reasons it was only late last week that I was able to point folks to some workaround samples from Adobe. With the browser update already circulating as an optional download and rumours of it being included in this week's security patch from MS maybe folks started without Adobe's guidance? This is hard for me to understand too, because the Adobe Developer Center had the basic algorithms and examples up before anyone else started to do so. The material that was added this week was additional material, such as the hotfix to Flex 1.5 to change the way its templates handled OBJECT/EMBED. Bill Lane wrote: 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 like the old news it was. Rather than the new news that most still think it is. Good point... by the time the newspapers had the scary articles we were probably already off the radar. This case was particularly dejavuful because Macromedia had similar material up on the website two years ago, when a stricter browser change was about to be deployed. I've gotten whiplash from trying to follow the play-by-play on this whole issue myself ;-) Weldon MacDonald wrote: What happens to a current browser if you make the switch? Here's a page which has links to both inline OBJECT/EMBED as well as tags in an external JavaScript file, so you can see both behaviors in your own updated IE... there's also a Captivate presentation on that page if you prefer not to use an updated Internet Explorer yourself. http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent/articles/before_after.html tx, jd -- John Dowdell . Adobe Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA Weblog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd Aggregator: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/ Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 that might or might not be new. Seems like that's the theme through your responses to people in this post where you're confused. The confusion is, you know and we don't ;) Thanks for the help John, I'll be sure to go out and nose around a bit, JG On 4/11/06, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 the lists there's sort of a goldrush to be handrolling other solutions. Any ideas I should consider here? Thanks. John Grden wrote: What's cool about the blog entries is I can get to the author right away with a comment or email and I usually have the benefit of other comments which might not only clarify the blog's post, but actually offer another reference. That and I now have 5+ other people I can email about the post and get help from them. Thanks, John, but I'm still confused... the Active Content Center hit tons of blogs before other news or approaches did. True, these blogs pointed to resources on a website, rather than containing a shorter set of resources themselves, but the Active Content Center was still discoverable through blogs, so it's hard for me to see that this is the key difference...? (I understand what you say about the dating of web pages, though, that's a peeve I've raised too.) Andrew Lucking wrote: Good question. My perception is that this time around Adobe was slower to get *solutions* available. For whatever reasons it was only late last week that I was able to point folks to some workaround samples from Adobe. With the browser update already circulating as an optional download and rumours of it being included in this week's security patch from MS maybe folks started without Adobe's guidance? This is hard for me to understand too, because the Adobe Developer Center had the basic algorithms and examples up before anyone else started to do so. The material that was added this week was additional material, such as the hotfix to Flex 1.5 to change the way its templates handled OBJECT/EMBED. Bill Lane wrote: 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 like the old news it was. Rather than the new news that most still think it is. Good point... by the time the newspapers had the scary articles we were probably already off the radar. This case was particularly dejavuful because Macromedia had similar material up on the website two years ago, when a stricter browser change was about to be deployed. I've gotten whiplash from trying to follow the play-by-play on this whole issue myself ;-) Weldon MacDonald wrote: What happens to a current browser if you make the switch? Here's a page which has links to both inline OBJECT/EMBED as well as tags in an external JavaScript file, so you can see both behaviors in your own updated IE... there's also a Captivate presentation on that page if you prefer not to use an updated Internet Explorer yourself. http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent/articles/before_after.html tx, jd -- John Dowdell . Adobe Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA Weblog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd Aggregator: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/ Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com -- John Grden - Blitz ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 (customisability, compatibility, upgradability etc.) of using Flash Object greatly outweigh the disadvantages. I'd love to see Adobe recommend the use of Flash Object over the current standard of an ugly combined object and embed tags. On another note, it's actually considered good practice to have JavaScript create any 'active content', that way the code falls down gracefully and those with non-capable browsers get an alternative view. Just my opinion! Paul. On 10/04/06, GregoryN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 :-). So, here's the example motivation to turn JS off. As to the point, I guess we still can use NOSCRIPT tag, can't we? Yes, it will require activation in IE7, but seems it's the only way. -- Best regards, GregoryN http://GOusable.com Flash components development. Usability services. On 4/9/06, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. These things combined means that people who turn off Javascript are more than likely well aware of the consequences of this action, it's not just Flash that's effected. It's pretty much any plug-in and any DHTML site. Almost every site on the web uses Javascript now in some form or another. I wonder just how many people turn off Javascript and are they really worth going after? They obviously want a very limited and controlled web experience. It's like trying to advertise on cable television channels to people who only have antenna reception. You're just not going to reach that very small audience, so get over it. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 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 :-). So, here's the example motivation to turn JS off. As to the point, I guess we still can use NOSCRIPT tag, can't we? Yes, it will require activation in IE7, but seems it's the only way. -- Best regards, GregoryN http://GOusable.com Flash components development. Usability services. On 4/9/06, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. These things combined means that people who turn off Javascript are more than likely well aware of the consequences of this action, it's not just Flash that's effected. It's pretty much any plug-in and any DHTML site. Almost every site on the web uses Javascript now in some form or another. I wonder just how many people turn off Javascript and are they really worth going after? They obviously want a very limited and controlled web experience. It's like trying to advertise on cable television channels to people who only have antenna reception. You're just not going to reach that very small audience, so get over it. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com -- John Grden - Blitz ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 and use. On 4/10/06, Paul Neave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 (customisability, compatibility, upgradability etc.) of using Flash Object greatly outweigh the disadvantages. I'd love to see Adobe recommend the use of Flash Object over the current standard of an ugly combined object and embed tags. On another note, it's actually considered good practice to have JavaScript create any 'active content', that way the code falls down gracefully and those with non-capable browsers get an alternative view. Just my opinion! Paul. On 10/04/06, GregoryN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 :-). So, here's the example motivation to turn JS off. As to the point, I guess we still can use NOSCRIPT tag, can't we? Yes, it will require activation in IE7, but seems it's the only way. -- Best regards, GregoryN http://GOusable.com Flash components development. Usability services. On 4/9/06, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. These things combined means that people who turn off Javascript are more than likely well aware of the consequences of this action, it's not just Flash that's effected. It's pretty much any plug-in and any DHTML site. Almost every site on the web uses Javascript now in some form or another. I wonder just how many people turn off Javascript and are they really worth going after? They obviously want a very limited and controlled web experience. It's like trying to advertise on cable television channels to people who only have antenna reception. You're just not going to reach that very small audience, so get over it. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com -- John Grden - Blitz ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
-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 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 and use. On 4/10/06, Paul Neave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 (customisability, compatibility, upgradability etc.) of using Flash Object greatly outweigh the disadvantages. I'd love to see Adobe recommend the use of Flash Object over the current standard of an ugly combined object and embed tags. On another note, it's actually considered good practice to have JavaScript create any 'active content', that way the code falls down gracefully and those with non-capable browsers get an alternative view. Just my opinion! Paul. On 10/04/06, GregoryN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 :-). So, here's the example motivation to turn JS off. As to the point, I guess we still can use NOSCRIPT tag, can't we? Yes, it will require activation in IE7, but seems it's the only way. -- Best regards, GregoryN http://GOusable.com Flash components development. Usability services. On 4/9/06, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. These things combined means that people who turn off Javascript are more than likely well aware of the consequences of this action, it's not just Flash that's effected. It's pretty much any plug-in and any DHTML site. Almost every site on the web uses Javascript now in some form or another. I wonder just how many people turn off Javascript and are they really worth going after? They obviously want a very limited and controlled web experience. It's like trying to advertise on cable television channels to people who only have antenna reception. You're just not going to reach that very small audience, so get over it. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com -- John Grden - Blitz ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 Content Center: What about users who have JavaScript turned off? http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent/articles/devletter.html#nojavascript (NOSCRIPT was originally for browsers which did not have any JavaScript interpreter, rather than for a browser whose owner disabled JavaScript, but what I've been seeing anecdotally the last few versions is that most browsers have switched over to reading NOSCRIPT when JS is turned off. It would be great if there were openwiki documentation of browser differences, however.) 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 the lists there's sort of a goldrush to be handrolling other solutions. Any ideas I should consider here? Thanks. jd -- John Dowdell . Adobe Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA Weblog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd Aggregator: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/ Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 have been times that I've found the answer there, but the vast majority of answer come from blogs these days. What's cool about the blog entries is I can get to the author right away with a comment or email and I usually have the benefit of other comments which might not only clarify the blog's post, but actually offer another reference. That and I now have 5+ other people I can email about the post and get help from them. So, my initial reaction to why don't I go to adobe first? is that it seems kinda narrow and not nearly as complete. Often the searches just didn't bring back what I was looking for. And just to say it out loud - yes, I continually try the adobe site JUST incase the answer is there. I do, however, go to live docs frequently just to see if other people have posted comments on the subject I'm after. After I've looked everywhere else, I go to FlashCoders ;) The theme here is the benefit of other people's reactions/comments to an article are invaluable. The funny thing that happens sometimes is that i get better search results using google.com that include pages on marcomedia.com/livedocs rather than the google search on the MM site. I couldn't answer why, but maybe it's just because I get my answer out there - who knows. Maybe its the indexing - no clue. / my2Cents On 4/10/06, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 Content Center: What about users who have JavaScript turned off? http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent/articles/devletter.html#nojavascript (NOSCRIPT was originally for browsers which did not have any JavaScript interpreter, rather than for a browser whose owner disabled JavaScript, but what I've been seeing anecdotally the last few versions is that most browsers have switched over to reading NOSCRIPT when JS is turned off. It would be great if there were openwiki documentation of browser differences, however.) 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 the lists there's sort of a goldrush to be handrolling other solutions. Any ideas I should consider here? Thanks. jd -- John Dowdell . Adobe Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA Weblog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd Aggregator: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/ Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com -- John Grden - Blitz ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
|-+- | | John Dowdell | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | Sent by: | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | figleaf.com | | | | | | | | | 2006-04-10 02:32 PM | | | Please respond to Flashcoders | | | mailing list | | | | |-+- ---| | | | To: Flashcoders mailing list flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com | | cc: | | Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ... | ---| 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 the lists there's sort of a goldrush to be handrolling other solutions. Any ideas I should consider here? Thanks. Good question. My perception is that this time around Adobe was slower to get *solutions* available. For whatever reasons it was only late last week that I was able to point folks to some workaround samples from Adobe. With the browser update already circulating as an optional download and rumours of it being included in this week's security patch from MS maybe folks started without Adobe's guidance? But that's just this lurkers perspective ;-) A. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 Lane ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 like the old news it was. Rather than the new news that most still think it is. Bill Lane 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? Andrew Lucking wrote: Good question. My perception is that this time around Adobe was slower to get *solutions* available. For whatever reasons it was only late last week that I was able to point folks to some workaround samples from Adobe. With the browser update already circulating as an optional download and rumours of it being included in this week's security patch from MS maybe folks started without Adobe's guidance? ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 checkbox when you first ever use IE and it tells you about submitting information across the internet). Would make life much easier for everyone if this were an option. On 4/11/06, Bill Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 like the old news it was. Rather than the new news that most still think it is. Bill Lane 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? Andrew Lucking wrote: Good question. My perception is that this time around Adobe was slower to get *solutions* available. For whatever reasons it was only late last week that I was able to point folks to some workaround samples from Adobe. With the browser update already circulating as an optional download and rumours of it being included in this week's security patch from MS maybe folks started without Adobe's guidance? ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 to write your object / embed tags code with JavaScript. Use FlashObject and relax. Cheers, -- Michael Antares Klishin, Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.novemberain.com Non progredi est regredi ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 Microsoft IE ... 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/devlet ter.html) to this whole Active X debacle ? ??? Please answer this if you can. It has me stressed. Thanks, Stephen. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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] Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 8:13 AM To: flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com Subject: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ... 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/devlet ter.html) to this whole Active X debacle ? ??? Please answer this if you can. It has me stressed. Thanks, Stephen. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 user has JavaScript disabled, there ain't no party. So, flash dectection is a bit more than just FlashObject. not to mention the hosing you get when another app is using the Flash OCX and the browser fails to complete an upgrade. Javascript detection at that point is worthless as it is not able to create the FLash object to do the version detection. -- John Grden - Blitz ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 running at 800x600 with Javascript turned off and are using a 28.8 modem... you are just used to a sucky internet experience. That's not the answer to this question, and if there is a workaround, sure, I'd love to implement it, but, I no longer wreck the whole website just to make 1% of the users happy. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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. These things combined means that people who turn off Javascript are more than likely well aware of the consequences of this action, it's not just Flash that's effected. It's pretty much any plug-in and any DHTML site. Almost every site on the web uses Javascript now in some form or another. I wonder just how many people turn off Javascript and are they really worth going after? They obviously want a very limited and controlled web experience. It's like trying to advertise on cable television channels to people who only have antenna reception. You're just not going to reach that very small audience, so get over it. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 understand what sort of systems people were looking at the site with. We ran it for 24 hours and got feedback from 75000 visitors to the site. Of those, only 3 had javaScript disabled... Only a snapshot of end users I know, but after that, I stopped worrying about users w/o js. On 4/9/06, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. These things combined means that people who turn off Javascript are more than likely well aware of the consequences of this action, it's not just Flash that's effected. It's pretty much any plug-in and any DHTML site. Almost every site on the web uses Javascript now in some form or another. I wonder just how many people turn off Javascript and are they really worth going after? They obviously want a very limited and controlled web experience. It's like trying to advertise on cable television channels to people who only have antenna reception. You're just not going to reach that very small audience, so get over it. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 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 understand what sort of systems people were looking at the site with. We ran it for 24 hours and got feedback from 75000 visitors to the site. Of those, only 3 had javaScript disabled... Only a snapshot of end users I know, but after that, I stopped worrying about users w/o js. On 4/9/06, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. These things combined means that people who turn off Javascript are more than likely well aware of the consequences of this action, it's not just Flash that's effected. It's pretty much any plug-in and any DHTML site. Almost every site on the web uses Javascript now in some form or another. I wonder just how many people turn off Javascript and are they really worth going after? They obviously want a very limited and controlled web experience. It's like trying to advertise on cable television channels to people who only have antenna reception. You're just not going to reach that very small audience, so get over it. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 will have to select it to activate. But that seems better to me than having nothing for those with js turned off. Bill Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/10/06 6:24 am 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. These things combined means that people who turn off Javascript are more than likely well aware of the consequences of this action, it's not just Flash that's effected. It's pretty much any plug-in and any DHTML site. Almost every site on the web uses Javascript now in some form or another. I wonder just how many people turn off Javascript and are they really worth going after? They obviously want a very limited and controlled web experience. It's like trying to advertise on cable television channels to people who only have antenna reception. You're just not going to reach that very small audience, so get over it. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
I had a friend send me this.
if (document.getElementsByTagName) {
var objs = document.getElementsByTagName(object); //Get all the
tags of type object in the page.
for (i=0; iobjs.length; i++)
{
objs[i].outerHTML = objs[i].outerHTML; //Get the HTML
content of each object tag and replace it with itself.
}
}
And it seems to work fine (ie7 beta). I just put it in an external js and
reference it below the flash. Either way it shows. The only downside is
flashvars have to be set in the querystring. Someone else might test it just
to be sure.
-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 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 will
have to select it to activate. But that seems better to me than having
nothing for those with js turned off.
Bill Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/10/06 6:24 am
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. These things combined means that people who turn off Javascript are
more than likely well aware of the consequences of this action, it's not
just Flash that's effected. It's pretty much any plug-in and any DHTML
site. Almost every site on the web uses Javascript now in some form or
another. I wonder just how many people turn off Javascript and are they
really worth going after? They obviously want a very limited and controlled
web experience.
It's like trying to advertise on cable television channels to people who
only have antenna reception. You're just not going to reach that very small
audience, so get over it.
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
___
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
Re: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 home. Everyone else on the web is up to speed, so we're really not concerned with your statistic. Please upgrade your system appropriately. I know that sounds erogant and might not be the way to handle it, but then, so do these comments about i'm not going to stop writing Object/embed tags with javascript for a minority of users. yeah I totaly get what you're saying, you don't need to re-itterate anymore than has already been said here. The fact is, we often DO have to account for that minority, especially when it's the guy paying the bills. And yeah, that sucks, but it's life. So, bottom line -it IS an issue to deal with. my seemingly worthless 2cents on the matter, JG On 4/9/06, Michael Bedar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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 understand what sort of systems people were looking at the site with. We ran it for 24 hours and got feedback from 75000 visitors to the site. Of those, only 3 had javaScript disabled... Only a snapshot of end users I know, but after that, I stopped worrying about users w/o js. On 4/9/06, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. These things combined means that people who turn off Javascript are more than likely well aware of the consequences of this action, it's not just Flash that's effected. It's pretty much any plug-in and any DHTML site. Almost every site on the web uses Javascript now in some form or another. I wonder just how many people turn off Javascript and are they really worth going after? They obviously want a very limited and controlled web experience. It's like trying to advertise on cable television channels to people who only have antenna reception. You're just not going to reach that very small audience, so get over it. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com -- John Grden - Blitz ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: [Flashcoders] Active X and Microsoft IE ...
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 :-). So, here's the example motivation to turn JS off. As to the point, I guess we still can use NOSCRIPT tag, can't we? Yes, it will require activation in IE7, but seems it's the only way. -- Best regards, GregoryN http://GOusable.com Flash components development. Usability services. On 4/9/06, Steven Sacks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. These things combined means that people who turn off Javascript are more than likely well aware of the consequences of this action, it's not just Flash that's effected. It's pretty much any plug-in and any DHTML site. Almost every site on the web uses Javascript now in some form or another. I wonder just how many people turn off Javascript and are they really worth going after? They obviously want a very limited and controlled web experience. It's like trying to advertise on cable television channels to people who only have antenna reception. You're just not going to reach that very small audience, so get over it. ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
