On Thursday 11 May 2006 21:31, Voytek Eymont allegedly wrote: > few years ago, I was discussing a business web site that was flash-only > and, latest-version-flash only, with no non-flash alternative. > > I suggest to the MD they should have a non-flash alternative > > the MD asked me why, and I explained not every one had the lastest flash, > and, these users couldn't see the site at all > > I was told 'well, then they're not the sort of clients we're after'
Which is fair enough, it's their business. Of course, search engines don't deal well with it either. As a singularly useless datum point, I don't have flash installed, to me there are already enough ways to waste time on the internet. I don't need to see "moving pictures" to understand content, or hear "swooshing sounds" when I move my mouse over a link. You can probably guess I have a rant about this, but this thread has already derailed a long time ago. HTML was a great idea, the ability for the browser to decide how to display the content is great. Web monkeys that swung into the picture and declared, 'Everyone has IE4 and an 800x600 screen.", just started the whole downhill slide. Graphic designers that whined about layout should have just taken another hit from their bongs, damn hippies :) . Cheers, Malcolm V. P.S. My sig monster understands me, even if few others do. -- It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 65) -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
