Any good reason not to use Flash?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Bald Purp, Jan 6, 2006.

  1. Bald Purp

    Bald Purp Guest

    I never bothered to install any Flash plugin, hoping year after year
    that it would eventually just go away.

    Are there any cogent arguments against the use of Flash?
     
    Bald Purp, Jan 6, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bald Purp

    Spartanicus Guest

    Bald Purp <> wrote:

    >I never bothered to install any Flash plugin, hoping year after year
    >that it would eventually just go away.
    >
    >Are there any cogent arguments against the use of Flash?


    As with any other optional technology like Javascript or CSS, Flash is
    ok when used appropriately. That normally means don't use it for
    anything essential, although occasionally Flash is the best choice to
    create essential content (quite rare though).

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Jan 6, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 01:26:13 -0800, Bald Purp wrote:

    >I never bothered to install any Flash plugin, hoping year after year
    >that it would eventually just go away.
    >
    >Are there any cogent arguments against the use of Flash?


    You mean for you as a User? Not that I know. As far as I remember,
    there are no serious security issues using the flash plugin (so it's
    much better than having active-X, Java or JavaScript enabled).

    There are some websites that don't work without flash, but I think
    they are not worth installing the plugin ;-)

    On the other hand, you will find a lot of nice online games or
    interactive thingies that are done in flash, so I believe it's worth
    installing the plugin if you are not a purely text-based user.

    Marian


    --
    http://www.rent-a-tutor.com/wbt/
    Online Courses for Everybody
     
    Marian Heddesheimer, Jan 6, 2006
    #3
  4. Bald Purp

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    Bald Purp wrote:

    > I never bothered to install any Flash plugin, hoping year after year
    > that it would eventually just go away.
    >
    > Are there any cogent arguments against the use of Flash?

    Well. It's not very good for issues concerning accessibility.
    There are a lot of other reasons, I have an artticle on my site which
    is on the particular subject.
    http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/design-tips4.html
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
     
    Chaddy2222, Jan 6, 2006
    #4
  5. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Marian Heddesheimer wrote:

    > There are some websites that don't work without flash, but I think
    > they are not worth installing the plugin ;-)
    >
    > On the other hand, you will find a lot of nice online games or
    > interactive thingies that are done in flash, so I believe it's worth
    > installing the plugin if you are not a purely text-based user.


    Well, after too many instances of my laptop being brought to an
    uncontrollable crawl by commercial web sites which insisted on
    dragging their way through a non-optional flash video before one could
    get any access to their normal content, I de-installed the flash
    plugin.

    If there was a way of getting a prompt and being able to say "no
    thanks" to the browser when unsolicited flash content was offered, I
    might be willing to re-enable it. I haven't found an option like that
    yet.

    I see that there's currently an argument going on, on a couple of
    railway-interest usenet groups including misc.transport.rail.europe,
    about an interactive map (in French) at
    http://www.ratp.info/orienter/cv/carteparis.php

    While one contributor enthusiastically recommends it, another
    comments:

    | What a total mess!
    |
    | It does show what goes wrong when children are let loose
    | without adult supervision.

    Readers are, of course, free to form their own opinion on that!
    My usual browser (Mozilla), as I say, has had its flash plugin
    de-installed, whereas my MSIE simply brings up a security alert
    refusing to execute "Active-X controls" from this untrusted site.

    Seems to be working in Opera 8.5

    cheers
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Jan 6, 2006
    #5
  6. Chaddy2222 wrote:
    > Bald Purp wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I never bothered to install any Flash plugin, hoping year after year
    >>that it would eventually just go away.
    >>
    >>Are there any cogent arguments against the use of Flash?

    >
    > Well. It's not very good for issues concerning accessibility.
    > There are a lot of other reasons, I have an artticle on my site which
    > is on the particular subject.
    > http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/design-tips4.html


    ===I am ripping this article apart here. If you don't care and just want
    to hear my response to the orginal question, scroll down...===

    "Note that the website navigational structure has absolutely nothing to
    do with anything art related…… So why designers waste their time making
    there sites useless is a bit beyond me.."

    Totally untrue.

    1) The navigation, that is, the part of the website that creates the
    interaction between the user and the website, is completely art-related.
    Unique navigation is possible with Flash that is not possible with
    hyperlinks and the websites that use Flash well have proven this over
    and over again.

    2) Flash navigation hardly makes a website useless by any stretch of the
    imagination. That sounds like arbitrary bias to me.

    "The main reason as to why the use of flash for items such as navigation
    makes a site useless, is because overall it’s not necessary."

    This statement does not make sense. Not everything that is not totally
    necessary makes something useless. Otherwise design wouldn't exist, and
    we would live in an ugly, grey world like something out of fatpie.

    "Due to the fact that the navigation designed using flash is graphic
    based, it means that search enjons can not access the content that is
    hidden behind the links. Or if they do manage to interpret where the
    link is headed, all attempts at seo are a waste of time. As the search
    enjons won’t be able to work out what the link says so will not be able
    to know its importance."

    Firstly, "engines". Typing a word into Google will tell you if it's
    spelled right. There's no excuse for this anymore. Also, what is "seo"?

    Secondly, this is what meta tags are for.

    "So the question is; what are things such as JavaScript and Macromedia
    Flash good for. Well, they are ok for small things. To make a page look
    good, But they should not be used for vital aspects such as navigation."

    I don't think you exactly make a literate point here for me to attack,
    but while I'm criticizing, exactly what magic javascript-unique
    navigation are we talking about here? Do you just mean rollover images?

    "The main reason for this is because you exclude some users. Mainly:
    those with disabilities and who need to use adaptive technology, such as
    Screen Readers. Also some people do not have access to flash enabled
    browsers and some just choose not to use them."

    You've made the first valid point in a really horrible way. Yes, some
    people don't have access to Flash, so if you want /everyone/ to be able
    to access your data you shouldn't use it. Yet, the big advertisers all
    use Flash, because it's a more dynamic and exciting medium. So obviously
    if you're targeting those demographics Flash is completely fine. And
    while Macromedia's 98% claim is pretty suspicious, Internet Explorer
    comes with a version of Flash now.

    "Note that the same conditions apply when using JavaScript for
    navigation and other vital features."

    Now, this is pretty silly, on the other hand. JavaScript is a web
    standard now. Every modern browser supports it fully and has for years.
    You're worrying too hard at this point.

    "As an alternative consider just making your links plain text. But the
    event that it is not possible to change the existing site.

    Consider creating a text only version of the site that contains the same
    content as the graphical site .This will not only make your site more
    search enjon friendly but it will also make your site more user friendly."

    While making a text version of a flash site is a perfectly good
    suggestion, what you've done is entirely missed the point...

    ===to here.===

    Flash is a great medium for picture and sound, but it is not an
    excellent medium for text. Nor is it supposed to be. Making an entire
    website in Flash is alright if you don't have a lot to say, text-wise,
    and just want to present multimedia, or if your primary goal is for the
    website to be dynamic, eye-catching, and attention-grabbing. The people
    who can't see your site probably can't see that kind of multimedia
    anyway or don't care.

    There's no reason, however, not to install the flash plug-in if your
    browser and your computer can handle it. If you don't, you're missing
    out on some pretty cool stuff.

    --
    "The Tactician" Luke Michaels
    Outsmarting the wiliest wrestling legends since 2000

    Anointed - Are you on fire for GOD, Scotty?

    Scotty (Lowtax) - YES SIR I AM ON FIRE
     
    \The Tactician\ Luke Michaels, Jan 6, 2006
    #6
  7. Bald Purp

    PeterMcC Guest

    "The Tactician" Luke Michaels wrote in
    <2%svf.31566$tl.4824@pd7tw3no>

    <snip>
    > "Due to the fact that the navigation designed using flash is graphic
    > based, it means that search enjons can not access the content that is
    > hidden behind the links. Or if they do manage to interpret where the
    > link is headed, all attempts at seo are a waste of time. As the search
    > enjons won’t be able to work out what the link says so will not be
    > able to know its importance."
    >
    > Firstly, "engines". Typing a word into Google will tell you if it's
    > spelled right. There's no excuse for this anymore. Also, what is
    > "seo"?


    Type it into Google ;)

    > Secondly, this is what meta tags are for.


    None of the major search engines index on meta tags.

    --
    PeterMcC
    If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
    inappropriate or offensive in any way,
    please ignore it and accept my apologies.
     
    PeterMcC, Jan 6, 2006
    #7
  8. Alan J. Flavell wrote:

    > If there was a way of getting a prompt and being able to say "no
    > thanks" to the browser when unsolicited flash content was offered, I
    > might be willing to re-enable it. I haven't found an option like that
    > yet.


    Would a Checkbox and/or a Kill Flash button suffice?

    ....
    > Readers are, of course, free to form their own opinion on that!
    > My usual browser (Mozilla), as I say, has had its flash plugin
    > de-installed, whereas my MSIE simply brings up a security alert
    > refusing to execute "Active-X controls" from this untrusted site.


    How about the Mozilla/Firefox PrefBar extension?
    http://prefbar.mozdev.org/
    and a picture with the Customize dialog open:
    http://k75s.home.att.net/images/prefbar.png

    Place the Kill Flash control on the bar. That French rail site just ..
    disappears! :)

    --
    -bts
    -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jan 6, 2006
    #8
  9. Bald Purp

    Jim Higson Guest

    Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    >
    >> If there was a way of getting a prompt and being able to say "no
    >> thanks" to the browser when unsolicited flash content was offered, I
    >> might be willing to re-enable it. I haven't found an option like that
    >> yet.

    >
    > Would a Checkbox and/or a Kill Flash button suffice?
    >
    > ...
    >> Readers are, of course, free to form their own opinion on that!
    >> My usual browser (Mozilla), as I say, has had its flash plugin
    >> de-installed, whereas my MSIE simply brings up a security alert
    >> refusing to execute "Active-X controls" from this untrusted site.

    >
    > How about the Mozilla/Firefox PrefBar extension?
    > http://prefbar.mozdev.org/
    > and a picture with the Customize dialog open:
    > http://k75s.home.att.net/images/prefbar.png
    >
    > Place the Kill Flash control on the bar. That French rail site just ..
    > disappears! :)


    There's also an extention called FlashBlock. It puts a play button where the
    flash would normally be. If you want to see it you can click the button,
    otherwise it is never shown.

    Jim
     
    Jim Higson, Jan 6, 2006
    #9
  10. Chaddy2222 wrote:
    > Bald Purp wrote:
    > > I never bothered to install any Flash plugin, hoping year after year
    > > that it would eventually just go away.
    > > Are there any cogent arguments against the use of Flash?

    > Well. It's not very good for issues concerning accessibility.
    > There are a lot of other reasons, I have an artticle on my site which
    > is on the particular subject.
    > http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/design-tips4.html


    >From your website:


    Note that the website navigational structure has absolutely nothing to
    do with anything art related...... So why designers waste their time
    making there sites useless is a bit beyond me..

    Looking at your site, if it obvious why this is beyond you.
     
    Travis Newbury, Jan 6, 2006
    #10
  11. Bald Purp

    Guest

    "The Tactician" Luke Michaels wrote:

    > Chaddy2222 wrote:
    > > Bald Purp wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>I never bothered to install any Flash plugin, hoping year after year
    > >>that it would eventually just go away.
    > >>
    > >>Are there any cogent arguments against the use of Flash?

    > >
    > > Well. It's not very good for issues concerning accessibility.
    > > There are a lot of other reasons, I have an artticle on my site which
    > > is on the particular subject.
    > > http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/design-tips4.html

    >
    > ===I am ripping this article apart here. If you don't care and just want
    > to hear my response to the orginal question, scroll down...===
    >
    > "Note that the website navigational structure has absolutely nothing to
    > do with anything art related...... So why designers waste their time making
    > there sites useless is a bit beyond me.."
    >
    > Totally untrue.
    >
    > 1) The navigation, that is, the part of the website that creates the
    > interaction between the user and the website, is completely art-related.
    > Unique navigation is possible with Flash that is not possible with
    > hyperlinks and the websites that use Flash well have proven this over
    > and over again.

    Hmmmmm. Name me one site which has done this. I certenly have not
    noticed any of late. Well I have not noticed any useable ones.

    >
    > 2) Flash navigation hardly makes a website useless by any stretch of the
    > imagination. That sounds like arbitrary bias to me.

    Well, as I have staited, it does not help with the sites accessibility.

    >
    > "The main reason as to why the use of flash for items such as navigation
    > makes a site useless, is because overall it's not necessary."
    >
    > This statement does not make sense. Not everything that is not totally
    > necessary makes something useless. Otherwise design wouldn't exist, and
    > we would live in an ugly, grey world like something out of fatpie.

    Hmm. Interesting.
    The thing is, if it's used in the wrong way, a way that confusers the
    visitor, then they will just leave the site.
    It's fine to use Flash in that way on an art type site, but it would
    not really be good for a site that was trying to make money.

    >
    > "Due to the fact that the navigation designed using flash is graphic
    > based, it means that search enjons can not access the content that is
    > hidden behind the links. Or if they do manage to interpret where the
    > link is headed, all attempts at seo are a waste of time. As the search
    > enjons won't be able to work out what the link says so will not be able
    > to know its importance."
    >
    > Firstly, "engines". Typing a word into Google will tell you if it's
    > spelled right. There's no excuse for this anymore. Also, what is "seo"?
    >
    > Secondly, this is what meta tags are for.

    Well, yeah, I was aware of that fact.
    But the Search Engines such as Google do not give a very high
    importents to them anymore.

    >
    > "So the question is; what are things such as JavaScript and Macromedia
    > Flash good for. Well, they are ok for small things. To make a page look
    > good, But they should not be used for vital aspects such as navigation."
    >
    > I don't think you exactly make a literate point here for me to attack,
    > but while I'm criticizing, exactly what magic javascript-unique
    > navigation are we talking about here?


    Well actually, I was making reference to more DHTML type markup.
    Do you just mean rollover images?
    >
    > "The main reason for this is because you exclude some users. Mainly:
    > those with disabilities and who need to use adaptive technology, such as
    > Screen Readers. Also some people do not have access to flash enabled
    > browsers and some just choose not to use them."
    >
    > You've made the first valid point in a really horrible way. Yes, some
    > people don't have access to Flash, so if you want /everyone/ to be able
    > to access your data you shouldn't use it. Yet, the big advertisers all
    > use Flash, because it's a more dynamic and exciting medium

    Yeah, but they use it sparingly

    So obviously
    > if you're targeting those demographics Flash is completely fine. And
    > while Macromedia's 98% claim is pretty suspicious, Internet Explorer
    > comes with a version of Flash now.

    Yep.

    >
    > "Note that the same conditions apply when using JavaScript for
    > navigation and other vital features."
    >
    > Now, this is pretty silly, on the other hand. JavaScript is a web
    > standard now. Every modern browser supports it fully and has for years.

    Yes, but not everyone has it enabled.
    Although, on that point, more use JavaScript then Flash.
    But, it's not supported for people who use Text Only Browsers.

    > You're worrying too hard at this point.
    >
    > "As an alternative consider just making your links plain text. But the
    > event that it is not possible to change the existing site.
    >
    > Consider creating a text only version of the site that contains the same
    > content as the graphical site .This will not only make your site more
    > search enjon friendly but it will also make your site more user friendly."
    >
    > While making a text version of a flash site is a perfectly good
    > suggestion, what you've done is entirely missed the point...

    I am aware of the many advantages that Flash has in a Multi-Media
    environment, but if used too mutch for vital aspects such as site
    navigation, where the user can not work out what they need too click
    on. It can be a very bad tool.

    >
    > ===to here.===
    >
    > Flash is a great medium for picture and sound, but it is not an
    > excellent medium for text. Nor is it supposed to be. Making an entire
    > website in Flash is alright if you don't have a lot to say, text-wise,
    > and just want to present multimedia, or if your primary goal is for the
    > website to be dynamic, eye-catching, and attention-grabbing. The people
    > who can't see your site probably can't see that kind of multimedia
    > anyway or don't care.

    That's not the point I was trying to make.
    The point is, It's not good if it's used in a situation where the site
    needs too be accessable by as many people as they can get. Such a site
    trying to make money for example. The only Corperation think why could
    create a site built out of flash would be a group celling Video games
    or similar products.

    >
    > There's no reason, however, not to install the flash plug-in if your
    > browser and your computer can handle it. If you don't, you're missing
    > out on some pretty cool stuff.


    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
     
    , Jan 6, 2006
    #11
  12. On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:02:06 GMT, "\"The Tactician\" Luke Michaels"
    <> wrote:
    >website in Flash is alright if you don't have a lot to say, text-wise,
    >and just want to present multimedia, or if your primary goal is for the
    >website to be dynamic, eye-catching, and attention-grabbing. The people
    >who can't see your site probably can't see that kind of multimedia
    >anyway or don't care.


    I run into a lot of websites that are primarily about music and have
    Flash-only navigation. Blind people have as much interest in music as
    the rest of us, don't you think? Probably more, I would guess.

    http://users.bestweb.net/~notr "The notion of objecting to a fake Web
    ¬R site on the grounds that it might possibly incite other people
    to do bad things is so dangerous to our constitutionally protected
    freedoms that it must never be mentioned, even in jest." --Matt McIrvin
     
    Glenn Knickerbocker, Jan 6, 2006
    #12
  13. Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Chaddy2222 wrote:
    >> Well. It's not very good for issues concerning accessibility.
    >> There are a lot of other reasons, I have an artticle on my site which
    >> is on the particular subject.
    >> http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/design-tips4.html

    >
    > Note that the website navigational structure has absolutely nothing to
    > do with anything art related...... So why designers waste their time
    > making there sites useless is a bit beyond me..
    >
    > Looking at your site, if it obvious why this is beyond you.


    You talkin' about Chaddy's site? Personally, I think he does rather
    well as a blind web author.

    --
    -bts
    -Warning: I brake for lawn deer
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jan 6, 2006
    #13
  14. Bald Purp

    Rob McAninch Guest

    Jim Higson>:

    > There's also an extention called FlashBlock.


    Thanks for that.

    I use a site that requires a flash application (for setting up
    online proofing of photographs) so I can see the use for Flash but I
    do get annoyed and sometimes bogged down by Flash based ads.

    --
    Rob McAninch
    http://rock13.com
     
    Rob McAninch, Jan 6, 2006
    #14
  15. Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > > Looking at your site, if it obvious why this is beyond you.

    > You talkin' about Chaddy's site? Personally, I think he does rather
    > well as a blind web author.


    I don't give a shit if he is blind or not. His site still sucks. If
    the developer is blind or not is completely irrelevant.
     
    Travis Newbury, Jan 6, 2006
    #15
  16. Bald Purp

    Rob McAninch Guest

    Followup set to alt.html, the only relevant group.

    Glenn Knickerbocker>:
    > On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 12:02:06 GMT, "\"The Tactician\" Luke Michaels"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>website in Flash is alright if you don't have a lot to say, text-wise,
    >>and just want to present multimedia, or if your primary goal is for the
    >>website to be dynamic, eye-catching, and attention-grabbing. The people
    >>who can't see your site probably can't see that kind of multimedia
    >>anyway or don't care.


    Even for presenting multimedia only, Flash navigation is not a good
    idea. It distracts from the content, wastes bandwidth that your
    multimedia can use, and indeed creates navigation problems.

    Numerous usability articles on Flash from useit.com
    http://www.google.com/search?q=site:useit.com Flash

    > I run into a lot of websites that are primarily about music and have
    > Flash-only navigation. Blind people have as much interest in music as
    > the rest of us, don't you think? Probably more, I would guess.


    I would agree, didn't take the time to find an authoritative
    reference. But
    http://www.cnib.ca/eng/publications/pamphlets/lwvl/
    suggests that music, as a leisure activity, may be enjoyed more so
    than someone gifted with normal vision.

    Of course, music can also be a distraction to the visually impaired
    as they rely more on sound for navigating their physical environment
    than we do. (Perhaps a good reason to avoid unnecessary music on a
    site).

    --
    Rob McAninch
    http://rock13.com
     
    Rob McAninch, Jan 6, 2006
    #16
  17. Bald Purp

    Krusty Guest

    ""The Tactician" Luke Michaels" <> wrote...
    > "The main reason for this is because you exclude some users. Mainly: those
    > with disabilities and who need to use adaptive technology, such as Screen
    > Readers. Also some people do not have access to flash enabled browsers and
    > some just choose not to use them."
    >
    > You've made the first valid point in a really horrible way. Yes, some
    > people don't have access to Flash, so if you want /everyone/ to be able to
    > access your data you shouldn't use it. Yet, the big advertisers all use
    > Flash, because it's a more dynamic and exciting medium. So obviously if
    > you're targeting those demographics Flash is completely fine. And while
    > Macromedia's 98% claim is pretty suspicious, Internet Explorer comes with
    > a version of Flash now.


    He's talking about 508 accessibility, and he's wrong.

    Macromedia Flash is fully 508 compliant. It has been since version 6.

    See the white paper:
    http://www.macromedia.com/resources/accessibility/best_practices/bp_fp.html

    Also the 98% penetration number isn't bunk. It's legit. Penetration is MUCH
    higher the farther back in version you go. Version 7 has about a 91%
    penetration and version 5 is actually higher than 98% in some countries
    (Canada, Europe).

    See the data:
    http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetration.html

    The short answer is, if you're creating pages for persons with hearing or
    visual impairments, or even other accessibility issues, Flash is excellent.
    There are few tools in the pure html arsenal that even come close.

    And if you REALLY want to feel like a dinosaur, then just visit the Flash
    platform page. Flash ain't the Flash everybody thinks it is.

    http://www.macromedia.com/platform/

    So, to answer your question authoritatively. No, there is no reason NOT to
    use Flash. A lot of time, the bias against Flash is simply coming from
    people who don't know how to use it properly.
     
    Krusty, Jan 6, 2006
    #17
  18. Bald Purp

    Krusty Guest

    "Rob McAninch" <> wrote
    > Even for presenting multimedia only, Flash navigation is not a good idea.
    > It distracts from the content, wastes bandwidth that your multimedia can
    > use, and indeed creates navigation problems.
    >
    > Numerous usability articles on Flash from useit.com
    > http://www.google.com/search?q=site:useit.com Flash


    Jakob's on board with Flash. The only issues he has with it is that it
    encourages "bad design". Also, the article that says "99% bad" is over 5
    years old. In the past five years, Jakob Nielson has *radically* changed his
    opinion on Flash. In fact, I sat in on a seminar where he extolled the
    virtues of Flash and spoke *very* highly of it for use for interface design.

    So, blame the designer, not the product.

    In fact, the Halo UI has actually been *approved* by Jakob, who feels it's a
    terrific way to navigate.

    In this year's "Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005" he wrote the following:
    "I view it as a personal failure that Flash collected the bronze medal for
    annoyance. It's been three years since I launched a major effort to remedy
    Flash problems and published the guidelines for using Flash appropriately.
    When I spoke at the main Flash developer conference, almost everybody agreed
    that past excesses should be abandoned and that Flash's future was in
    providing useful user interfaces."

    Again, blame bad designers, not Flash.

    >> I run into a lot of websites that are primarily about music and have
    >> Flash-only navigation. Blind people have as much interest in music as
    >> the rest of us, don't you think? Probably more, I would guess.

    >
    > I would agree, didn't take the time to find an authoritative reference.
    > But
    > http://www.cnib.ca/eng/publications/pamphlets/lwvl/
    > suggests that music, as a leisure activity, may be enjoyed more so than
    > someone gifted with normal vision.


    Again, don't forget that Flash is 508 compliant. Accessibility is not an
    issue.
     
    Krusty, Jan 6, 2006
    #18
  19. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Jim Higson wrote:

    > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >
    > > How about the Mozilla/Firefox PrefBar extension?
    > > http://prefbar.mozdev.org/
    > > and a picture with the Customize dialog open:
    > > http://k75s.home.att.net/images/prefbar.png


    Looks good. Don't think me ungrateful, but unfortunately I've already
    got an extra toolbar (Chris Pederick's web developer) - adding more is
    going to get things a bit cluttered in that area, and I see a fair
    amount of function duplication there.

    > There's also an extention called FlashBlock.


    So there is! - I take it that you mean http://flashblock.mozdev.org/

    Looks like this is the one that I'd go for. Apparently I do have to
    re-install flash before installing the blocker (it mumbles about
    browser crashes if the blocker is installed and flash isn't).

    thanks both!
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Jan 6, 2006
    #19
  20. Bald Purp

    Krusty Guest

    "Alan J. Flavell" <> wrote
    > Well, after too many instances of my laptop being brought to an
    > uncontrollable crawl by commercial web sites which insisted on
    > dragging their way through a non-optional flash video before one could
    > get any access to their normal content, I de-installed the flash
    > plugin.


    A ridiculous solution to anecdotal bad design. Again, simply because someone
    doesn't know how to use Flash certainly in my mind doesn't justify removing
    the plug in. That sounds like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    I mean, I don't use Flash extensively, I don't work for Macromedia, but
    there certainly is a LOT of misinformation in this thread. It seems like
    more people are making emotional responses rather than well thought out
    authoritative replies.

    Just always remember, Bad designers can create horrible, huge, clunky jpegs
    just the same way inexperienced designers who think they're programmers can
    create bad Flash. Flash is *advanced*. It's far more advanced than most
    "designers" feel comfortable with, and certainly more advanced than any
    formal programing training that any designer has ever attended. I think the
    problem lies with people who go, "I used Freehand...how hard could Flash
    be?" and then proceed to break every convention known to man to create a 2
    meg opening slide show on their home pages.

    Go to Flashforward.com and look at some of the nominated Flash pieces. Those
    are hyper-advanced web applications that are *impossible* to do in any other
    technology with the speed and efficiency of development...and again, the
    issue of accessibility is simply, "you can do it, people just choose not to,
    don't blame Flash for it".
     
    Krusty, Jan 6, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jonathan Wood

    Any Reason to Use Session Object?

    Jonathan Wood, Sep 14, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    354
    Michael D. Ober
    Sep 15, 2006
  2. Abhishek Saksena
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    373
    Maxim Yegorushkin
    Aug 10, 2005
  3. _Who
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,770
  4. Jeremy J Starcher
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    249
    Jorge
    Apr 8, 2010
  5. pentapus
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    580
    pentapus
    Apr 29, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page