Flash site showing off or going to the extreme?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by richard, Sep 3, 2008.

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    http://www.quadricsoft.com/main.asp

    Whilst hunting for various flash menus ideas I came across this site.
    While it's not gawdy or totally ridiculous, it does kind of serve a
    purpose in showing off what flash can do.

    Find the samples and click on any button and you'll see numerus
    tricks.
     
    richard, Sep 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 2008-09-03, richard wrote:
    > http://www.quadricsoft.com/main.asp
    >
    > Whilst hunting for various flash menus ideas I came across this site.
    > While it's not gawdy or totally ridiculous, it does kind of serve a
    > purpose in showing off what flash can do.
    >
    > Find the samples and click on any button and you'll see numerus
    > tricks.


    An excellent example of an unreadable page; the text is far too
    small for me to read. It should read "Flash debilitated", not
    "Flash enabled".

    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
    ===================================================================
    Author:
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
     
    Chris F.A. Johnson, Sep 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. richard

    John Hosking Guest

    richard wrote:
    > http://www.quadricsoft.com/main.asp
    >
    > Whilst hunting for various flash menus ideas I came across this site.
    > While it's not gawdy or totally ridiculous, it does kind of serve a
    > purpose in showing off what flash can do.


    Yes, because the Web needs more (pointlessly) animated graphics, marquee
    scrolling, and miniature, non-resizable text. While that page is
    displayed, even without me hovering or clicking on anything, my CPU
    usage floats at around 80%-85%, up from about 5%-10%.

    >
    > Find the samples and click on any button and you'll see numerus
    > tricks.


    It's hardly fun trying to click the links when they're spinning and
    jumping away from the cursor like they do. Oddly, their samples aren't
    dynamic; it's just the execrable UI of the page that do the actual "tricks".


    --
    John
    Feeling too grumpy to be on the Internet today.
    And yes, it *is* gawdy and totally ridiculous.
     
    John Hosking, Sep 3, 2008
    #3
  4. richard

    Irina Rempt Guest

    richard wrote:

    > Whilst hunting for various flash menus ideas I came across this site.
    > While it's not gawdy or totally ridiculous, it does kind of serve a
    > purpose in showing off what flash can do.


    I beg to differ: it is gaudy, gawky (no 'gawdy' in my dictionary) as well as
    totally ridiculous. I don't like pointless movement in sites.

    Also, I already know what flash can do, and I prefer it not to do it to me.

    Irina

    --
    "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth
    should that mean that it is not real?" --Albus Dumbledore
    http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 02-Sep-2008
     
    Irina Rempt, Sep 3, 2008
    #4
  5. On Sep 3, 3:20 am, richard <> wrote:
    > Whilst hunting for various flash menus ideas I came across this site.
    > While it's not gawdy or totally ridiculous, it does kind of serve a
    > purpose in showing off what flash can do.


    That is completely gaudy and totally ridiculous!

    --
    Travis
    Flash Crap: http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com
     
    Travis Newbury, Sep 3, 2008
    #5
  6. On Sep 3, 5:29 am, Irina Rempt <> wrote:
    > Also, I already know what flash can do, and I prefer it not to do it to me.


    I believe one of the main problems Flash has with it's reputation is
    that many people, like yourself, believe that this site is an example
    of what Flash can do.

    This page demonstrates a very small subset of Flash's capabilities.

    --
    Travis
    Flash Crap: http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com
     
    Travis Newbury, Sep 3, 2008
    #6
  7. richard

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    Chaddy2222, Sep 3, 2008
    #7
  8. On Sep 3, 11:05 am, Chaddy2222 <spamlovermailbox-
    > wrote:
    > You really should read everything at:http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com


    I actually find about 1/2 of those sites to be pretty nice. Guess
    that shows what sucks in one person's eyes can be great in another
    person's eyes

    --
    Travis
    Flash Crap: http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com
     
    Travis Newbury, Sep 3, 2008
    #8
  9. richard

    Bergamot Guest

    Bergamot, Sep 3, 2008
    #9
  10. richard

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Sep 3, 8:52 am, Travis Newbury <> wrote:
    > On Sep 3, 5:29 am, Irina Rempt <> wrote:
    >
    > > Also, I already know what flash can do, and I prefer it not to do it to me.

    >
    > I believe one of the main problems Flash has with it's reputation is
    > that many people, like yourself, believe that this site is an example
    > of what Flash can do.
    >
    > This page demonstrates a very small subset of Flash's capabilities.


    Flash suffers from the reputation it had, especially for early
    versions. The animation was often crude, it was often autostarted, and
    it often could not be turned off. Then it was usually used for ads.
    While I and likely most who visit this group dislike this sort of
    thing, the hard-sell approach is still apparently live and well in
    some circles. There are still plenty of loud, fast talking, often
    nearly screaming people on US TV trying to get you to buy something,
    and apparently they sell things, because the cost of national TV ads
    is very high.

    With the introduction of the flv (flash video) and use of flv/swf
    files a few versions ago, flash became capable of video as good as
    Microsoft, Real, QT etc formats. If you will look at the web sites of
    many of the largest US TV and cable news sources you will find that
    many are now using flv/swf for news content video and not just ads.
    The reason for this is very simple. A flash player is installed on
    more computers than any of the earlier video formats mentioned. Also
    the WMP, which at one time was the main video player, can now be
    installed only on Windows XP or Vista for the most recent 2 versions -
    WMP 10 and 11.

    You can perhaps equal the bad taste and annoyance of bad flash using
    just some html, css, and JavaScript - dhtml. This is not now used
    nearly as much as flash because it usually takes much more time to
    write the code, and one must have a very good knowledge of Javascript.
    To prove my point, you might like to visit hell. Be warned that this
    page has autostarted sound (if you have WMP installed) and flashing
    visual effects that might not be suitable for those with epilepsyThe
    sound is repeated 10000 times. I do take mercy on you and provide a
    WMP control panel that lets you turn the sound off. If this does not
    prove the point, I would like to know the url of a flash video that is
    more annoying. The url for hell is http://cwdjr.net/flash/hell.html .
     
    cwdjrxyz, Sep 3, 2008
    #10
  11. richard

    John Hosking Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > On Sep 3, 11:05 am, Chaddy2222 wrote:
    >> You really should read everything at:http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com

    >
    > I actually find about 1/2 of those sites to be pretty nice. Guess
    > that shows what sucks in one person's eyes can be great in another
    > person's eyes


    I refuse to call "great" (or even accept) a site that sucks in a
    person's eyes.

    :p

    --
    John
    No matter who that person is.
     
    John Hosking, Sep 4, 2008
    #11
  12. On Sep 4, 6:44 pm, John Hosking <>
    wrote:
    > I refuse to call "great" (or even accept) a site that sucks in a
    > person's eyes.


    So if a site "sucks" in anyone's eyes, then you could never accept
    that site as being good? So does that means you don't think any sites
    on the web are good because every site sucks to someone.

    --
    Travis
    Flash Crap: http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com
     
    Travis Newbury, Sep 5, 2008
    #12
  13. richard

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ben C <> wrote:

    > On 2008-09-05, Travis Newbury <> wrote:
    > > On Sep 4, 6:44 pm, John Hosking <>
    > > wrote:
    > >> I refuse to call "great" (or even accept) a site that sucks in a
    > >> person's eyes.

    > >
    > > So if a site "sucks" in anyone's eyes, then you could never accept
    > > that site as being good?

    >
    > I think John's point was that people's eyes should remain in their
    > sockets when viewing web sites.


    Or perhaps he might not go quite as far as this, perhaps he would regard
    a site that did this as interesting in various ways, just not great. Me,
    I'd be entranced as a third party observer to see it happen and would
    not hesitate to use "great" ...

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 5, 2008
    #13
  14. richard wrote:
    > http://www.quadricsoft.com/main.asp
    >
    > Whilst hunting for various flash menus ideas I came across this site.
    > While it's not gawdy or totally ridiculous, it does kind of serve a
    > purpose in showing off what flash can do.
    >
    > Find the samples and click on any button and you'll see numerus
    > tricks.


    What is the purpose of the three triangles simulating sexual intercourse?

    There's so much movement that it was nearly a minute before it occurred
    to me there was text on the page to be read.

    Meanwhile, what does it show about Flash? That you can create
    animations? That's about as earthshattering as the realization that you
    can use CSS to italicize text.
     
    Harlan Messinger, Sep 5, 2008
    #14
  15. richard

    Bergamot Guest

    Ben C wrote:
    > On 2008-09-05, Travis Newbury <> wrote:
    >> On Sep 4, 6:44 pm, John Hosking <>
    >> wrote:
    >>> I refuse to call "great" (or even accept) a site that sucks in a
    >>> person's eyes.

    >>
    >> So if a site "sucks" in anyone's eyes, then you could never accept
    >> that site as being good?

    >
    > I think John's point was that people's eyes should remain in their
    > sockets when viewing web sites.


    Yeah, I got this, too. Travis must be a little slow this morning. ;)

    --
    Berg
     
    Bergamot, Sep 5, 2008
    #15
  16. On Sep 5, 8:32 am, Bergamot <> wrote:
    > Yeah, I got this, too. Travis must be a little slow this morning. ;)


    If you mean "only" this morning, then thank you...

    --
    Travis
    Flash Crap: http://travisnewbury.blogspot.com
     
    Travis Newbury, Sep 5, 2008
    #16
  17. richard

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ben C <> wrote:

    > On 2008-09-05, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Ben C <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 2008-09-05, Travis Newbury <> wrote:
    > >> > On Sep 4, 6:44 pm, John Hosking <>
    > >> > wrote:


    > >> >> I refuse to call "great" (or even accept) a site that sucks in a
    > >> >> person's eyes.
    > >> >
    > >> > So if a site "sucks" in anyone's eyes, then you could never accept
    > >> > that site as being good?
    > >>
    > >> I think John's point was that people's eyes should remain in their
    > >> sockets when viewing web sites.

    > >
    > > Or perhaps he might not go quite as far as this, perhaps he would regard
    > > a site that did this as interesting in various ways, just not great. Me,
    > > I'd be entranced as a third party observer to see it happen and would
    > > not hesitate to use "great" ...

    >
    > Actually marketing types do use expressions like "grabbing people's
    > eyeballs" mainly to explain their plans for putting ads everywhere.
    >
    > I'm sure there's a David Cronenberg film to be made out of this
    > somewhere.


    I think any such film would only make money if it was carefully
    calibrated to only take a few people's eyeballs. It does not make much
    sense to want your eyeballs - or any other balls you might happen to
    have - grabbed by a film.

    However, if a film is made with the ability to grab very few on a random
    basis and this is advertised widely then people would flock in for the
    pleasure of watching others being subjected to it.

    In The Purple Rose of Cairo the characters in the film walk out into the
    real world, we are discussing a variation of the very opposite. The very
    opposite is audience members walking into films, the variation being
    that their body parts are sucked in.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Sep 5, 2008
    #17
    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. Guoqi Zheng

    help with extreme slow site

    Guoqi Zheng, Jul 18, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    316
    John Saunders
    Jul 18, 2004
  2. richard
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    659
    richard
    Mar 27, 2005
  3. karthikbalaguru
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    694
    JosephKK
    Mar 22, 2009
  4. Dave Symonds
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    144
    Ross Bamford
    Jan 5, 2006
  5. Sura
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    123
    Kevin Newman
    Aug 14, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page