It does not look good for Target. Web Accessibility news

[SpaceGirl]

Don't you know that any technology you don't like is obsolete?
Apparently!

What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.

yes. And that many smart phone are actually Flash enabled too.

also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he needs
to get an updated one.

I agree flash use is growing. In fact, I want some flash on one of my
sites (no, not the home page! - an interactive demo). But I'm not the
graphics types. Gotta find a designer I can afford to sub to who can do
this

Flash is overused in some cases, IMHO. But it is necessary for some things.

Flash is still really abused, but it's coming of age I think. Some of
the things we've seen here (at our studio) over the past year are
really... astonishing. They can totally change the way you behave
online, and make it a much more pleasant & rewarding experience. Flash
is not some great panacea. Give it another year.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
frequently on their mobile devices.

Twenty years ago most people probably wouldn't have believed the amount
of money we spend each month for cell phones instead of just using a pay
phone or waiting till we got home, or that we'd spend US$400 on a device
to carry music around with us instead of just carrying a pocket radio.

 

[Chaddy2222]

Twenty years ago most people probably wouldn't have believed the amount
of money we spend each month for cell phones instead of just using a pay
phone or waiting till we got home, or that we'd spend US$400 on a device
to carry music around with us instead of just carrying a pocket radio.

Ahh yes, very true. I think it will be another year or three though
before people start browsing the web on their mobile devices
frequently as the prices will need to come down a bit, a bit like what
happend here in Australia when broadband internet was introduced.

 

[Phil Payne]

Don't you know that any technology you don't like is obsolete?

Apparently!

(Can we do some more trimming, guys?)

WML/WAP was the exciting technology of the future that would take over
from everything. Now dead.

Five years ago most web surfing was not done on broadband. WiFi was
an unknown technology.

Now you have, e.g., http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/05/bt_fon_wimax/
where BT lets you use other people's private WiFi routers if you open
up your own - so you can walk down the street with your handheld and
surf. Most of the public house chains in the UK have WiFi - Sheffield
City Council (where I live) has a public system covering hte whole of
the City Centre.

yes. And that many smart phone are actually Flash enabled too.

Flash Lite is to Flash as WML is to XHTML/CSS. And anyway - why do
everything THREE times? Once for the Flash enabled, once for those
who can't use Flash even if they want to (see the original subject of
this thread - it's a LEGAL requirement in the UK to provide an
alternative under the Disability Discrimination Act) and again for
Flash Lite.

Why not do it just once?

He he. I'm in the UK, you idiot.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.

??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
undercut text for bandwidth.

 

[SpaceGirl]

WML/WAP was the exciting technology of the future that would take over
from everything. Now dead.

Yep, because the platform changed. Most modern mobile devices can
render full XHTML, so it became irrelevant.

Five years ago most web surfing was not done on broadband. WiFi was
an unknown technology.

The world moves on...

Flash Lite is to Flash as WML is to XHTML/CSS. And anyway - why do
everything THREE times? Once for the Flash enabled, once for those
who can't use Flash even if they want to (see the original subject of
this thread - it's a LEGAL requirement in the UK to provide an
alternative under the Disability Discrimination Act) and again for
Flash Lite.

Or build web sites the way they should be build. Your application,
data and UI layers are completely separated so it doesn't matter what
presentation technology you use.

Why not do it just once?


He he. I'm in the UK, you idiot.

So am I (Scotland)... I have a 3G broadband phone and in a few weeks
an iPhone. The networks here in the UK are ahead of the US, for
example.

 

[SpaceGirl]

??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
undercut text for bandwidth.

Very few web sites are just text. Even ones designed for mobile
platforms. Text-only sites are NOT good enough for most people. Fine
for machines (screen readers) and other inhuman devices, but for
emotional creatures like this, reams of unformatted text are... nasty,
uninteresting.

Because very few people use Flash for this yet. The technology is very
new. It wasn't really achievable (realistically) before Flash 9. Flash
contains a full-blown language; you can completely construct a UI
inside it without ANY external graphics, meaning the size is tiny. You
can create a fully working blog in around 5Kb, including graphical
header, a fluid animated UI. It'd work on all computers that have
Flash 9 player installed. Think of all the HTTP & IP overhead (1kb or
more, per file) you are saving alone by serving a single SWF file vs.
lots of small gifs, the page itself, css document and so on.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Very few web sites are just text. Even ones designed for mobile
platforms. Text-only sites are NOT good enough for most people. Fine
for machines (screen readers) and other inhuman devices, but for
emotional creatures like this, reams of unformatted text are... nasty,
uninteresting.

I did not say devoid of style. I am say that in no way a "image" of text
will be smaller then text including the CSS styling.

Because very few people use Flash for this yet. The technology is very
new. It wasn't really achievable (realistically) before Flash 9. Flash
contains a full-blown language; you can completely construct a UI
inside it without ANY external graphics, meaning the size is tiny. You
can create a fully working blog in around 5Kb, including graphical
header, a fluid animated UI. It'd work on all computers that have
Flash 9 player installed. Think of all the HTTP & IP overhead (1kb or
more, per file) you are saving alone by serving a single SWF file vs.
lots of small gifs, the page itself, css document and so on.

5Kb eh? URL?

 

[Ben C]

Flash itself is a web browser. It's also a virtual machine, we an
extremely powerful programming language at its core.

Isn't its programming language very similar to/the same as JavaScript?

It leverages the kind of functionality that can only be dreamed of
with JS and traditional HTML.

Does it leverage anything that can't be dreamed of with JS and HTML plus
SVG?

 

[William Gill]

You know, if they put a cap on the amount of money trial lawyers could
make this lawsuit (as well as thousands of others) would disappear in
about a second.

Or better yet, how about if you sue someone and lose then both the
plaintiff and the lawyer are equally responsible for the defendant's
leagal fees, expenses, and a little punitive money. THAT would put an
end to some of this bullshit.

I won't argue, frivolous lawsuits are a serious problem, and I know this
is anecdotal, but to bolster your point here's a first hand experience
(sans a lot of gory details). After I became disabled, a multinational
did something to me and every other disabled employee that was patently
illegal. When I pursued legal remedy I was told more than once, "they
can't do that, but your case will take lots of work, will not produce
piles of money or big headlines, so we can't help you."

Unfortunately, as with most serious problems, there is no single simple
solution. It's already like a game of table stakes poker, the player
who sits down with the biggest stack of chips has the advantage. I
won't say "unfair" advantage, because I truly believe "fair" is a
subjective term. On the other hand, when juries that think that damage
awards are like winning the lottery, that's part of the problem too.

 

[SpaceGirl]

I did not say devoid of style. I am say that in no way a "image" of text
will be smaller then text including the CSS styling.

No different than flash. Okay, so for a web page to render you send
strings of text that contains formatting tags. Flash sends strings of
binary. Same thing, even smaller. Flash doesn't store things as
bitmaps inside itself (unless, they are bitmaps!), they're stored as
instructions to redraw the artwork. Flash is vector based.

5Kb eh? URL?

Just install Flash, read about AS3.

 

[SpaceGirl]

Isn't its programming language very similar to/the same as JavaScript?

In structure yes - meets the same ECMA standards as JS. The language
itself has a lot of depth, supports E4X as well. It's more like Java
than JavaScript to be honest.

Does it leverage anything that can't be dreamed of with JS and HTML plus
SVG?

Yes. SVG is VERY bloated. JS also runs about 1/10th speed of Flash,
and lacks all of the video and graphical capabilities. Remember Flash
contains a state of the art video codec, hardware acceleration, can
talk to a video camera and your sound card, your microphone, can embed
fonts, can render HTML, can parse XML... all internally, across most
platforms, without any add-ins. JS doesn't even come close to this.
SVG lacks any of the animation stuff, and generates huge output.
Neither JS or SVG are cross-platform thanks to each browser rendering
pages a little differently. Neither support video or audio. JS has
almost no graphical functions, let alone an awareness of time an
motion. Etc.

We're talking about different creatures here... it's *extremely* hard
to generate these kinds of rich experience, if not bordering on
impossible, with JS.

 

[Karl Groves]

Don't you know that any technology you don't like is obsolete?

What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.
also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he
needs to get an updated one.

I agree flash use is growing. In fact, I want some flash on one of my
sites (no, not the home page! - an interactive demo). But I'm not the
graphics types. Gotta find a designer I can afford to sub to who can
do this

Flash is overused in some cases, IMHO. But it is necessary for some
things.

I must've missed a number of these responses, perhaps because I have
Google Groupers blocked.

From my experience, it appears that Flash use for an entire website (UI,
content, the whole thing) has dropped off the face of the earth. The
last time I saw Flash used in that way, it was for some boutique web
design firm, not a real information based website but rather little more
than eye candy.

Instead, I see Flash being used for things like Jerry mentioned:
presentations, Flash video or widgets. I think this is an appropriate
use of Flash in most cases. In these cases, however, Flash is becoming
superceded by its relative: Flex.

 

[Andy Dingley]

The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.

Example please.

Followed by a compulsory education program for the multitude of Flash
coders who don't appreciate this.


If Flash is so wonderful and so easy to produce, wwhy is so much of it
so bad?

 

[G]

Example please.

Followed by a compulsory education program for the multitude of Flash
coders who don't appreciate this.


If Flash is so wonderful and so easy to produce, wwhy is so much of it
so bad?

because some websites are being designed by someone other than Spacey?

html is also wonderful and easy to produce, and there are millions upon
millions of shitty sites

seriously

a saw in the hands of a carpenter can produce some wonderful results.
put the same tool in the hands of an accountant.

hmm

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

On Oct 5, 2:49 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <[email protected]> wrote:

Just install Flash, read about AS3.

What the plugin or the $$$$ development app?

Again, we keep hearing about these wonderful, accessible, low-bandwidth
flash sites but no examples... Sounds like a Unicorn hunt.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
actually disabled on this machine.

You're the exception then.

 

[Travis Newbury]

"If you're using text to try to describe something search engines
can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files -
remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile
browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be
able to view that content either."

Well, Search engines and Flash play fine together now, and slow
connections have nothing to do with well designed flash. So your
statement shows your ignorance.

But your not alone. There is a lot of Flash ignorance. And I have to
admit, most of the flash out there right now is pretty poor examples
of what flash can do. But as more and more developers start using
Flash (opposed to artists) you will see this changing.

 

[Travis Newbury]

??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
undercut text for bandwidth.

And we all know how much fun an all text website can be...

 

[Travis Newbury]

Very few web sites are just text. Even ones designed for mobile
platforms. Text-only sites are NOT good enough for most people. Fine
for machines (screen readers) and other inhuman devices, but for
emotional creatures like this, reams of unformatted text are... nasty,
uninteresting.

I think it comes down to what you want to do with the web. If one
uses the web for research and purchasing something then I can see
where you might want to have a very vanilla mostly text kind of web.
But if you like to have fun on the web, then you might want all the
pizazz. the good thing about the latter is that both types of sites
work for you.

I like pizazz