There any serious statistics showing Flash popularity?

[dorayme]

Bottom line it is all a numbers game.

Bottom line is that all this crap is without human worth, thought
or moral spirit. It is all numbers and money. There is more soul
in one of the sides of one of those waltzing stars than a whole
world of this nonsense. No wonder you felt you'd lost two minutes
of life. To think, you could have been bloody well calculating
how much more money could be earned doing x rather than doing y.

Naturally, there will not be too many souls on this ng who
understand a word of this. So, you are with the overwhelming
majority. I am sure this is a comforting thought.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I am well aware that you are totally pro-flash and I agree to a certain
extent, flash has its place.

Not so much pro-Flash, as pro-correct-technology.

It's nice when well done. But not in a bloody
advertisement for a motorway, on a ski site FFS :-(

90% of the flash on the web sucks. It is a complete waste of time,
bandwidth, and space. Flash designers are just now starting to learn
the advantages of thinking before they just do something in Flash.

Did you look at the site I posted about? A really really non-event. Not even
good flash. And repeating. Forever. Do you really think that you might
_gain_ viewers if you put something like this on your page?

I completely agree with your assessment.

Why do you think
I found a hammer with which to squash it? Reminds me of that bloody monkey
with the big hammer that was around a few years ago. Where is that thing
now?

Flash Block is a great add-on for FF.

This aforementioned advertisement IMHO would not work for *any* site. I
agree with Neredbojias (to a certain extent). I want control over my
computer, in that I want to choose to not display such abhorrant
advertisements. If the rest of the sometimes good flash goes with it then so
be it.
Meta tags used to be good for placement in the search engines. Abused.
Ignored.
Popups used to be good for the occasional help screen or whatever. Abused.
Ignored.
Is this to be the way for flash?

I don't think so. With broadband, video, multimedia, etc, becoming
more and more popular on the web, if Flash goes away, it will be
replaced with something equally (or more) obnoxious. I think Adobe is
moving in the right direction with Flash. Accessibility and
functionallity is improving with each new version. Add to that the
developers are starting to get a clue now and I think Flash has a long
welcome future on the web.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Bottom line is that all this crap is without human worth, thought
or moral spirit. It is all numbers and money.

Absolutely. A corporate/business website is about numbers and money.
I like it that way. I want the free market to control the web NOT
some "feel-good" government agency.

No wonder you felt you'd lost two minutes
of life.

No I just thought that the flash you shared sucked. That is why it was
a waste of my life. I appreciate good humor, what you showed us was
not (in my mind) good humor or thought provoking.

To think, you could have been bloody well calculating
how much more money could be earned doing x rather than doing y.

Or watching some _good_ flash humor...

Naturally, there will not be too many souls on this ng who
understand a word of this.

You completely misunderstood my wasted 2 minute response. So if the
shoe fits...

So, you are with the overwhelming
majority. I am sure this is a comforting thought.

Since it was you that misunderstood, maybe it is you that is in the
overwhelming majority?

 

[rf]

Not so much pro-Flash, as pro-correct-technology.

Noted and accepted.

90% of the flash on the web sucks. It is a complete waste of time,
bandwidth, and space. Flash designers are just now starting to learn
the advantages of thinking before they just do something in Flash.

Do you really think so? When your 90% drops down to, say, 10% then perhaps I
will agree. Until then Flash is very close to being "popup-blocked". There
might be some designers out there doing the right thing (and you have
notably advised us of a few of them on occasion) but IMHO they are, at the
moment, swamped by those who do it because they can.

I think the kind of drezigners that built that ad on that web site I cited
will have to actually die out before the web will be rid of their rubbish.

<aside>
This is the same site that once changed their colours to grey text on a
lesser grey background, and 10 pixels big. When I advised them of their
folley they advised me (and I still have the email) to use my accessibility
options to ignore their choice.

I don't think so. With broadband, video, multimedia, etc, becoming
more and more popular on the web, if Flash goes away, it will be
replaced with something equally (or more) obnoxious.

<shudder/>

s/HTML/MPEG/ ?

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:47:53 GMT
dorayme scribed:

Bottom line is that all this crap is without human worth, thought
or moral spirit.

I've been in those moods; luckily, they pass. <g>

Travis is right in saying that a Flash site _can_ be good, but rf is more
right (today) because most Flash sites suck. I _can_ win the lottery, too,
but will I? Will the majority of Flash sites be acceptible in the near
future? I don't think so to both.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:14:38 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:

Absolutely. A corporate/business website is about numbers and money.
I like it that way. I want the free market to control the web NOT
some "feel-good" government agency.

Absolutely! And because all those moron teenagers just love Flash, I would
never advocate to ban it from temporal existence. However, don't expect me
to promote or utilize it, either. I view it as a sort of "George Bush"
program.

 

[dorayme]

Absolutely. A corporate/business website is about numbers and money.
I like it that way. I want the free market to control the web NOT
some "feel-good" government agency.

What has the free market and 'feel good' or 'feel bad' government
agency got to do with selling your soul so constantly to cold
calculations that take only bottom line things like how much
money individual business owners can make employing various
strategies? No one has disputed you on free market control. Yopu
are fighting shadows and conflating issues.

No I just thought that the flash you shared sucked. That is why it was
a waste of my life. I appreciate good humor, what you showed us was
not (in my mind) good humor or thought provoking.

Yes, I have seen what you defend as humour (crass things about
Hillary Clinton's body and god knows what else?). It was not
meant to be good humour nor to provoke much thought. It was a bit
of schmaltz and had nice big readable text. There had been some
discussion and complaints about text in Flash. There are not too
many examples of big text i Flash that come across my desk. It
had things in it that were worth seeing and hearing. Can you sing
and phrase like that? Can you make stars waltz and flex in
specific happiness?

You completely misunderstood my wasted 2 minute response. So if the
shoe fits...

I understood you only too well. You simply missed what was good
in it because you have a mindset quite elsewhere.

 

[dorayme]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:47:53 GMT
dorayme scribed:


I've been in those moods; luckily, they pass. <g>

Don't let them pass completely, that would be very bad luck.

Travis is right in saying that a Flash site _can_ be good,

No one but the most soul-less schmuck can fail to agree with such
a thing. Are we forever to be into motherhood statements on this?
What the hell is up with Travis that he keeps saying all his
obvious crap and can miss heart and soul and spirit.

Is there a plan here? Is all this meant to make people react
turning to God? I at least will keep my head and refuse to go to
extremes. I think the middle ground is the right ground, about
half way between Travis and God. I really would hate to be any
closer to either. In the middle is the sweet spot, with hells on
either side.

 

[William Gill]

I would have expected a different outcome from a site in the
entertainment industry. Very interesting.

The operative phrase here is "all flash site." What impact on search
engines? What percent of the potential visitors have slow connections
(or short attention spans) and don't wait for the show to load. The key
is trying to strike a balance.

How often do you read here about "graceful degradation?" If the site
depends on javascript or flash, it's audience is limited by some
percentage. If however a site can be enjoyed by all, but those with the
additional technology get a bonus, that's good.

I frequently advise against large high-res graphics, but if a client is
in the art business large graphics files may be appropriate. More
importantly, if a visitor knows that to get a quality picture of the new
Harley-Davidson they have to be patient, they will. IMHO it's when the
designer tries to force feed javascript, flash or really big images that
visitors bail.

 

[Animesh K]

I wondering if there are any serious data showing compatibilty in % of
flash web sites.

Help!

TIA

Your question is a bit unclear to me. Are you looking for compatibility
of browsers with flash? Or are you asking how many sites are bug-free
when showing flash objects (i.e. to say, that these sites don't do what
they intend to do)?

 

[Travis Newbury]

The operative phrase here is "all flash site." What impact on search
engines?

Actually today there is very little impact on search engins if the
Flash developer is good.

What percent of the potential visitors have slow connections
(or short attention spans) and don't wait for the show to load. The key
is trying to strike a balance.

Again, conection speed is irrelevant if the Flash was developed by a
competent Flash developer. If the developer has to put a "loading..."
then it is bad Flash development.

How often do you read here about "graceful degradation?" If the site
depends on javascript or flash, it's audience is limited by some
percentage.

But the point is, if the Flash drives more people to the site than it
drives away form the site, then it is a good thing.

If however a site can be enjoyed by all, but those with the
additional technology get a bonus, that's good.

Enjoyed by all is an unreachable goal. You could never develop a site
that will please everyone. The best site developers will know their
audience, monitor the site continuesly, tweak the site as needs to
insure that the technology they are using is correct for the site. A
site that has the ability to be seen on every browser or reader or
phone or pda in the world will not make it a great site. Such a site
could actually lose money. Every site, even those that sell the same
product is unique. And a competent site developer knows how to use
the tools and technologies available to make the site look and feel in
a manner that makes it sucessful.

I frequently advise against large high-res graphics, but if a client is
in the art business large graphics files may be appropriate. More
importantly, if a visitor knows that to get a quality picture of the new
Harley-Davidson they have to be patient, they will. IMHO it's when the
designer tries to force feed javascript, flash or really big images that
visitors bail.

It is equally likely that those same things that drive one visitor
away from a site could draw two visitors to the site. Coming up with
some blanket rule about what makes a site a good site is a complete
waste of time. Know your audience. Know what draws them to the
site. Then do that.

 

[Travis Newbury]

What has the free market and 'feel good' or 'feel bad' government
agency got to do with selling your soul so constantly to cold
calculations that take only bottom line things like how much
money individual business owners can make employing various
strategies?

It has everything to do with it. If you force me to use rules that
drive my good customers away just so someone that would never be a
customer of mine can ignore the site anyway you will hurt my
business. And I am sorry,I am in this business to make a living. So
money has everything to do with it.

Yes, I have seen what you defend as humour (crass things about
Hillary Clinton's body and god knows what else?). It was not
meant to be good humour nor to provoke much thought.

It provoked no thought what so ever because I found it incredibly
boring. This again proves, different strokes for different folks.
Nothing is pleasing to all.

Can you sing
and phrase like that? Can you make stars waltz and flex in
specific happiness?

Sorry, I think the flash sucked.

I understood you only too well. You simply missed what was good
in it because you have a mindset quite elsewhere.

No, I think it just plain sucked. Both content and technology

 

[Travis Newbury]

What the hell is up with Travis that he keeps saying all his
obvious crap and can miss heart and soul and spirit.

I do this for a living, to make money for my customers. And I do it
very well. If I want to make people smile, and feel good, I play
piano.

 

[dorayme]

It has everything to do with it.

Perhaps we have different interests in what is worth talking
about here.

 

[dorayme]

I do this for a living, to make money for my customers. And I do it
very well. If I want to make people smile, and feel good, I play
piano.

Yes yes... this is not in dispute. Why is it that whenever Flash
is discussed, everyone rushes to say the bleeding obvious? If
someone else says that Flash is good when it is done right and
where it is appropriate again, I am going to scream and you will
hear me over the Pacific Ocean. Why is not everyone else
screaming too? What is going on?

 

[William Gill]

Again, conection speed is irrelevant if the Flash was developed by a

competent Flash developer. If the developer has to put a "loading..."
then it is bad Flash development.

Advertising loading delay with "loading..." isn't very good. However,
if you are suggesting that bandwidth is not a factor, I don't agree.
Everything must load eventually. A good developer may disguise the
loading, he may optimize the file size, but he can't accelerate it. That
doesn't mean never use high volume technology. Look at youtube.com.
Video is pretty high volume, but the audience knows what to expect and
is willing to wait. I don't think you could do a text only version of
youtube.

But the point is, if the Flash drives more people to the site than it
drives away form the site, then it is a good thing.

I can't disagree with your logic, but I wonder about your metrics. How
do you measure how many were driven away?

Enjoyed by all is an unreachable goal. You could never develop a site
that will please everyone.

Enjoyed may have been a poor choice of words on my part, taste is
subjective. However, I'm pretty sure if someone can't view my site, the
chances that they will like it are greatly reduced.

It is equally likely that those same things that drive one visitor
away from a site could draw two visitors to the site.

No disagreement there.

... Coming up with
some blanket rule about what makes a site a good site is a complete
waste of time.

Did I suggest any rule, blanket or otherwise? If so, that is just the
opposite of what I was trying to say.

Know your audience. Know what draws them to the
site. Then do that.

My point exactly! We all make assumptions about our target audience.
Hopefully those assumptions have some basis in reality, and when we
realize they don't, we react.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:15:31
GMT dorayme scribed:

Don't let them pass completely, that would be very bad luck.

I don't like to be pessimistic.

No one but the most soul-less schmuck can fail to agree with such
a thing. Are we forever to be into motherhood statements on this?
What the hell is up with Travis that he keeps saying all his
obvious crap and can miss heart and soul and spirit.

Perhaps he's a Trekky attuned to the Vulcan mystique.

Is there a plan here? Is all this meant to make people react
turning to God? I at least will keep my head and refuse to go to
extremes. I think the middle ground is the right ground, about
half way between Travis and God. I really would hate to be any
closer to either. In the middle is the sweet spot, with hells on
either side.

Average is good. The trouble is one can't get fanatical over it without
loosing that very characteristic.

One day we'll all be as close to God as we can get. It may not be
permanent, but I intend to use whatever time I have to tell Him just
exactly how badly he screwed up down here, so don't worry.

 

[dorayme]

One day we'll all be as close to God as we can get. It may not be
permanent, but I intend to use whatever time I have to tell Him just
exactly how badly he screwed up down here, so don't worry.

Ah... Boji... you are sometimes a great comfort to me.

(I know most people are against me here. Just because I am a bit
moody, just because I attack at the drop of a hat, that I show
great contempt, that I am rude and confronting and sarcastic and
OT so much. The truth is that they never told me about newsgroups
before I came here, I just stumbled on you lot.)

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 06:32:37 GMT
dorayme scribed:

Ah... Boji... you are sometimes a great comfort to me.

(I know most people are against me here. Just because I am a bit
moody, just because I attack at the drop of a hat, that I show
great contempt, that I am rude and confronting and sarcastic and
OT so much. The truth is that they never told me about newsgroups
before I came here, I just stumbled on you lot.)

Ah, don't be so paranoid. Or thin-skinned. You're an Aussie, so be saucy.
In other words: just be you. I'm me, -sometimes more'n others. <g> Ergo,
you can be you. 'Course, if I ever get down around Sydney-way, I'll wash
your mouth out with soap - and enjoy doing it, he he!

 

[dorayme]

Ah, don't be so paranoid. Or thin-skinned.

I have not got skin. I am always far more naked than even your
lurid imagination could cope with.