now, i don't want to out your work here, but i have had a look at the art exhibit (you posted a link to it elsewhere) and tell me if you couldn't have done that without flash and the inevitable and complete fail on my iphone. there doesn't seem to be any non-flash version that it degrades to. i tried to find its content on google, but could only find mention of it on other sites, which makes me think that it wasn't optimised for search engines and is therefore invisible to the greater masses.
i'm curious to hear what the motivation was to do that in flash, when (only in my opinion as an 'obvious non web shop runner') that could have been accomplished without the flash lock in. was it easier? was it more efficient? did the client ask for it? did you try to talk him out of it? was it not optimised for search because of budget constraints?
would it in the end not have been better not to have to worry about all those issues by providing the information in a standard compliant way?
Optimizing for search lies in the html, not in the flash code.
Optimizing for search lies in the html, not in the flash code.
i realise that. but if you develop in flash, it's your responsibility to make that happen, correct? if you make the choice to use flash for a complete site, you have to jump through a few extra hoops to make it behave as expected by a client, ie. show up in a google search. it doesn't happen by itself through adobe magic...
now, i don't want to out your work here, but i have had a look at the art exhibit (you posted a link to it elsewhere) and tell me if you couldn't have done that without flash and the inevitable and complete fail on my iphone. there doesn't seem to be any non-flash version that it degrades to. i tried to find its content on google, but could only find mention of it on other sites, which makes me think that it wasn't optimised for search engines and is therefore invisible to the greater masses.
i'm curious to hear what the motivation was to do that in flash, when (only in my opinion as an 'obvious non web shop runner') that could have been accomplished without the flash lock in. was it easier? was it more efficient? did the client ask for it? did you try to talk him out of it? was it not optimised for search because of budget constraints?
would it in the end not have been better not to have to worry about all those issues by providing the information in a standard compliant way?
I won't discuss my specific work here, as I don't trust any of the trolls here, and it isn't appropiate. But If you have a major project contracted to you by a major organization with already the requirements, technology, and strategy pre determined, you fulfil what's expected if you like paying your rent. If you get involved in major projects using super hi res imagery shown in full screen you likely aren't going to try and dumb things down to try and fit that sort of high end imagery in a tiny screen. You will develop a presentation specifically formatted for phones. Flash is very well suited for stitching super hi res images together on the fly to create huge panoramas, and, reducing and enlarging the images with practically no image quality loss or pixelation. If I find other production practical methods of doing it outside of flash, I may implement it sometime.
Often I don't have any control over implementation if I didn't initiate the project, so I can't comment on seo in those cases. I just deliver the files. That's the nature of business, you can do what you do best, and in some cases, you have little say. But flash very much has seo capabilities, you just have to know how to implement them.
Often I find discussions about replacing flash somewhat pointless, as the point is lost in there somewhere after you've simply tried to recreate the same effects in another technology. It isn't as some here will have you believe about that, certainly not now, and likely in the short term.
Flash is still a great technology for big presentations, but sure it's not the only one. Currently for phones flash is a bit of a non starter, but the next year or so will show if it survives at all.
I think the whole thing is a huge bit of drama with an awful lot of myths and shrieking on both sides. I develop projects in a multitude of different technologies, and just find some of the comments show clearly they don't understand production, or this industry at all.
Why don't you link to some of your better sites...
... 2-3 should should showcase your work?
.
after being call anti apple, adobe shill liar, etc., and the tone around here, not bloody likely. It isn't appropriate to include the names of my clients here. And you should know that.
Let me teach you something about the CSS standards process. Anything that is already in a sufficiently agreed-upon standard may be written by its own name; anything else, even if it is in fact supported across all browsers, must be given a "-" prefix followed by the browser implementation name.
Thank you for your informative reply. I guess the reason it doesn't work in FF is because it is "vendor specific" to webkit not proprietary as I may have misspoken. Nevertheless, since that code as written, is not recognized universally, in order for it to work in other browsers, a developer would have code redundantly using the equivalent vendor specific prefixes for any other browsers they wish to target, assuming that the targeted browser does in fact implement the desired feature.
when someone starts flinging liar and shill, there's no chance of reasonable discussion, so why bother. I couldn't care less if they have 10 kazillion posts.
He's been told numerous times I have no 'proof', yet he still repeats I said it.
This kind of thing is called, 'trolling...'
Trolling is when someone joins a thread just to do things like: antagonize other posters; disrupt the discussion; post contrary opinions; confuse the topic with ever-changing positions and circular arguments!
Let's see do we know of anyone here who:
1) Has joined the AI site within the last 13 days
2) Has made over 100 posts
3) the bulk of which fit the categorization above
If you are not a troll, what are you? The fairy princess? Robin Hood? The Queen Mum?
Trolling is when someone joins a thread just to do things like: antagonize other posters; disrupt the discussion; post contrary opinions; confuse the topic with ever-changing positions and circular arguments!
Let's see do we know of anyone here who:
1) Has joined the AI site within the last 13 days
2) Has made over 100 posts
3) the bulk of which fit the categorization above
If you are not a troll, what are you? The fairy princess? Robin Hood? The Queen Mum?
.
yes you've said this before. However, you've never actually pointed how, I'm a troll. Trolls aren't limited to new members, on another mac site I have been a member of since 2003, there's a number of trolls, who have been there for quite sometime.
The guy you just love read has consistently, misrepresented what I said many times over, and has asserted several times I said something, when I didn't I asked several times to point out where, never to get a response.
That sir, IS A TROLL.
And here is a good example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
You're the one claiming it's proven so we want you to prove it. Pretty fraking straightforward.
No one here has made claims about unannounced products so we wouldn't say that the next iPhone or iPad will or won't be better.
Most of here like to use facts that are backed up. You should try it sometime.
I asked him where I said that. He comes up with all these things I apparently said, but I never said them. I said all along, I saw the beta player on a phone, it looked good to me, and beyond that and hearing reports from other developers, I have no proof. And I never hear back. Funny.
I won't discuss my specific work here, as I don't trust any of the trolls here, and it isn't appropiate. But If you have a major project contracted to you by a major organization with already the requirements, technology, and strategy pre determined, you fulfil what's expected if you like paying your rent. If you get involved in major projects using super hi res imagery shown in full screen you likely aren't going to try and dumb things down to try and fit that sort of high end imagery in a tiny screen. You will develop a presentation specifically formatted for phones. Flash is very well suited for stitching super hi res images together on the fly to create huge panoramas, and, reducing and enlarging the images with practically no image quality loss or pixelation. If I find other production practical methods of doing it outside of flash, I may implement it sometime.
Often I don't have any control over implementation if I didn't initiate the project, so I can't comment on seo in those cases. I just deliver the files. That's the nature of business, you can do what you do best, and in some cases, you have little say. But flash very much has seo capabilities, you just have to know how to implement them.
Often I find discussions about replacing flash somewhat pointless, as the point is lost in there somewhere after you've simply tried to recreate the same effects in another technology. It isn't as some here will have you believe about that, certainly not now, and likely in the short term.
Flash is still a great technology for big presentations, but sure it's not the only one. Currently for phones flash is a bit of a non starter, but the next year or so will show if it survives at all.
I think the whole thing is a huge bit of drama with an awful lot of myths and shrieking on both sides. I develop projects in a multitude of different technologies, and just find some of the comments show clearly they don't understand production, or this industry at all.
... and yet there you go again with dropping in the 'troll' 'shrieking' and the like...
the point i tried to make with that example is this: flash is probably not needed, the seo is not working, it doesn't degrade gracefully to non-flash users. when you call the process to produce a site that works without flash 'dumbing down', you have attached a value judgement to that process.
i would think of it as 'smarting up'. if you don't need to do the extra work to make sure the search engines can see it, that no visitors / potential customers get locked out, by forsaking proprietary solutions from a single vendor, how can that be a bad thing?
i understand that you may not have initiated the project, had a choice in what technology you use, but somebody failed the client initially by going that route. they have provided a workflow lock-in to the client that makes sure they get paid again when it's time to change it.
that might make it a good business decision in the short run, but philosophically it's wrong, technically it's not needed and in the long term it's likely going to be abandoned.
... and yet there you go again with dropping in the 'troll' 'shrieking' and the like...
the point i tried to make with that example is this: flash is probably not needed, the seo is not working, it doesn't degrade gracefully to non-flash users. when you call the process to produce a site that works without flash 'dumbing down', you have attached a value judgement to that process.
i would think of it as 'smarting up'. if you don't need to do the extra work to make sure the search engines can see it, that no visitors / potential customers get locked out, by forsaking proprietary solutions from a single vendor, how can that be a bad thing?
i understand that you may not have initiated the project, had a choice in what technology you use, but somebody failed the client initially by going that route. they have provided a workflow lock-in to the client that makes sure they get paid again when it's time to change it.
that might make it a good business decision in the short run, but philosophically it's wrong, technically it's not needed and in the long term it's likely going to be abandoned.
ok, say you're presented with the project.
How would you go about developing that project with all those requirements, without flash? Without removing -any- quality or features?
And if the company says, they aren't interested in seo, and they want a full screen experience as described with super hi res imagery. Can you detail how that would be accomplished, and can you provide fully working commercial examples? and if the development costs are higher, cna you justify to the client why you wouldn't use flash since it is targeted to desktop users who are most likely to have the flash plugin.
What a load of crap. "Freedom" on the web, I got two issues with that:
1. They are appealing to american core "value" of freedom even though this issue has nothing to do with freedom.
2. The web is only free if there is a free or at least open standard like HTML5 to serve content.
The way I see this is just trying to make an issue about freedom and make uninformed people believe that this is some sort of moral issue. In fact this is a technology issue. One technology is closed and proprietary, another more open (h.264 is still proprietary, but not HTML tags). One technology has fallen behind and is a resource hog, another is forward looking with a lot of potential and is less resource intensive.
Just like my signiture says Adobe has 2 options - drastically improve flash and FAST or get out of the internet to be replaced by an internet standard.
noooo no no. I was called an adobe shill, liar, anti apple and all kinds of things a long time ago. Here and in other threads.
I'm happy to have a more reasonable discussion anytime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Why don't you link to some of your better sites...
... 2-3 should should showcase your work?
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube
after being call anti apple, adobe shill liar, etc., and the tone around here, not bloody likely. It isn't appropriate to include the names of my clients here. And you should know that.
Oh... you can be dismissive: "obviously, you don't run a web shop."
And claim to be open to discussion: "I'm happy to have a more reasonable discussion anytime."
But when challenged prove your credentials or to back up what you say... you bail with some lame excuse.
If your work is any good it should stand on its own and your clients' should appreciate the hits on their web sites!
Oh... you can be dismissive: "obviously, you don't run a web shop."
And claim to be open to discussion: "I'm happy to have a more reasonable discussion anytime."
But when challenged prove your credentials or to back up what you say... you bail with some lame excuse.
If your work is any good it should stand on its own and your clients' should appreciate the hits on their web sites!
Is that unreasonable?
.
since you've worked in the industry, or have, you know very well the reason. I don't think they would appreciate being highlighted in the middle of a ridiculous forum spate in public. I speak for myself, not them.
I was dismissive because the opinion given didn't take into account many things that someone who does this for a living needs to consider. Anyone here who knows what I'm talking about can jump in.
I don't think though, being a little dismissive, is the same as asserting someone said something over and over again when obviously, they didn't.
How would you go about developing that project with all those requirements, without flash? Without removing -any- quality or features?
And if the company says, they aren't interested in seo, and they want a full screen experience as described with super hi res imagery. Can you detail how that would be accomplished, and can you provide fully working commercial examples? and if the development costs are higher, cna you justify to the client why you wouldn't use flash since it is targeted to desktop users who are most likely to have the flash plugin.
i see what you did there... you're trying to turn the argument around. since i 'obviously don't run a web shop', shall we ask the group here? up to you to post the link...
in my opinion (as an 'obvious non-webshop running' user of the internet), this kind of site is a perfect example of somebody's idea of 'cool' having run amok. the virtual space set-up doesn't add any value to the information to be conveyed. the vr versions of the art could probably have been video loops that don't depend on flash being present and i'm sure the navigation panel could have been done in css (again, speaking as a 'non-web shop running' potential customer).
now - that may have not put as much food on your personal table, but it probably could have saved the canadian tax payer some money in the long run...
i think you have to stop thinking of this discussion as a personal attack on your livelihood. i didn't judge the work, i think it's well done! i just question whether flash was the only way to go. while it's likely easier for you to do that kind of work in flash, i don't think that it's reason enough to push adobe's 'platform' onto our iDevices.
flash is on its way out. no big deal.
oh: quality of features don't do me any good if i can't see the content.
"Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen responded by saying that Adobe views the world as multi-platform and open, while Apple does not. He also said that Mac OS X crashes involving Flash are the fault of "the Apple operating system,"
If you read about how deeply the Flash plug-in hooks into the OS - WAY different from any other browser plug-in - then you realize that this CEO is full of $hit!
Also, read about how the Adobe Creative Suite also does the same. It's the only 3rd party software that Apple allows access to EFI and launchd.
I was dismissive because the opinion given didn't take into account many things that someone who does this for a living needs to consider. Anyone here who knows what I'm talking about can jump in.
snip?
i do invite you to go back to post you dismissed, and tell me where that applies...
i see what you did there... you're trying to turn the argument around. since i 'obviously don't run a web shop', shall we ask the group here? up to you to post the link...
in my opinion (as an 'obvious non-webshop running' user of the internet), this kind of site is a perfect example of somebody's idea of 'cool' having run amok. the virtual space set-up doesn't add any value to the information to be conveyed. the vr versions of the art could probably have been video loops that don't depend on flash being present and i'm sure the navigation panel could have been done in css (again, speaking as a 'non-web shop running' potential customer).
now - that may have not put as much food on your personal table, but it probably could have saved the canadian tax payer some money in the long run...
i think you have to stop thinking of this discussion as a personal attack on your livelihood. i didn't judge the work, i think it's well done! i just question whether flash was the only way to go. while it's likely easier for you to do that kind of work in flash, i don't think that it's reason enough to push adobe's 'platform' onto our iDevices.
flash is on its way out. no big deal.
oh: quality of features don't do me any good if i can't see the content.
ok granted, it's your opinion. I don't personally know of anyway to recreate that though there are likely ways you possibly could, I don't know.
But, putting that question aside, why not flash is their question. I was able to produce it pretty quickly, and under budget, and gave them a hell of a presentation. Their target are people with flash on their desktops, and they've indicated interest in a mobile version down the road. If I'm asked, I will suggest NOT flash, that I can assure you.
Issues facing me, are not only just what technology and what's cool to use or not, but which one offers me the best platform to do it efficiently and on budget. Often with requirements like those ones, I'm afraid flash often will fit that bill. It isn't like I use flash just cause I wanna...
I'll use whatever the hell works and gets me a paycheque. And, at the end of the day, regardless of all the banter here, and on other forums, that's what will drive developers like myself to either use, or not use flash, not cause we -think- it's cool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHKOsta
I'm getting tired of this. Apple should just put up the five billion and take control of Adobe.
you know I had said once that I thought that would be a really really bad idea. But after all this crap and hellabaloo, perhaps that would be the best thing.
Comments
obviously, you don't run a web shop.
Why don't you link to some of your better sites...
... 2-3 should should showcase your work?
.
oh goody...
now, i don't want to out your work here, but i have had a look at the art exhibit (you posted a link to it elsewhere) and tell me if you couldn't have done that without flash and the inevitable and complete fail on my iphone. there doesn't seem to be any non-flash version that it degrades to. i tried to find its content on google, but could only find mention of it on other sites, which makes me think that it wasn't optimised for search engines and is therefore invisible to the greater masses.
i'm curious to hear what the motivation was to do that in flash, when (only in my opinion as an 'obvious non web shop runner') that could have been accomplished without the flash lock in. was it easier? was it more efficient? did the client ask for it? did you try to talk him out of it? was it not optimised for search because of budget constraints?
would it in the end not have been better not to have to worry about all those issues by providing the information in a standard compliant way?
Optimizing for search lies in the html, not in the flash code.
Optimizing for search lies in the html, not in the flash code.
i realise that. but if you develop in flash, it's your responsibility to make that happen, correct? if you make the choice to use flash for a complete site, you have to jump through a few extra hoops to make it behave as expected by a client, ie. show up in a google search. it doesn't happen by itself through adobe magic...
oh goody...
now, i don't want to out your work here, but i have had a look at the art exhibit (you posted a link to it elsewhere) and tell me if you couldn't have done that without flash and the inevitable and complete fail on my iphone. there doesn't seem to be any non-flash version that it degrades to. i tried to find its content on google, but could only find mention of it on other sites, which makes me think that it wasn't optimised for search engines and is therefore invisible to the greater masses.
i'm curious to hear what the motivation was to do that in flash, when (only in my opinion as an 'obvious non web shop runner') that could have been accomplished without the flash lock in. was it easier? was it more efficient? did the client ask for it? did you try to talk him out of it? was it not optimised for search because of budget constraints?
would it in the end not have been better not to have to worry about all those issues by providing the information in a standard compliant way?
I won't discuss my specific work here, as I don't trust any of the trolls here, and it isn't appropiate. But If you have a major project contracted to you by a major organization with already the requirements, technology, and strategy pre determined, you fulfil what's expected if you like paying your rent. If you get involved in major projects using super hi res imagery shown in full screen you likely aren't going to try and dumb things down to try and fit that sort of high end imagery in a tiny screen. You will develop a presentation specifically formatted for phones. Flash is very well suited for stitching super hi res images together on the fly to create huge panoramas, and, reducing and enlarging the images with practically no image quality loss or pixelation. If I find other production practical methods of doing it outside of flash, I may implement it sometime.
Often I don't have any control over implementation if I didn't initiate the project, so I can't comment on seo in those cases. I just deliver the files. That's the nature of business, you can do what you do best, and in some cases, you have little say. But flash very much has seo capabilities, you just have to know how to implement them.
Often I find discussions about replacing flash somewhat pointless, as the point is lost in there somewhere after you've simply tried to recreate the same effects in another technology. It isn't as some here will have you believe about that, certainly not now, and likely in the short term.
Flash is still a great technology for big presentations, but sure it's not the only one. Currently for phones flash is a bit of a non starter, but the next year or so will show if it survives at all.
I think the whole thing is a huge bit of drama with an awful lot of myths and shrieking on both sides. I develop projects in a multitude of different technologies, and just find some of the comments show clearly they don't understand production, or this industry at all.
Why don't you link to some of your better sites...
... 2-3 should should showcase your work?
.
after being call anti apple, adobe shill liar, etc., and the tone around here, not bloody likely. It isn't appropriate to include the names of my clients here. And you should know that.
well, i've read his posts longer than you have and i don't share your perception.
+++++++ qft
Let me teach you something about the CSS standards process. Anything that is already in a sufficiently agreed-upon standard may be written by its own name; anything else, even if it is in fact supported across all browsers, must be given a "-" prefix followed by the browser implementation name.
Thank you for your informative reply. I guess the reason it doesn't work in FF is because it is "vendor specific" to webkit not proprietary as I may have misspoken. Nevertheless, since that code as written, is not recognized universally, in order for it to work in other browsers, a developer would have code redundantly using the equivalent vendor specific prefixes for any other browsers they wish to target, assuming that the targeted browser does in fact implement the desired feature.
when someone starts flinging liar and shill, there's no chance of reasonable discussion, so why bother. I couldn't care less if they have 10 kazillion posts.
He's been told numerous times I have no 'proof', yet he still repeats I said it.
This kind of thing is called, 'trolling...'
Trolling is when someone joins a thread just to do things like: antagonize other posters; disrupt the discussion; post contrary opinions; confuse the topic with ever-changing positions and circular arguments!
Let's see do we know of anyone here who:
1) Has joined the AI site within the last 13 days
2) Has made over 100 posts
3) the bulk of which fit the categorization above
If you are not a troll, what are you? The fairy princess? Robin Hood? The Queen Mum?
.
Trolling is when someone joins a thread just to do things like: antagonize other posters; disrupt the discussion; post contrary opinions; confuse the topic with ever-changing positions and circular arguments!
Let's see do we know of anyone here who:
1) Has joined the AI site within the last 13 days
2) Has made over 100 posts
3) the bulk of which fit the categorization above
If you are not a troll, what are you? The fairy princess? Robin Hood? The Queen Mum?
.
yes you've said this before. However, you've never actually pointed how, I'm a troll. Trolls aren't limited to new members, on another mac site I have been a member of since 2003, there's a number of trolls, who have been there for quite sometime.
The guy you just love read has consistently, misrepresented what I said many times over, and has asserted several times I said something, when I didn't I asked several times to point out where, never to get a response.
That sir, IS A TROLL.
And here is a good example:
You're the one claiming it's proven so we want you to prove it. Pretty fraking straightforward.
No one here has made claims about unannounced products so we wouldn't say that the next iPhone or iPad will or won't be better.
Most of here like to use facts that are backed up. You should try it sometime.
I asked him where I said that. He comes up with all these things I apparently said, but I never said them. I said all along, I saw the beta player on a phone, it looked good to me, and beyond that and hearing reports from other developers, I have no proof. And I never hear back. Funny.
That, is a TROLL.
I won't discuss my specific work here, as I don't trust any of the trolls here, and it isn't appropiate. But If you have a major project contracted to you by a major organization with already the requirements, technology, and strategy pre determined, you fulfil what's expected if you like paying your rent. If you get involved in major projects using super hi res imagery shown in full screen you likely aren't going to try and dumb things down to try and fit that sort of high end imagery in a tiny screen. You will develop a presentation specifically formatted for phones. Flash is very well suited for stitching super hi res images together on the fly to create huge panoramas, and, reducing and enlarging the images with practically no image quality loss or pixelation. If I find other production practical methods of doing it outside of flash, I may implement it sometime.
Often I don't have any control over implementation if I didn't initiate the project, so I can't comment on seo in those cases. I just deliver the files. That's the nature of business, you can do what you do best, and in some cases, you have little say. But flash very much has seo capabilities, you just have to know how to implement them.
Often I find discussions about replacing flash somewhat pointless, as the point is lost in there somewhere after you've simply tried to recreate the same effects in another technology. It isn't as some here will have you believe about that, certainly not now, and likely in the short term.
Flash is still a great technology for big presentations, but sure it's not the only one. Currently for phones flash is a bit of a non starter, but the next year or so will show if it survives at all.
I think the whole thing is a huge bit of drama with an awful lot of myths and shrieking on both sides. I develop projects in a multitude of different technologies, and just find some of the comments show clearly they don't understand production, or this industry at all.
... and yet there you go again with dropping in the 'troll' 'shrieking' and the like...
the point i tried to make with that example is this: flash is probably not needed, the seo is not working, it doesn't degrade gracefully to non-flash users. when you call the process to produce a site that works without flash 'dumbing down', you have attached a value judgement to that process.
i would think of it as 'smarting up'. if you don't need to do the extra work to make sure the search engines can see it, that no visitors / potential customers get locked out, by forsaking proprietary solutions from a single vendor, how can that be a bad thing?
i understand that you may not have initiated the project, had a choice in what technology you use, but somebody failed the client initially by going that route. they have provided a workflow lock-in to the client that makes sure they get paid again when it's time to change it.
that might make it a good business decision in the short run, but philosophically it's wrong, technically it's not needed and in the long term it's likely going to be abandoned.
... and yet there you go again with dropping in the 'troll' 'shrieking' and the like...
the point i tried to make with that example is this: flash is probably not needed, the seo is not working, it doesn't degrade gracefully to non-flash users. when you call the process to produce a site that works without flash 'dumbing down', you have attached a value judgement to that process.
i would think of it as 'smarting up'. if you don't need to do the extra work to make sure the search engines can see it, that no visitors / potential customers get locked out, by forsaking proprietary solutions from a single vendor, how can that be a bad thing?
i understand that you may not have initiated the project, had a choice in what technology you use, but somebody failed the client initially by going that route. they have provided a workflow lock-in to the client that makes sure they get paid again when it's time to change it.
that might make it a good business decision in the short run, but philosophically it's wrong, technically it's not needed and in the long term it's likely going to be abandoned.
ok, say you're presented with the project.
How would you go about developing that project with all those requirements, without flash? Without removing -any- quality or features?
And if the company says, they aren't interested in seo, and they want a full screen experience as described with super hi res imagery. Can you detail how that would be accomplished, and can you provide fully working commercial examples? and if the development costs are higher, cna you justify to the client why you wouldn't use flash since it is targeted to desktop users who are most likely to have the flash plugin.
1. They are appealing to american core "value" of freedom even though this issue has nothing to do with freedom.
2. The web is only free if there is a free or at least open standard like HTML5 to serve content.
The way I see this is just trying to make an issue about freedom and make uninformed people believe that this is some sort of moral issue. In fact this is a technology issue. One technology is closed and proprietary, another more open (h.264 is still proprietary, but not HTML tags). One technology has fallen behind and is a resource hog, another is forward looking with a lot of potential and is less resource intensive.
Just like my signiture says Adobe has 2 options - drastically improve flash and FAST or get out of the internet to be replaced by an internet standard.
obviously, you don't run a web shop.
noooo no no. I was called an adobe shill, liar, anti apple and all kinds of things a long time ago. Here and in other threads.
I'm happy to have a more reasonable discussion anytime.
Why don't you link to some of your better sites...
... 2-3 should should showcase your work?
.
after being call anti apple, adobe shill liar, etc., and the tone around here, not bloody likely. It isn't appropriate to include the names of my clients here. And you should know that.
Oh... you can be dismissive: "obviously, you don't run a web shop."
And claim to be open to discussion: "I'm happy to have a more reasonable discussion anytime."
But when challenged prove your credentials or to back up what you say... you bail with some lame excuse.
If your work is any good it should stand on its own and your clients' should appreciate the hits on their web sites!
Is that unreasonable?
.
Oh... you can be dismissive: "obviously, you don't run a web shop."
And claim to be open to discussion: "I'm happy to have a more reasonable discussion anytime."
But when challenged prove your credentials or to back up what you say... you bail with some lame excuse.
If your work is any good it should stand on its own and your clients' should appreciate the hits on their web sites!
Is that unreasonable?
.
since you've worked in the industry, or have, you know very well the reason. I don't think they would appreciate being highlighted in the middle of a ridiculous forum spate in public. I speak for myself, not them.
I was dismissive because the opinion given didn't take into account many things that someone who does this for a living needs to consider. Anyone here who knows what I'm talking about can jump in.
I don't think though, being a little dismissive, is the same as asserting someone said something over and over again when obviously, they didn't.
Do you?
ok, say you're presented with the project.
How would you go about developing that project with all those requirements, without flash? Without removing -any- quality or features?
And if the company says, they aren't interested in seo, and they want a full screen experience as described with super hi res imagery. Can you detail how that would be accomplished, and can you provide fully working commercial examples? and if the development costs are higher, cna you justify to the client why you wouldn't use flash since it is targeted to desktop users who are most likely to have the flash plugin.
i see what you did there... you're trying to turn the argument around. since i 'obviously don't run a web shop', shall we ask the group here? up to you to post the link...
in my opinion (as an 'obvious non-webshop running' user of the internet), this kind of site is a perfect example of somebody's idea of 'cool' having run amok. the virtual space set-up doesn't add any value to the information to be conveyed. the vr versions of the art could probably have been video loops that don't depend on flash being present and i'm sure the navigation panel could have been done in css (again, speaking as a 'non-web shop running' potential customer).
now - that may have not put as much food on your personal table, but it probably could have saved the canadian tax payer some money in the long run...
i think you have to stop thinking of this discussion as a personal attack on your livelihood. i didn't judge the work, i think it's well done! i just question whether flash was the only way to go. while it's likely easier for you to do that kind of work in flash, i don't think that it's reason enough to push adobe's 'platform' onto our iDevices.
flash is on its way out. no big deal.
oh: quality of features don't do me any good if i can't see the content.
If you read about how deeply the Flash plug-in hooks into the OS - WAY different from any other browser plug-in - then you realize that this CEO is full of $hit!
Also, read about how the Adobe Creative Suite also does the same. It's the only 3rd party software that Apple allows access to EFI and launchd.
snip
I was dismissive because the opinion given didn't take into account many things that someone who does this for a living needs to consider. Anyone here who knows what I'm talking about can jump in.
snip?
i do invite you to go back to post you dismissed, and tell me where that applies...
i see what you did there... you're trying to turn the argument around. since i 'obviously don't run a web shop', shall we ask the group here? up to you to post the link...
in my opinion (as an 'obvious non-webshop running' user of the internet), this kind of site is a perfect example of somebody's idea of 'cool' having run amok. the virtual space set-up doesn't add any value to the information to be conveyed. the vr versions of the art could probably have been video loops that don't depend on flash being present and i'm sure the navigation panel could have been done in css (again, speaking as a 'non-web shop running' potential customer).
now - that may have not put as much food on your personal table, but it probably could have saved the canadian tax payer some money in the long run...
i think you have to stop thinking of this discussion as a personal attack on your livelihood. i didn't judge the work, i think it's well done! i just question whether flash was the only way to go. while it's likely easier for you to do that kind of work in flash, i don't think that it's reason enough to push adobe's 'platform' onto our iDevices.
flash is on its way out. no big deal.
oh: quality of features don't do me any good if i can't see the content.
ok granted, it's your opinion. I don't personally know of anyway to recreate that though there are likely ways you possibly could, I don't know.
But, putting that question aside, why not flash is their question. I was able to produce it pretty quickly, and under budget, and gave them a hell of a presentation. Their target are people with flash on their desktops, and they've indicated interest in a mobile version down the road. If I'm asked, I will suggest NOT flash, that I can assure you.
Issues facing me, are not only just what technology and what's cool to use or not, but which one offers me the best platform to do it efficiently and on budget. Often with requirements like those ones, I'm afraid flash often will fit that bill. It isn't like I use flash just cause I wanna...
I'll use whatever the hell works and gets me a paycheque. And, at the end of the day, regardless of all the banter here, and on other forums, that's what will drive developers like myself to either use, or not use flash, not cause we -think- it's cool.
I'm getting tired of this. Apple should just put up the five billion and take control of Adobe.
you know I had said once that I thought that would be a really really bad idea. But after all this crap and hellabaloo, perhaps that would be the best thing.
Yeah I just said htat.
The results of the latest Mefeedia survey were posted Thursday. Here's the takeaway:
26% of all video is now available in H.264, up from 10% in January (from Apple 2.0)