On Wednesday 13 February 2008 00:27:53 Da Rock wrote: > ---------------------------------------- > > > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:50:40 -0500 > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > CC: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Jonathan McKeown wrote: > >> On Monday 11 February 2008 22:26, Chuck Robey wrote: > >>> All you folks who are focussing on YouTube are (purposefully? I don't > >>> know) the fact that with just about half of the entire Web using flash > >>> in one way or antoehr, not using Flash is a huge problem, as anyone who > >>> browses without a flashplayer knows. > >> > >> Just to provide a counterpoint to this sweeping generalisation, I browse > >> without a Flash player and it's never caused me any problem at all. > >> > >> There are a few sites which don't work without Flash. Having checked on > >> a number of occasions, I've found (and I stress this is a personal > >> opinion) that heavy use of Flash is a fairly reliable marker of a site I > >> wouldn't be interested in whatever publishing techniques were used. > >> > >> It's rather like the old saying in the British advertising industry: > >> only sing in an ad if you have nothing to say. > >> > >> How does Flash fit in with accessibility guidelines? In many countries, > >> a commercial site which doesn't degrade gracefully when viewed with (eg) > >> Lynx may fall foul of legislation protecting people with disabilities > >> such as visual impairment. > > > > You know, there are some folks out there who are still using their old > > M32 TTY's, and they can't understand why any folks would need mouses. > > Those of us who have successfully made the move to the 21st century can > > tell them, but honestly, most of us are very tired of hearing the same > > hoary old excuses why things aren't necessary. The majority of folks > > doing browsing today aren't impressed that maybe some 3rd world country > > is unhappy with flash sites, they just want their flash sites to work, > > and ours don't. Why don't they? Because everytime someone comes up with > > a workable plan, all the real cave-men out there trot out there > > war-stories, and bore us all to death with their memoirs, and endlessly > > recursive arguments. Everytime they get proven wrong on one item, they > > just move the clock back a few months, grab the previous > > self-justification, and start the argument all back up again. You can't > > out-last them. > > > > I personally tried to fix things, got soundly beaten to death over it > > (and I WILL NOT try that one again, under pain of death, sorry!). MY > > flash works here and that's all I will worry about. I can't predict when > > things will finally improve, maybe when enough folks realize they don't > > have to put up with this. > > > >> In short, I think ``half of the entire Web using Flash'' may be a bit of > >> an overstatement even if you count Flash ad banners (which frankly I can > >> do without), and the small number of Flash-only sites I encounter hasn't > >> caused me temporary inconvenience, never mind ``a huge problem''. > >> > >> Jonathan > >> _______________________________________________ > >> [email protected] mailing list > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to > >> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > > iD8DBQFHsfiQz62J6PPcoOkRAu6/AKCArtXTPwLGKD0xN+r6MG8fk+wEUwCglafp > > Al9ztYns1ZHDV7IQ8foSU7o= > > =1fY6 > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected] mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > That was a right pretty speech there, and I agree with the sentiments of > moving forward with technology. However, I disagree that this is merely a > case backward compatibility. Are you aware that the w3 consortium has web > accessibility drafting committee? > > Consider also the facts that I have brought forward that Adobe has singled > out OS's that are not allowed to run Flash Player. > > Consider also the fact that most designers simply use flash because they > can't design properly and use other more accessible methods to achieve the > same thing. > > I agree that a fix needs to be found, but this is not a "cave man" > mentality, and we're not bringing up old war stories. The fact that this > has not been all that successful given the larger number of sites now > designed with flash player 9 which has been the number one problem here. If > you have a fix I am sure we would all welcome the knowledge and use it- I > certainly would. I merely point out (hopefully reaching some web designers > and other flash fans) that flash is not the only way to go, and is > certainly not preferable.
Let me be the one to point out the (next) controversial thing: here's a perfect example why using linux binaries for stuff like this is a dead end. And don't even start about the PC-BSD folks who want to make flash9 work.... via WINE. We need a native flash or a replacement for the animation side, and where flash is merely used as a video container, we have not option but to use youitube-dl, miro, and the like. But there too, some native solution is needed, otherwise it will continue to work like crap if at all. Dan _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
