On Apr 19, 8:11 pm, sutra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tried Flex when it was still in Beta, didn't like it. It was too heavy > for my taste.
Me, too! Thanks for saying that, sutra ... it sometimes feels like criticism is worse than blasphemy ;) @ QuadCom: 2007 estimates (UK, it might be different elsewhere) : Flash penetration 54%, Javascript 89%. Which is why I'm busting a gut with jQuery. Regarding the missing 11% / 46%, it's a lot easier to provide unobtrusive server-side alternatives to Javascript than Flash ... correct me if I'm wrong, I'm here to learn! Cherry On Apr 19, 8:11 pm, sutra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > QuadCom, thanks > I checked the source code before posting. I thought it was flash. Now > I remember I tried out a Flex image gallery that uses SWF and feeds > the data via XML. > > Tried Flex when it was still in Beta, didn't like it. It was too heavy > for my taste. > > sutra > > On Apr 19, 9:08 am, QuadCom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This site was built using Adobe Flex. When Flex 2.0 was released they > > had a demo application that was identical (other than the colour > > scheme). Flex isn't too difficult to learn and probably something that > > a savvy web developer should have in their toolbox.I use jQuery quite > > a bit and I will still be using Flex with my clients. > > > Although jQuery is an absolutely incredible framework. It shouldn't be > > the only 'swiss army knife' you use. > > > Just my 2cents.
