Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:04:09 +0200 From: Jonathan McKeown <jonathan+freebsd-questions@hst.org.za> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? Message-ID: <200802112304.09906.jonathan%2Bfreebsd-questions@hst.org.za> In-Reply-To: <47B0AF73.6030901@chuckr.org> References: <47AFC80B.8090303@gmail.com> <20080211211052.X5691@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <47B0AF73.6030901@chuckr.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200802112304.09906.jonathan%2Bfreebsd-questions>