Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:52:26 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? Message-ID: <20080211234905.O6779@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <47B0CDA1.9060801@student.utwente.nl> References: <47AFC80B.8090303@gmail.com> <20080211211052.X5691@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <47B0AF73.6030901@chuckr.org> <200802112304.09906.jonathan%2Bfreebsd-questions@hst.org.za> <20080211211428.GA50577@aleph.cepheid.org> <20080211223155.C6199@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <47B0CDA1.9060801@student.utwente.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> this is just example of crap-design, > > I agree. Although I don't think everybody will. i don't care what others think. >> and i simply don't view them.. > > I'm afraid it's not that simple. Counterexample: > > When I was shopping for a new parachute rig, one of the manufacturers I was > interested in turned out to have a Flash-only website. I could of course > have decided not to buy there because their website sucks, but when it > comes to equipment that's supposed to be going to save my life hundreds of > times I'd much rather base the decision on the quality of the product than > on the technical soundness of a website, thank you :-) in case of things that has very few producers you are unfortunately true. in every other, narrowing the offer to half won't be disastrous, and those who made flash-only website will lose few% of potential clients. with well designed website (i don't mean it can't have flash, but it must be usable without) everybody will read. and making all-compatible site isn't difficult. it's very easy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080211234905.O6779>