Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:27:53 +0000 From: Da Rock <rock_on_the_web@hotmail.com> To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: what happened to linuxflashplugin? Message-ID: <BAY143-W15238CA399FD70FBC973BE8D2B0@phx.gbl> In-Reply-To: <47B1F890.1090408@chuckr.org> References: <47AFC80B.8090303@gmail.com> <20080211211052.X5691@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <47B0AF73.6030901@chuckr.org> <200802112304.09906.jonathan%2Bfreebsd-questions@hst.org.za> <47B1F890.1090408@chuckr.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:50:40 -0500 > From: chuckr@chuckr.org > To: jonathan+freebsd-questions@hst.org.za > CC: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? >=20 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >=20 > 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. >>=20 >> Just to provide a counterpoint to this sweeping generalisation, I browse= =20 >> without a Flash player and it's never caused me any problem at all. >>=20 >> There are a few sites which don't work without Flash. Having checked on = a=20 >> number of occasions, I've found (and I stress this is a personal opinion= )=20 >> that heavy use of Flash is a fairly reliable marker of a site I wouldn't= be=20 >> interested in whatever publishing techniques were used. >>=20 >> It's rather like the old saying in the British advertising industry: onl= y sing=20 >> in an ad if you have nothing to say. >>=20 >> How does Flash fit in with accessibility guidelines? In many countries, = a=20 >> commercial site which doesn't degrade gracefully when viewed with (eg) L= ynx=20 >> may fall foul of legislation protecting people with disabilities such as= =20 >> visual impairment. >=20 > You know, there are some folks out there who are still using their old M3= 2 > 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 browsin= g > 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. W= hy > 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 t= o > 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. >=20 > I personally tried to fix things, got soundly beaten to death over it (an= d > 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 thing= s > will finally improve, maybe when enough folks realize they don't have to > put up with this. >=20 >=20 >>=20 >> In short, I think ``half of the entire Web using Flash'' may be a bit of= an=20 >> overstatement even if you count Flash ad banners (which frankly I can do= =20 >> without), and the small number of Flash-only sites I encounter hasn't ca= used=20 >> me temporary inconvenience, never mind ``a huge problem''. >>=20 >> Jonathan >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.= org" >=20 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >=20 > iD8DBQFHsfiQz62J6PPcoOkRAu6/AKCArtXTPwLGKD0xN+r6MG8fk+wEUwCglafp > Al9ztYns1ZHDV7IQ8foSU7o=3D > =3D1fY6 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.o= rg" That was a right pretty speech there, and I agree with the sentiments of mo= ving forward with technology. However, I disagree that this is merely a cas= e backward compatibility. Are you aware that the w3 consortium has web acce= ssibility 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.=20 Consider also the fact that most designers simply use flash because they ca= n't design properly and use other more accessible methods to achieve the sa= me thing. I agree that a fix needs to be found, but this is not a "cave man" mentalit= y, and we're not bringing up old war stories. The fact that this has not be= en all that successful given the larger number of sites now designed with f= lash 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 preferabl= e. _________________________________________________________________ It's simple! Sell your car for just $30 at CarPoint.com.au http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fsecure%2Dau%2Eimrworldwid= e%2Ecom%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Fa%2Fci%5F450304%2Fet%5F2%2Fcg%5F801459%2Fpi%5F1004813= %2Fai%5F859641&_t=3D762955845&_r=3Dtig_OCT07&_m=3DEXT=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BAY143-W15238CA399FD70FBC973BE8D2B0>