RE: FLASH: Publish 3 and 4

[paul wehner]

It is hard for me to feel sympathy for someone who spends $300 on flash to

create

web sites yet is not familiar with the rudiments of html.

That is not the way the world works (yet).

The html publish template is easily solved by a knowledable user.

Macromedia could have done a better job of making this

stupid proof- or at least document the quirk.



-----Original Message-----

From:

ownershocker [dot] com

 [

ownershocker [dot] com]On">mailto:ownershocker [dot] com]On

 Behalf Of Robert

Koberg

Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 2:20 AM

To:

flashershocker [dot] com

Subject: Re: FLASH: Publish 3 and 4



I bet 80% of the people on this list don't even know what this discussion is

about. They are not HTML coders.  They were given a tool and told they don't

need to know html with our handy new publish feature.


> Ok, so we are talking about publishing Flash movies, right ? A Flash3

> movie under Flash4 with proper html. I understand what you are talking

> about. A professional Flash user choses export as Flash3 and let's the

> html template on default. OK, he will be producing a Flash3 movie that

> requests a Flash4 player. If this professional user does not know what

> he is doing and finds it strange that the update kicks in when the page

> is viewed from a browser with a level 3 player then in fact this

> professional user is a diletant. I know this is rather harsh and I

> understand the in the States you might have more relaxed requirments,

> but if you are being paid for your work then you should know what you

> are doing.


Ummm... where do you think this technology is being developed (not just

MM's) and used for the most part.  Do you think its France?


>

> "Furthermore, the SW702 is the farthest thing from ridiculous.  It's an

> uphill battle that *has* to be fought, and I'm beginning to wonder if

> you've

> seen that, either.  Call a matter of opinion, but what do you do when

> it's a

> client opinion versus your own?"

>

> I did not say the SW702 was ridiculous I said and maintain that some of

> the discussion around it is. I would like to know what issues with SW702

> have not been taken up by Macromedia and that you see as concerns.

> Please refer to Macromedias statement and list of corrections as

> outlined in DM's phased approach and include only those that are not

> addressed. It will, I think be far more productive than the recent

> Macromedia bashing we have seen of late, that has evolved into personal

> bashing showing how devoid of reason it is.


Most people are finding out they want more than the bone thrown.




------------------------------------------------------------------------

To UNSUBSCRIBE send: unsubscribe flasher in the body of an

email to

list-managershocker [dot] com

.  Problems to:

ownershocker [dot] com

N.B. Email address must be the same as the one you used to subscribe.

For info on digest mode send: info flasher to

list-managershocker [dot] com