RE: FLASH: SVG?

[Arcanus]

Damien Morton wrote:


>Im not a huge fan of it either. On the other hand, I do remember a time when

>browsers had all kinds of external helper programs so that you could see

>various media types. At that time, JPEG wasnt supported in browsers, and

>instead I had a wonderfull program called JPEGview or somesuch. So, even

>though the browser-does-everything concept kind of irks me, for most people,

>having the browser do a huge range of things is a desireable goal.


It's just that eventually the bloat gets in the way. Not that I don't 

like Flash, it's just that there comes a point where certain functions 

are handed better by a vertical app, not a single browser that does 

everything. I'd love to see Flash (or SVG) browsers, PDF browsers 

(Acrobat Reader implemented as a TCP/IP network client) and so on, and I 

would expect great type and still art and mesh gradients and transparency 

and so on in the PDF browser and more audio animation coolness in the 

Flash browser and so on. Of course, I might not feel that way if it 

didn't seem that so many sites shoehorn technology into the site that 

doesn't really help it. 


>I dont know about you, but Ive seen some wonderfull Flash-based sites. I

>also happen to think that HTML and the web has been a great leap backwards

>in terms of interactive design.


I don't disagree with that, but I think at least part of that is directly 

because the rush, via plug-ins, to shoehorn much more dynamic 

interactivity into the Web, rather than building new clients on the 

protocol . . . I have seen some very nice Flash-based sites where the 

design was second-to-none and the interactivity was fabulous. However, 

given the choice, I only use the Flash version if they make me in order 

to get what I want to get to. As a rule, there isn't much that I actually 

need Flash to achieve--whether it's technical information, downloading a 

driver, and so on. But some sites make you, so I do.


> They know its possible, and its getting very very hard to

>distinguish themselves using traditional web-technologies.


Unless your product is entertainment content, it's largely impossible, 

even with Flash or QT or SVG or whatever. Format is not distinguishing, 

so all that's left, IMO, is what you stick in it. If everything is 

Flashed, then everyone has cool type blowing in and out with sound and 

interactivity and Matrixy vector FX and it shortly ceases to distinguish 

one. Some sites make heavy use of Javascript and/or Java and/or DHTML for 

the interface (and some very big, big sites) and, except for when all the 

planets align, the performance and functionality is usually abysmal. I 

was never big fan of frames but I'll take frames to offer suboptions over 

menus that lethargically roll out and then stick and then, after a while, 

I can finally click on something, sometimes, and occasionally it takes me 

to the next page. I'm sure on some browser, on some platform, on some 

computer, with some connection this works, but not with me and at least 

with Flash-enabled sites I usually get an alternative.


>Whats the advantage of XML in this situation? It meshes with a huge

>information infrastructure that grows day by day. If your content is going

>to be dynamiclly generated in any way manner or form, an XML representation

>is way to go. This doesnt necessarily exclude Flash or Generator, but if

>you're working with XML from the bottom up, then there are far less

>conceptual shifts to go through to get the job done.


XML, in general, sounds so much better than what we've currently got that 

I don't dare to hope. It's getting to the point where authoring for ever 

configuration is impossible, and even worse, where I as a lowly Internet 

surfer run into sites that work differently, and often not all, amongst 

the many different versions of browsers that populate my various 

machines, acrosss my two platforms and 4 OS versions, not to mention my 

Visor (the Browser being the only thing yet to crash the PalmOS on my 

Visor). Additionally, folding in new capabilities takes forever or 

doesn't happen making it very tough to launch vertical solutions to 

delivering a particular kind of content . . . and on and on. I have yet 

to see any working solutions, though. So I still don't dare to hope . . .


>Im definately with you on this. Any client coming to me talking SVG as a

>possible solution will be firmly directed to consider Flash. On the other

>hand, I would prefer an open standard to a proprietary one. At some point

>the options will open up.


I don't doubt it, but it will have to be about more than delivering 

vector graphic interactivity. Plus, doesn't Macromedia keep the published 

.swf spec current? I haven't really paid much attention, but for Adobe to 

write it and for QuickTime to read it you'd figure they've got to be 

pretty forthcoming about how to work it, which tends to lessen the desire 

to find open standards solutions.


Cheers,


Kevin Willis

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

Seamless Textures for 3D, Video and Multimedia

Stressed, Aged, Dirty, New and Architectural!

New! Architectural Brick I and Cut Stone II!

New! Order the CD through PayPal--save a few bucks!

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

http://www.textureworld.com/




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NudeGuru.com is proud to sponsor the Flasher list

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        IT'S  THE  ART  OF  MONEY,  HONEY!

 Tips and Advice from some of the most popular Flash

 artists + industry power-brokers on how to hold onto

 your rights, negotiate contracts and get full value

 for your work.http://www.nudeguru.com from Franke James

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to

http://www.chinwag.com/flasher or email

helpchinwag [dot] com