Re: FLASH: Re: industry standard, was Site Check.

[Jayma]

Ok, I just got into a big thing about this tonight.



While I know that it is necessary to allow older browsers access to a commercial site, these are also the sites that  "help" move things forward.  


We came up against... do we make a nice presentation across all browsers and platforms... or, do we spend our budget making a great presentation for newer browsers and a text-only version for the others (what they were paying for).  I was responsible for the Flash presentation, and my boss was doing the text only version.  Part way thru making a nice html version (of his own accord), he realized "why am I spending my own valuable time making this text-only version?"  "Text-only" is just that.  If they want a site that is just the text and nothing else, then give them that... other then that, give them the option to upgrade.


I just feel that if we keep designing to please everyone, we will limit our forward progress.  Yes, it would be nice to be able to make everyone happy and allow them a nice interface, no matter what, but...  and it is a big BUT...  where do you draw the line on a limited budget?


> John Croteau wrote:
>
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> > Since most people on this List have fast computers with large screens, Graphic Cards that support high resolutions, lots of memory and
> >
> > available hard disk space  should we assume others can easily afford
> >
> > these things, too? If you start designing for a better resolution the
> >
> > public WILL follow. I think not.
> Well i was gona keep my big mouth shut on this one, but leave it to John to screw that up<g>
>
>
> I agree totally. No matter how bad we want people to view our work with the latest and greatest equipment which some of it deserves, WE simply do not really drive this
>
> industry. Its the viewers. We create a really cool effect or something new and the
>
> first "spectator" of our work usually doesnt even notice "Oh is that that internet thingy"?
>
> The only work that really stands out is noticed by either a developer or someone who
>
> surfs the net alot and sees that Flash is a truely different "web" experience. These people
>
> fall into a very, very small bracket. Also most professional developers here HAVE to develop
>
> for a client who, in turn, wants his product or services to be accessable to the masses, period,
>
> no matter how "Flashy",  musical or interactive a website is. Because of this we HAVE to
>
> develop for, maybe not the lowest common denominator, but the fairly low common
>
> denominator. Ive seen great flash sites that dont work with IE3.0.
>
> Guess what, there are still millions using IE3.0
>
>
> What are you gona tell your client when the CEO personally visits his website using IE3.0, because WIN 95 is still on his office p133?
>
>
> To think we are gona start some kind of  "revolution" on the internet to make people upgrade is a waste of energy. Simply producing well developed Flash sites is the only way. When I mean
>
> "well", I mean for "everyone" possible. Cross platforms have been a Web developer's nightmare since
>
> the beginning and it still will be. Something we gotta face, period. However Flash CAN be developed
>
> for the masses to a certain extent. I believe thats where we need to focus our attention.
>
>
> An "intranet" might be exposed to a revolution, but the "Internet", noway, only evolution.
>
>
> my 2 or 3 or..
>
>
> -DG-  




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