On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Adam Cameron < adamcameroncoldfus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My problem with what *you* say, Ray, is your assumptions about my > motivations for saying what I did, and then continuing from there to make > assumptions about what conclusions I draw from this. Which is a bit - > uncharacteristically - rubbish of you. Especially as the conclusions you > drew for me were pretty facile. > > Eh? Well, in your further description below I think you just further affirmed what I thought of your position, which I still disagree with! ;) > That said, I think Flash was/is far more an enabler of crap than raw HTML > is. This is perhaps borne-out as not simply being a vagary of my thoughts > It is only more an enabler because it can do more. For example, if browsers did not support animated gifs, we wouldn't have them. But because they have, they are 'enabled' them. Flash can do more, therefore has the power to annoy more. HTML5 is the exact same. > on the matter, but the almost ubiquity of people thinking what's produced > in Flash is *shit*, and the variety of options available to get rid of it > from out screens. Another consideration here is that even with all Flash > blocked, I can readily use almost all websites, so this pretty much > demonstrates what people are doing with Flash is not actually... well... > useful. It's fluff around the edges. > Dude, if you don't think we won't see a giant crap load of fluff with just pure HTML than you are - respectfully - crazy. Folks are just going to change their delivery mechanism. > People do crap with HTML and JS as well, and I guess this will be on the > rise with the increased capabilities of both technologies (and browsers > running them). However I've never heard of there being a market for a > mark-up blocker like there is for Flash. > Because you can't! Heck, at least with Flash you could block it if you didn't like it. You can't block an animated HTML banner ad. Folks are going to be *begging* for a return of the Flash banner ad probably. ;) > > It's the fault of the people producing the content rather than Flash > itself, sure. I suspect this is because Flash came up in the "designer" > community, and.. err... people doing design don't usually have much of a > clue about UX (obviously there are exceptions, but they are *exceptions*), > and accordingly we just get the designer's "creativity" declaring its > presence unnecessarily on the screen, and at odds with what the user > actually wants to achieve on the web page / site. > And all that's going to change is the delivery mechanism. You've got a new way to be forced fed crap now. Awesome. ;) > Fortunately a lot of people seem to be understanding UX a bit better these > days, so I think once Flash goes the way of the dodo, the experience it > gave us will probably largely disappear too. Good riddance to bad rubbish, > I say. > I will say that UX, in general, is more thought of now then it was then. I wouldn't put the blame on Flash for that. I just think as a whole, we (the web community) are more considerate of UX now than we were back in 1990. Just like the rise of mobile has made us more considerate of mobile UX, performance, etc. There. That's perhaps better than letting you articulate my position the > basis thereof, yes? > Still wrong. :p ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:355112 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
