"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:jjmmh3$9jb$1...@digitalmars.com... > "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructiona...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:oxkxtvkuybdommyer...@forum.dlang.org... >> On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 04:24:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >>> 2. On the web, animation means JS. >> >> css3 does animations that are pretty easy to use, >> degrade well, and tend to be fast. Moreover css >> is where it belongs anyway - it is pure presentation. >> > > Interesting, I had no idea! Thanks for the tip :) > >> Far, far superior to the JS crap. >> > > Yea, there's a lot of things that are much better done in CSS that a lot > of people don't even know about. For example, most rollovers are easily > doable in pure CSS. But there's a lot stuff out there (paricularly things > created in Adobe's "software") that use JS for rollovers, which doesn't > even work as well (even with JS on). >
Another thing is Flash. Almost *everyone* uses JS to embed flash. But *it's not needed*! I embed Flash with pure HTML and it works perfectly fine. Don't even need any server-side code! (You probably need JS to tell the user when they don't have Flash or, in some cases, when they don't have a new enough version, and suggest a download link. But including those features with JS still does *nothing* to prevent you from making the applet run without JS. And...It's not even a fallback! It's just embedding with method A instead of method B. And method A is, frankly, dead-simple.)
