Avangelist- Awfully opinionated there, aren't you? You still fail to address the fact that THOUSANDS of people are using and developing with SWFObject just fine.
Also, you've failed to make a good case as to why SWFObject is behooved to accommodate weirdnesses of plugins which are SPECIFICALLY designed to block the very kinds of content that SWFObject is often used to embed. AdBlock is used primarily as a way to avoid the annoyance (and occasional security risk) of poorly done flash ads and sites that use them all over the place. It's a user installed plugin, and it's specifically there to intercept the page, before showing it to a user, muck with it (in this case, block content), and then show it to the user. And not just AdBlock itself -- the world of user-installed plugins in general, all of which intercept and muck with pages, is a whole can of worms that is quite difficult for any project to keep up with, let alone a free open-source community like this one. The very fact that AdBlock in FF2 vs FF3 operates differently related to how it does or does not allow swfobject embedded content is a perfect example of how untenable it would be for this project to get into the business of always finding exotic ways to "trick" those user-installed plugins from being able to do the job they were designed to do. The authors of ad-block would probably counter-argue, and would certainly try to do their best to find ways to "solve" any work arounds we may come up with. And why? Because swfobject *CAN* be used by unscrupulous advertisers with poor flash/authoring skills. Therefore, it must be assumed that any method which swfobject can use to get flash on a page is subject to blocking by AdBlock. So, I'd say to you, AdBlock is doing its job quite well, and so is SWFObject. The problem for you (and other users), unfortunately, is that those goals are sometimes contrary. But that doesn't mean it's SWFObject's fault, or that coming on here and ranting about how off-track we are, is the right approach. Why not go spend some time yelling at AdBlock's authors to find a way to intelligently determine what IS an ad, and what is genuine legitimate flash content, and to only block the former, not the later? That would help us all a lot more than this current line of argument. --------------------- And since you now say you don't even have AdBlock installed... all that stuff is probably moot. It's still a valid argument as far as I'm concerned, but to your specific issues... Again, badgering us with your philosophy won't help your case any. We're all busy professionals, and we gladly help people solve problems when they politely request it. But we often tend to freeze up and suddenly be "too busy" when we're bullied around by idealogues. Since my claim, which is that SWFObject is well tested and is functioning in LOTS of sites and for LOTS AND LOTS of users, has not been refuted by you in any valid way, I continue to believe the "problem" you're having is something specific to your client/system/environment. If it's not AdBlock, it may be a corrupt flash install. Those two account for 50% of the issues we see on here. The rest is almost invariably caused by poor authorship. We provide the code generator, and if used properly, it nearly always works out-of-the-box for everyone (who's not in that first 50% where they have some client issue to address). If you can prove you are not in either of those two sets above, and that you truly have found some revolutionary problem with swfobject which none of us have caught ever before, then I'd be most interested to hear your proof and we'd jump in to figure it out. Otherwise, please try to be a little more polite on here. It helps us all have better days. --Kyle -------------------------------------------------- From: "Avangelist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:01 AM To: "SWFObject" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Having difficulty with Firefox > > Hold the frikkin phone.. Seriously think about this. > > You are all developing sites for the public. What was the point of > trying this code in the first place? > Because you wanted to have swf content on your site but didn't want to > have a blank page if the user didn't have flash player. > Rather than forcing them to move away from the site, download the > player, restart their browser by which time they have lost interest in > your site entirely. What you wanted was to serve up alternative > content hassle free - automated. > > Putting little warnings in to say turn this and that off just makes > your sites poorly designed for its visitors and increase frustration > not only for you as a developer but for the potential visitors > worldwide. You are not catering for the masses only those with full > control and more importantly be can be bothered to arse about just for > your site. > > What if it is a business where users are not able to modify their web > settings. Or anyone who doesn't want to disable Adblocker because > Mozilla didn't put it in for shits and giggles it is a valuable aspect > of their application. > > So lets stop coming up with botches for getting around what is clearly > starting to appear to be an unfinished and flawed code and push for > further development and some decent regression testing. > > I can't get it to work in IE7 or FF2/FF3. Oddly the very very first > time I ran it on a page it worked. The minute I did a force refresh > all content both swf and html disappeared. I tried an alternative swf > and still nothing. > > And if Adobe are patronising this method for future release, they > should front the dev bill. > > Someone PM me when there is an updated to this thread > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SWFObject" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/swfobject?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
