DHSOTM & Flash... {to josh}

design

#1

According to Josh in the February 2008 Dreamhost newsletter…

"It’s nice to know that some things in this world never change. Whether
it be me shamelessly plugging my birthday in the newsletter, me
shamelessly plugging my MARCH birthday in the FEBRUARY newsletter, or the DreamHost Site of the Month winner being a flash-based portfolio site:

… it’s just nice to know there are some things you can COUNT ON.

https://panel.dreamhost.com/?tree=home.dhsotm

Is where you go to submit your OWN no-shot-in-winning-unless-it’s-flash
website for the DHSOTM contest! And no, there’s no Facebook app for it."

I would just like to say… I hope this month, your dreamhosters prove you wrong Josh!!! Doubter…

I think the top sites are NON-flash based at the moment! :stuck_out_tongue:

I guess we shall see in the March Newsletter wont we… sometime in, ermm - April :wink:

~inkblot CREATIVE

And to everyone else… Go vote for some non-flashiness to clean your soul.


#2

Big grin from me on that one! :slight_smile:

–rlparker


#3

The only sites I’ve voted for used X/HTML + CSS static pages.

Call me a puritan if you must :wink:


#4

I’ve got nothing against dynamic pages, but I absolutely insist that the markup, style and feeds all validate properly.

Auto-exclude list: Frames, proprietary plug-ins like Flash, music playing, pop-ups, links that open in separate windows, mutant brain-sucking “corn organs”.

si-blog
Max discount on any plan with promocode SCJESSEYTOTAL


#5

Hey! Frames can validate (though they may still suck), and there is the occasional valid use for flash media and links that open in separate windows (when used with warning and for a reasonable purpose). :wink:

–rlparker


#6
  1. Frames can only validate when using a “frameset” DOCTYPE. That’s evil justifying evil.
  2. There are no valid uses for Flash. There aren’t even any truly valid ways of embedding Flash content because of sucky browser support. Vector graphics should be performed by native technologies like SVG. Video and audio will get better support with (X)HTML 5.
  3. Links opening in separate windows are also evil. I would prefer to choose how links open myself. Many browsers do not even support multiple windows. A “warning” (or “help” pop-up) can be performed with intelligent use of a floating DIV, or perhaps (where JavaScript isn’t supported) some assistance from session data.

I think you know by now that I am a binary person. There can be no compromise!

si-blog
Max discount on any plan with promocode SCJESSEYTOTAL


#7

You’ll get no argument from me on frames - but I still will occasionally employ an iframe or two if it is particularly useful (probably even more often when/if search engines start to read and index them).

True as that may be, we don’t yet have (X)HTML 5, and actually getting video widely distributed is, at present, I believe most easily and universally done via the .flv .

Again, all true, to a degree, but not everyone knows how to even operate a browser, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. I’m not advocating “pop-ups” at all, but there are times when I think you make things easier for a certain class of browser operator when they can just close the new window and return to what they were doing.

Of course I do … but I enjoy yanking your chain every now and then! :wink:

–rlparker


#8

Why not use instead? The iframe is just evil with an “i” in front.

si-blog
Max discount on any plan with promocode SCJESSEYTOTAL


#9

Flash based sites are cheating. If someone made that site with Javascript and .pngs, however, I’d be blown up.