Jim Charter wrote:
> 
>  >
>  > -90% stupid users (too much flash, too big clips etc (I don't say Bui 
> is one of these - I honestly don't know);
> 
> 
> I thought he makes understated and effective use of it which enhances 
> the style and content of the work he is presenting.

Might be. I still just _can't_ see the page, so I have no idea, how he 
has used flash.

>  > these drove me off from flash first time years ago)
> 
> Of course but you are blaming the wrong thing

Some years ago my primary reason not to use flash was those stupid 
users, who bloated their sites. Surprisingly, most of these sites were 
fast and good-looking without flash. But back then, if I had flash 
installed, I couldn't choose to use it or not.

This prob with flash has decreased, but it's not entirely gone. And yes, 
this is not flash's or Macromedia's fault.

>  >
>  > -It's creator, Macromedia, which obviously has no clue 'bout hardware 
> evolutioning; my workstation is over 8 months old (hey, it's already 
> obsolete for someone in these markets) and still Macromedia just doesn't 
> support 64-bit Linux, even thou much of amd64-Linux -users has been 
> asking for it.
> 
> 
> And I sympathize.  My ISP has no Linux client and I am not about to 
> write one or find something more generic so use of Linux is a limited 
> option for me.  My employer runs a website that will only open with IE 
> so if I want to get paid I use IE.

Your ISP needs some spesific client software? I have to sympathize that. 
TCP/IP and general network support should be enough for workstation, IMO.

> One of web's great ideas is that it's not
> 
>  > platform-dependent; use of this kind of unsupported proprietary code 
> does not do that.
> 
> 
> I have always loathed Adobe Acrobat

I see some reasonable usage for Acrobat's system (manuals), but it's too 
widely wrong-used. But with PDF's the prob is smaller, they have 
open-source readers. Dunno, does Adobe support other OS's than Win and 
Linux x86 much.

>  > Currently Macromedia makes the first choice, who can
>  > see Bui's page,
> 
> No, it forces HOW you can see the page

Well, if you want to say it that way. But my guess is that seeing a 
white screen does not comply with seeing Bui's page.

>  and I don't believe that it's even what Bui primarily
> 
>  > wants.
>  >
> 
> I suppose he wants a wide audience but not necessarily at the expense of 
> his presentation.

Could be true. Is the presentation dependant of flash? Would it suffer 
considerably loss without it? If it is/if it would, using flash is at 
least reasonable. But I still don't consider a flashclip as a web site, 
no matter how cool or nice it is.

> them install the piece in the show at all!  Sometimes the art comes first.

True, sometimes, or even usually, the art comes first. Art in the museum 
has certainly a designed layout, the enviroment is clean etc. Art at the 
street might be randomly placed, there's dust, lightning is changing 
etc. At this point, both can be placed by the artist and he may like the 
layout a lot. Artist at the museum enjoys the silence and the cleaness, 
artist at the street enjoys the freeness and the possible sunlight. To 
the street everyone sees the art easily, in the museum you need to walk 
in. But if the museum has no entrance fee, it's still not the street. 
Nor is the street a museum. No matter how rude the museum is, nor how 
clean the street is.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message