>Loved it!

>One thing, I appreciate the design advantage of the ultra small text on
>the Intro page, but for old guys like me it does get to be a strain.
>And there is not *that* many years between us, you'll find out soon.

Thanks for your warm support Jim ! and sorry for your eyes... maybe I could
make something.
You and me, we know now what rheumatism means every morning ! ;-))))

>The MoMA ... Sometimes the art comes first.
Jim, you're my best english language lawyer! perfect, nothing to add.


Rene
http://rene.bui.free.fr - online portfolio

Post a reply to this message

>Might be. I still just _can't_ see the page, so I have no idea, how he
>has used flash.
My website is *not* 100% flash, so I encourage you to try again (see the
very small html link on the intro page) even if you cannot visit all the
site and don't forget your magnifier.



Rene
http://rene.bui.free.fr - online portfolio

Post a reply to this message

Rene Bui wrote:
>>Might be. I still just _can't_ see the page, so I have no idea, how he
>>has used flash.
> 
> My website is *not* 100% flash, so I encourage you to try again (see the
> very small html link on the intro page) even if you cannot visit all the
> site and don't forget your magnifier.

Nope. But when I tried, I think the first page was (then there wasn't 
that small link).

But now, after getting in, the site itself is nice. Clean and original 
layout and desing. Good work :).

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

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:


> 
> 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.
> 

Okay, just so that I am clear,  if you were running 32-bit Linux would 
you be able to have Flash support?


> 
> 
> Could be true. Is the presentation dependant of flash? 

I am not technical enough to answer that.  Primarily his presentation is 
   of his work in several an automated slide shows with fading segues. 
Each has the option of clicking through manually.  The slide show seems 
nice to me because some of his work is photography, and with the rest, 
quoting the effects of photo and mass media is a strain that runs 
through his style.  Also, taking some power out of the hands of the 
viewer and forcing them to view the work on the work's terms is 
appropriate and interesting in its effect.

Would it suffer
> considerably loss without it? 

One answer is with a question:  how considerable is "considerable?" 
That was part of my reason for telling the Carl Andre story.  For Andre 
the presentation of the sculpture was indistinguishable from the 
sculpture. Might seem minor to many, to him it was everything. With Rene 
I would doubt the link is so close, but the effect of the slide show 
builds on certain traits of his style.  Really I would think that the 
variety of possibilities for interpreting his art would supersede any 
one presentation method in the case of this artist.


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.
>

"Web site" seems like a serviceable enough term to me.

Post a reply to this message

Rene Bui wrote:
> enjoy
> 
> Rene
> http://rene.bui.free.fr

Very nice. Keep the flash. A personal page is your one chance to do 
exactly what you want. Other's here have made pages that intentionally 
ignored IE layout inconsistencies. Not like you're selling anything.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Okay, just so that I am clear,  if you were running 32-bit Linux would 
> you be able to have Flash support?

Yes.

>>
>> Could be true. Is the presentation dependant of flash? 
> 
> 
> I am not technical enough to answer that.  Primarily his presentation is 

I still haven't seen the flash -version, but now when I've seen the site 
without flash-support, I'd say it's really nice without flash. If the 
flash-version is better, it has to be reeeally nice.

> Would it suffer
> 
>> considerably loss without it? 
> 
> 
> One answer is with a question:  how considerable is "considerable?" That 

The loss is considerable if Bui thinks so; it's totally up to him. It 
seems that the loss is not considerable, 'cause now he does have a 
non-flash version. If the flash was only used to choose language, which 
Slime's post did say (or at least I read it so), the lost most propably 
ain't considerable.

> 
> 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.
>>
> 
> "Web site" seems like a serviceable enough term to me.

Have to say I don't get the "serviceable" here. Might be the slow mind 
of mine right now, but I just don't understand this. Meaning you 
understand my opinion, or that you disagree with my opinion? Or 
something else?

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

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:

>>
>> "Web site" seems like a serviceable enough term to me.
> 
> 
> Have to say I don't get the "serviceable" here. Might be the slow mind 
> of mine right now, but I just don't understand this. Meaning you 
> understand my opinion, or that you disagree with my opinion? Or 
> something else?
> 
I just meant that Flash or no Flash I would call it a web site.  Mostly 
because there is not other term for it that would have broad 
understanding.  Maybe "Flash Clip Site" would be more palatable let's 
say, but far fewer people would recognize what was meant, a speaker 
using that term would just have to clarify his/her meaning "I mean a web 
site that depends on Flash"

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter wrote:

> I just meant that Flash or no Flash I would call it a web site.  Mostly 
> because there is not other term for it that would have broad 
> understanding.  Maybe "Flash Clip Site" would be more palatable let's 
> say, but far fewer people would recognize what was meant, a speaker 
> using that term would just have to clarify his/her meaning "I mean a web 
> site that depends on Flash"

Ah, I see. I you do have a point there, the understanding matter.

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

Post a reply to this message