Eero Ahonen wrote:

 >> Eero Ahonen 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.

 > these drove me off from flash first time years ago)


Of course but you are blaming the wrong thing

 >
 > -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.


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

Currently Macromedia makes the first choice, who can

 > see Bui's page,


No, it forces HOW you can see the 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.

The MoMA was installing a sculpture by Carl Andre that they owned, and 
owned at considerable expense.  It was some number of, maybe 25, squares 
of copper plate tiled on the floor in a square and filling a corner at 
the inward join of two walls.  Wanting to protect their expensive 
artwork they installed the plates with some sort of drop sheet between 
them and the museum floor.  Andre goes ballistic.  He makes them take 
the installation down.  So they proceed to reinstall without the drop 
sheet.  Andre will not have it.  He is so miffed that he refuses to let 
them install the piece in the show at all!  Sometimes the art comes first.

Post a reply to this message

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

>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