Critique if Design, Feel and Innovation (if any)...
justaddice
The design direction behind this website is that it has a "luxury"
feel to it. Extravagant, yet modest. Sleek yet fulfilling.
As the bottom says, the site is still in development phases, however,
it is almost complete (just tweaking out things).
I'm not looking for a 'stardard compliance' or 'security' critique,
just design/feel, for now.
If you'd like to login to see all the content use u: test p: test
Cheers.
Daniel
Chris F.A. Johnson
> http://www.legactartistes.com
"Firefox can't find the server at www.legactartistes.com."
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfajohnson.com>
Author: =======================
Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Nik Coughlin
news:7lbk29F...@mid.individual.net...
> On 2009-11-03, justaddice wrote:
>> http://www.legactartistes.com
>
> "Firefox can't find the server at www.legactartistes.com."
I presume that's a typo of legacyartistes.com
It's a slow jerky flash site.
Chris F.A. Johnson
Horribly slow!
Flash might be appropriate for parts of the site, but it's almost
unusable as it is.
basilisk
"justaddice" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c74b34e0-22e2-45da...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
on a T1.
basilisk
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> "Chris F.A. Johnson" wrote:
>> justaddice wrote:
>>> http://www.legactartistes.com
>>
>> "Firefox can't find the server at www.legactartistes.com."
>
> I presume that's a typo of legacyartistes.com
>
> It's a slow jerky flash site.
You're one of the lucky ones ... all I see is an empty, black browser
window. :-(
Woe is me.
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
justaddice
idea).
The URL should be: http://www.legacyartistes.com
The server is in South Africa (hence the speed if you are not in the
immediate area).
I've seen the Flash intro to be jerky on some older computers (but it
runs fine on my 2 year old budget price Acer laptop).
Speed issues aside, how is the design?
Cheers.
On Nov 4, 6:13 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
rf
> Yes I'm sorry, I posted this quite late last night (not a very good
> idea).
>
> The URL should be: http://www.legacyartistes.com
Totally blank, black page, with several browsers.
justaddice
Really? Do you have HTML & JS & Flash enabled?
+mrcakey
news:c74b34e0-22e2-45da...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I grew a not insubstantial beard waiting for that to load.
--
+mrcakey
www.twitter.com/mrcakey
dorayme
<b12676e9-f17c-445c...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
justaddice <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have and it was so slow that my experience was very similar to rf's. I
got fed up of seeing basically nothing but arty logo-ish gold lettering
and lines. In a movie, there are some creative credit introductions,
sure. But the ones that give me the most confidence in what they are an
entre for are the plainest ones - so we get down to business without
messing about.
You want a critique? Don't do this, don't go there at all.
--
dorayme
justaddice
> In article
> <b12676e9-f17c-445c-be12-96b57da91...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
The intro is only about 20 seconds, and this allows time for the
'large' photos to load. If it was HTML you'd still need to wait. At
least there's something to watch while is loading in Flash. :)
But thanks for your comments all the same, they are very welcomed.
When you say its 'slow', are you getting poor performance (obvious
frame skips/freezes), or is it just the actual animation that you feel
is too slow?
Cheers,
Daniel.
dorayme
<6726db5a-1e03-49ef...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
justaddice <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 4:47 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b12676e9-f17c-445c-be12-96b57da91...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > justaddice <daniel.dow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 3:22 pm, "rf" <r...@z.invalid> wrote:
> > > > justaddice wrote:
> > > > > Yes I'm sorry, I posted this quite late last night (not a very good
> > > > > idea).
> >
> > > > > The URL should be: http://www.legacyartistes.com
> >
> > > > Totally blank, black page, with several browsers.
> >
> > > Really? Do you have HTML & JS & Flash enabled?
> >
> > I have and it was so slow that my experience was very similar to rf's. I
> > got fed up of seeing basically nothing but arty logo-ish gold lettering
> > and lines. In a movie, there are some creative credit introductions,
> > sure. But the ones that give me the most confidence in what they are an
> > entre for are the plainest ones - so we get down to business without
> > messing about.
> >
> > You want a critique? Don't do this, don't go there at all.
> >
> > --
> > dorayme
>
> The intro is only about 20 seconds, and this allows time for the
> 'large' photos to load. If it was HTML you'd still need to wait. At
> least there's something to watch while is loading in Flash. :)
>
This is exactly my experience with film, the credits can betray poor
practices in the film itself, you should not be loading some great big
picture, it is not a good thing to be doing. You ar e using up people's
bandwidth without telling them and slowing things down. The way to
handle images on the internet is to do it transparently. If the image is
going to be more than 100k or thereabouts (maybe a bit more if you don't
care about dial ups) then let the user choose knowingly, supply smaller
without asking and design accordingly.
> But thanks for your comments all the same, they are very welcomed.
>
> When you say its 'slow', are you getting poor performance (obvious
> frame skips/freezes), or is it just the actual animation that you feel
> is too slow?
How can I tell? It is not jerky and feels like when I spent a few days
watching paint dry. I am still amazed that I waited for so long! You are
very very very lucky that I have no life at all.
--
dorayme
rf
I don't bloody know. But if I don't have them enabled then it is *your* job
to tell me, not simply present me with a blank black screen. Do not expect
*me* to debug your page and find out what *I* need to install/enable to make
it work. This my friend is called gracefull degredation.
However to answer your question:
How can I have a browser that does not have HTML enabled?
Javascript is enabled.
Flash is enabled. Well, as far as it goes in Firefox, it's enabled enough
for flashblock to nab it before it gets downloaded. I presume I would be
lucky here as I see others replying with dismay as to how long your flash
flash takes to download.
Now, as to your black page. And yes, it is your black page, not mine. If
somebody asked me from here on in what I think abour legacyartistes I would
have to say: their web site is a black page, stay far away from them.
And even if it did download remember you have exactly 7 seconds to grab your
viewers attention. If your flash takes longer than that to download them you
might as well take the site down.
justaddice
Ok, thanks for that.. Interesting, and agreed if JS or Flash isn't
enabled then indeed it should display the relievent message. Don't get
me started about browsers that don't have HTML enabled/supported
(that's a different discussion, for a different time and place)..
About the 7 second "grab" moment.. Flash would actually load within 7
seconds and start showing a little 20 second intro animation, which is
designed perfectly for the intended audience of the site. I think
other critiques here are either impatient, loading from a GPRS
connection, or simply not the intended audience.
Anyway, thanks again, and I'm still baffled as to why Flash isn't
loading for you.
rf
> On Nov 4, 5:29 pm, "rf" <r...@z.invalid> wrote:
>> justaddice wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 3:22 pm, "rf" <r...@z.invalid> wrote:
>>>> justaddice wrote:
>>>>> Yes I'm sorry, I posted this quite late last night (not a very
>>>>> good idea).
>>
>>>>> The URL should be:http://www.legacyartistes.com
>>
>>>> Totally blank, black page, with several browsers.
>>
>>> Really? Do you have HTML & JS & Flash enabled?
[yes]
> Ok, thanks for that.. Interesting, and agreed if JS or Flash isn't
> enabled then indeed it should display the relievent message. Don't get
> me started about browsers that don't have HTML enabled/supported
Let me see, a browser is a program that displays web pages marked up with
HTML. So saying a browser does not have HTML enabled is just like saying a
text editor cannot load a text file.
> (that's a different discussion, for a different time and place)..
I'd like to know where :-)
> About the 7 second "grab" moment.. Flash would actually load within 7
> seconds
Would? From what I see in this thread it doesn't.
> and start showing a little 20 second intro animation, which is
> designed perfectly for the intended audience of the site.
Does this 20 second intro display Every Single Time I Visit Your Site?
If so then rethink. Once might be pretty. Twice is annoying. More than twice
is "I go elsewhere".
I hope you have a "skip intro" button, or better yet remember that I have
been here before (assuming I allow you to store a cookie on my system, that
is).
> I think
> other critiques here are either impatient, loading from a GPRS
> connection, or simply not the intended audience.
Nope, quite the contrary. You will find that the critiquers here are very
very patient. We will wait a very long time just to see what it is you have
to present. Of course the wait *will* be commented upon.
Your average "surfer" on the other hand will stumble on your site, wait for
maybe seven seconds and, seeing nothing interesting move on to the next site
in their google search results.
> Anyway, thanks again, and I'm still baffled as to why Flash isn't
> loading for you.
Perhaps I don't have the latest and greatest flash player installed. Hint: I
don't, as I don't look at flash. At all. Ever. For any reason.
<tinkers> Ah, here is a browser I have (Seamonkey) that I know I have not
disabled flash in. Visits site... Black page.
<moves to a different computer, an "out of the box" one> Ah, now I see. Some
totally gratutious flash that simply cannot be bypassed. You make me look at
this every time I visit your site? See above.
The "movie" is so totally jerky as to be unviewable. In fact the whole site
is so jerky (each frame is 100 pixels and 500 milliseconds away from the
previous one) that is cannot be called a movie. It is a sequential
presentation of stills.
And the page transitions. Bloody hell. Seconds and seconds pass. And what is
that "help" thingy that starts out blurred and takes eight seconds to
unblurr enough to be readable. Wait. the whole navigation is like that.
Click a link, cross eyes painfully trying to see totally unreadable text and
wait for it to so slowly become readable, well as readable as it can be
given the colours and the background.
And the drop down menus that take a whole five seconds to paint and then
simply plaster text with a transparent background all over the other text on
the page.
And how dare you resize my font when I change the size of my brower window.
Oh, I forgot, Flash. You can so you do.
Now, please take this as simply my opinion and don't get terribly cranky at
me but, IMHO, this site is uglier than a hatfull of arseholes and is a
perfect example of why I simply do not look at flash sites. At all. Ever.
For any reason. Sorry but that is how I feel. You did ask for a critique and
after a bit of hard work finding what I needed to look at to give you one I
have given you one :-)
BTW what do the artistes say about it?
Now, back to my usual HTML sites...
justaddice
Yes, I think back to HTML sites would be better for you. All I can say
is Flash is far better supported than HTML ever will be (within our
life times anyway). And HTML is only just starting to support video
naively? Crazy in these modern video hungry times.
I don't know what type of system you are running to be getting 2
frames per second. ZX Spectrum? Even my Nokia mobile shows the site
smoothly and beautifully.
If you don't believe me about HTML not being supported try:
http://acid3.acidtests.org/ (I'd be surprised if you don't know
about this site)
...even for browsers that do support HTML there, I've never seen the
animation there to be "smooth". I think the full story about how
unsupported HTML really is, is also on that domain.
Anyway... my initial critique request was about the design, and the
only person to even mention this was basilisk so far.. but he didn't
really go into any detail.
Regarding the intro, yes it would be nice to have a skip button, but
this website is all about the atmosphere it generates, not solely the
hard text content. Of course, if it was something like a dictionary
the site is terribly designed for that. But its not, its a portfolio
of Artistes that fit into a certain category of style.
The intro is forced with good reason.
If they aren't interested in watching the intro, then they may as well
close the window and not bother looking through the website.
And about loading times; yes I'm aware of this problem if you are
visiting the site from outside of South Africa.
About resizing fonts. You could do this in JS + CSS too if you wanted.
Flash just has better support for it. As the site isn't designed to be
scrolled down, resizing of fonts is necessary so to keep all the
content on the screen.
Saying all that, there is in fact some HTML on the site, try the News
section, a nice iframe pops-up over the Flash (not an easy thing to
get working in all major browsers), and uses the lovely Wordpress
system. Backend of the site is all HTML generated too.
Regarding your opinion, of course I can respect it (even if a little
harsh). However you dug yourself a hole by saying "I simply do not
look at flash sites. At all. Ever.", because you just did see one!
Also note, its funny that one of the worlds most popular website is
dependent on Flash (mostly because the HTML for doing the same thing
simply isn't supported enough yet) .. youtube.com..
Regards,
Daniel.
rf
Adrienne Boswell
<daniel...@gmail.com> writing in news:c80325a4-5e3c-405b-9b26-
2eb2a5...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com:
> If you don't believe me about HTML not being supported try:
> http://acid3.acidtests.org/ (I'd be surprised if you don't know
> about this site)
> ...even for browsers that do support HTML there, I've never seen the
> animation there to be "smooth". I think the full story about how
> unsupported HTML really is, is also on that domain.
>
Acid test is not about support for HTML, it's about support for CSS and
DOM.
If you visit with javascript disabled, you will be notified that
JavaScript must be enabled to take the test.
Further, with CSS disabled, it's plain to see what's going on (although
I was surprised to see that they are using HTML5).
So, HTML is supported, gee, as far back as 1994.
--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Adrienne Boswell
7041e1...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
When I first came into the site (after waiting quite a while), I was not
sure what you did. It is important that visitors know what the web site
is for right away, so they know they have come to the right place. I
had to click on about to find out - I should not have to do that. An
about page should tell you _more_ about the company/people - in
_addition_ to what the first page tells you.
In addition to what others have said, you have to consider what a person
in the hospitality industry is going to think about this site.
These people have to provide the best available for their customers so
those customers will keep coming back and recommend their friends. A
hospitality manager is going to look for "Iron" chefs, not McDonald's
fry cooks.
Similarly, in looking for entertainers they are going to be looking for
the best available, and the web site is a show case for that. If the
web site does not shine, is jerky, takes too long to load, text is too
small and hard to read, can't be easily navigated - what does it do? It
reflects badly on the artists themselves, and their representative.
Chris F.A. Johnson
> On Nov 4, 4:47?pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> In article
>> <b12676e9-f17c-445c-be12-96b57da91...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> > On Nov 4, 3:22?pm, "rf" <r...@z.invalid> wrote:
>> > > justaddice wrote:
>> > > > Yes I'm sorry, I posted this quite late last night (not a very good
>> > > > idea).
>>
>>
>> > > Totally blank, black page, with several browsers.
>>
>> > Really? Do you have HTML & JS & Flash enabled?
>>
>> I have and it was so slow that my experience was very similar to rf's. I
>> got fed up of seeing basically nothing but arty logo-ish gold lettering
>> and lines. In a movie, there are some creative credit introductions,
>> sure. But the ones that give me the most confidence in what they are an
>> entre for are the plainest ones - so we get down to business without
>> messing about.
>>
>> You want a critique? Don't do this, don't go there at all.
>
> 'large' photos to load. If it was HTML you'd still need to wait. At
> least there's something to watch while is loading in Flash. :)
If the HTML page is well designed, there will be something to read
even before the images are loaded.
Forcing the viewer to wait 20 seconds for something that can be
read in less than one second is frustrating.
> But thanks for your comments all the same, they are very welcomed.
>
> When you say its 'slow', are you getting poor performance (obvious
> frame skips/freezes), or is it just the actual animation that you feel
> is too slow?
"Molasses in January."
justaddice
Indeed, but as I've said, its not about the raw text, its about the
feeling that is being conveyed. I'll be adding some suitable, smooth
intro music which might completely change the perception of the intro
for you.
Anyway, thank you.
dorayme
<1d39219f-e902-451e...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
justaddice <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 11:53 pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Molasses in January."
> Indeed, but as I've said, its not about the raw text, its about the
> feeling that is being conveyed. I'll be adding some suitable, smooth
> intro music which might completely change the perception of the intro
> for you.
I can't think of a more delicious misunderstanding of what you are being
told than this. You are going further in the opposite direction to what
is wise, you will add music to slow things down even further! You might
as well make sure it is embedded to play and override any attempts by
upstart users brazen enough to not want this...
--
dorayme
Chris F.A. Johnson
> On Nov 4, 11:53?pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-11-04, justaddice wrote:
>> > On Nov 4, 4:47?pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <b12676e9-f17c-445c-be12-96b57da91...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> ?justaddice <daniel.dow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Nov 4, 3:22?pm, "rf" <r...@z.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > > justaddice wrote:
>> >> > > > Yes I'm sorry, I posted this quite late last night (not a very good
>> >> > > > idea).
>>
>> >> > > > The URL should be: ?http://www.legacyartistes.com
>>
>> >> > > Totally blank, black page, with several browsers.
>>
>> >> > Really? Do you have HTML & JS & Flash enabled?
>>
>> >> I have and it was so slow that my experience was very similar to rf's. I
>> >> got fed up of seeing basically nothing but arty logo-ish gold lettering
>> >> and lines. In a movie, there are some creative credit introductions,
>> >> sure. But the ones that give me the most confidence in what they are an
>> >> entre for are the plainest ones - so we get down to business without
>> >> messing about.
>>
>> >> You want a critique? Don't do this, don't go there at all.
>>
>> > The intro is only about 20 seconds, and this allows time for the
>> > 'large' photos to load. If it was HTML you'd still need to wait. At
>> > least there's something to watch while is loading in Flash. :)
>>
>> ? ?even before the images are loaded.
>>
>> ? ?Forcing the viewer to wait 20 seconds for something that can be
>> ? ?read in less than one second is frustrating.
>>
>> > But thanks for your comments all the same, they are very welcomed.
>>
>> > When you say its 'slow', are you getting poor performance (obvious
>> > frame skips/freezes), or is it just the actual animation that you feel
>> > is too slow?
>>
>
> Indeed, but as I've said, its not about the raw text, its about the
> feeling that is being conveyed.
You want your viewers to feel bored, etc.???
> I'll be adding some suitable, smooth intro music which might
> completely change the perception of the intro for you.
Indeed. From bored to annoyed.
justaddice
>
> justaddice <daniel.dow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 11:53 pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Molasses in January."
> > Indeed, but as I've said, its not about the raw text, its about the
> > feeling that is being conveyed. I'll be adding some suitable, smooth
> > intro music which might completely change the perception of the intro
> > for you.
>
> I can't think of a more delicious misunderstanding of what you are being
> told than this. You are going further in the opposite direction to what
> is wise, you will add music to slow things down even further! You might
> as well make sure it is embedded to play and override any attempts by
> upstart users brazen enough to not want this...
>
> --
> dorayme
Adding music will actually make the intro run quicker! If you don't
understand this, then this site is not for you.
Agreed, the intro should not be shown after 1 or 2 times of loading
the site.
Cheers.
rf
> On Nov 5, 9:09 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> In article
>> <1d39219f-e902-451e-9441-812ccd1a6...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> justaddice <daniel.dow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 11:53 pm, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Molasses in January."
>>> Indeed, but as I've said, its not about the raw text, its about the
>>> feeling that is being conveyed. I'll be adding some suitable, smooth
>>> intro music which might completely change the perception of the
>>> intro for you.
>>
>> I can't think of a more delicious misunderstanding of what you are
>> being told than this. You are going further in the opposite
>> direction to what is wise, you will add music to slow things down
>> even further! You might as well make sure it is embedded to play and
>> override any attempts by upstart users brazen enough to not want
>> this...
>>
>> --
>> dorayme
>
>
> Adding music will actually make the intro run quicker!
Why would you possibly think this?
What possible technological reason do you have to support that adding music
to this web page will make the flash run quicker?
If anything it might just make your potential viewer leave the site sooner.
Why *INFLICT* music on somebody that may not be expecting it. What if
somebody open your page in a public library? What if they open it whilst
listening the their favourite Bach concerto? What if they are sneaking
stealthily into it wilst at work? A bloody stupid thing to do, as has been
pointed out in these newsgroups over and over again for many many years.
> If you don't
> understand this, then this site is not for you.
This is bleedingly obvious. It's not for me either. Or for those eighteen
other people over there --> that have posted to this thead.
> Agreed, the intro should not be shown after 1 or 2 times of loading
> the site.
Once. Perhaps. Preferably not. Twice? Simply stupid.
BTW I still get a totally black page.
basilisk
On Nov 4, 6:42 pm, "rf" <r...@z.invalid> wrote:
> justaddice wrote:
>Anyway... my initial critique request was about the design, and the
>only person to even mention this was basilisk so far.. but he didn't
>really go into any detail.
I do like the color scheme and layout, but any positives about the design
are ruined by the sites slow and jerky loading.
The best design in the world doesn't make the grade if it isn't implemented
in a way
that appeals to your users.
Just for hoots, I timed the loading of your page to the point of the menu
settling into view, it took 90 seconds, this is a very long time in an
instant world.
Is this what you want?
The irony is that you are going to bore the very people that you
would like to sell entertainment to.
If I were looking to book an act and went to your site, my first thought
would be that my time was being wasted already and I haven't even
contacted anybody yet, time to find someone more accommodating.
I'm no expert, but most of the others here are and they speak the
truth.
basilisk
Chris Beall
> Yes I'm sorry, I posted this quite late last night (not a very good
> idea).
>
> The URL should be: http://www.legacyartistes.com
>
> The server is in South Africa (hence the speed if you are not in the
> immediate area).
>
> I've seen the Flash intro to be jerky on some older computers (but it
> runs fine on my 2 year old budget price Acer laptop).
>
> Speed issues aside, how is the design?
I cannot properly evaluate the design, due to an inability to view the site.
I'm in the eastern US. Cable modem (Roadrunner), through a wired router
shared with one other machine, which is idle.
Cleared cache and did a fresh boot. Got the following times
(minutes:seconds) on the loading of the home page:
:18 First visible item, a horizontal bar near the middle of the screen.
2:28 First navigation link appears, floating in from the right.
2:39 Navigation stable. Shortly thereafter a "Loading..." message
appears upper-left.
While waiting, noticed that the favicon was a solid black square
and the page title on the tab was boldfaced (that's odd).
8:00 Still no image in center of screen. Clicked on 'About'.
8:24 Some text slid in from the left, with its own scroll bar in a style
different from that of my browser. It appeared that the leftmost 1-2
characters of the text were missing. I concluded that there was a dark
object on the left side of the screen obscuring that text, the logo
(which had moved to the upper-left corner), and the left end of the
navigation bar.
At this point I noticed that some of the tool icons at the top of
my browser were gone. Closing that window to return to my newsreader
(Thunderbird), I noticed that its icons were also missing and some label
text which had been normal weight was now bold-faced. These symptoms
are indicative of a display buffer overflow in the OS. It is difficult,
but not impossible, to create this symptom with a website.
Firefox 2
1024 X 768 display, window at full screen
W98SE
600MHz processor
justaddice, some of your beliefs about HTML and Flash are incorrect.
First, a browser ('user agent' is the formal term) is a piece of
software that converts HTML into human-comprehensible form (video,
audio, hard-copy). If it doesn't 'support' HTML, it isn't a browser.
Second, HTML is the basic, original, primary, whatever word you choose
to use, language of the web. The HT stands for 'HyperText' and
hypertext links are what makes the web a web. Then came CSS, to make
content prettier. Both of these are publicly specified by W3C and
supported by numerous browsers, most of which are free. HTML and CSS
can be created with any text editor, many of which are free or bundled
with an OS.
Flash is a proprietary technology. Browsers don't understand it. It is
processed inside of a browser by proprietary code provided by the owner.
The owner makes money by selling the tools that create Flash. Flash
has other characteristics that make it philosophically far distant from
HTML and the web. That's not Bad, per se, but it is VERY different.
And here we are in alt.HTML.critique...
You should not be surprised by the reception that you received.
Chris Beall (and please don't make fun of my ancient tools; I'm older
than they are :-)