To Flash or not to Flash?
Mattymartman
I've authored a site at the old minimum of 640x480, wanted to do it in flash
completely but ended up using bits.. http://www.westonssoutheast.co.uk . I'd
love some feedback on it and whether a pure html version is needed..
Many thanks Matt
Ian.H [dS]
Hash: SHA1
In a fit of excitement on Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:10:44 -0000,
"Mattymartman" <matt...@yahoo.com> managed to scribble:
I haven't and won't install a Flash plugin (and can't with Moz on FBSD)
so there goes any chance of me ever seeing your site to it's full
potential (or at all had it been completely in flash).
If it's a "homepage" then I guess you won't be too worried, if you're
concerned about your users and value their visits, you'll at least code
an HTML version if not dropping the flash version completely (IMO).
Flash has its places, for "bits n bobs" in Web design, I fail to see
its purpose. Large download times (not being very welcoming for the
dialup users that are amongst us), normally tacky intros with even more
tacky music.
My 2p worth =)
Regards,
Ian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3
iQA/AwUBPhWP4mfqtj251CDhEQKwwgCfaiFWZ94sekTgA9XEjT7+mIz4gWoAoLfA
kVO/KWNHjgL+HwY+wUM7+NZc
=VHPH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Ian.H [Design & Development]
digiServ Network - Web solutions
www.digiserv.net | irc.digiserv.net | forum.digiserv.net
Scripting, Web design, development & hosting.
Alan Terry
Mattymartman <matt...@yahoo.com> writes
I can see very little difference between the two versions.
- What are the differences?
- What value do you think flash has added?
- How much time has been spent on adding it?
--
Alan ............
Jim Dabell
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In a fit of excitement on Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:10:44 -0000,
> "Mattymartman" <matt...@yahoo.com> managed to scribble:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've authored a site at the old minimum of 640x480, wanted to do it
>> in flash completely but ended up using bits..
>> http://www.westonssoutheast.co.uk . I'd love some feedback on it and
>> whether a pure html version is needed.. Many thanks Matt
>>
>
>
> I haven't and won't install a Flash plugin (and can't with Moz on FBSD)
su -
cd /usr/ports/www/flashplugin
make install
Okay, so I've not actually tested it, but it's an open-source implementation
of a flash plugin. No idea of the quality though...
I agree with the rest of your post though. If you even consider doing a
flash-only site, then you aren't qualified to build a commercial site in
the first place, imo.
--
Jim Dabell
Scott Yanoff
I am not saying that the article at the URL below is one I agree with
but it is worth reading. It is called "Flash: 99% Bad" and it is from a
Jakob Nielsen Alertbox commentary 2 years ago.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html
Good luck,
--
-Scott
yan...@yahoo.com | http://www.yanoff.org | AOL IM: SAY KJY
Jeremy Clulow
Some good advice here:
http://www.dack.com/web/flash_evil.html
--
Jeremy Clulow,
jer...@websNOSPAMwonder.net
http://www.webswonder.net
Travis Bickle 硎熔
done correctly and streamed then Flash is a superb tool, a lotta people
don't like it because they don't know how to use it .. properly.
Someone said that if they even consider doing it in Flash then they're
basically in the wrong business, bull*hit, look around at some big companies
like Sony, Iiyama, BBC (to mention a few) and it's obvious that they rely
heavily on Flash to get the graphical and animation side of their message
across (no I don't have shares in Macromedia .. 8O) ... wish I did
though!!!).
I use Flash where needed, and it is needed when doing things which would be
massive in persay gif format
like a rolling animation, Flash also looks a lot crisper and sharper due to
the fact that it's vector based.
Anyways .. <rant over> ... HNY in 2K3
Travis Bickle 硎熔
Are you talkin a me?
Remove TAXIDRIVER from addy to reply
Isofarro
> Flash only has long download times when implemented in the wrong way, if
> done correctly and streamed then Flash is a superb tool,
The biggest problem with streaming is that it forces an audience to remain
online to get anywhere in a Flash site. Surely streaming is doing no more
than hiding the bloat. With a well organised HTML website you just need to
right click on a link, select "Open in new tab" - get a whole bunch of
info all loaded up, then disconnect and read the pages offline. I don't see
that happening in "streamed Flash".
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/
Nick Kew
at the keyboard of "Mattymartman" <matt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've authored a site at the old minimum of 640x480,
Stop that right now! If your website has a size - whether it's 10x4
or 2500 by 2000 - it's wrong.
But yours seems to fit comfortably in 80x25 (in fact it takes just over
half that space), and afaics lacks content. The first "sentence" lacks
a verb.
--
Nick Kew
Available for contract work - Programming, Unix, Networking, Markup, etc.
Andrew C. Cooper
--
<><
Andrew C. Cooper
C.I.A.
Christians In Action
<><
Visit Our New Web Site
www.wordforlife.com
Get A Free Christian Screen Saver At:
www.wordforlife/cmhm
"Jeremy Clulow" <jer...@websNOSPAMwonder.net> wrote in message
news:feab1v0ikmfh2pe23...@4ax.com...
Owen Rees
<travisTAXIDRI...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<mVjR9.3842$YQ6....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>:
>Flash only has long download times when implemented in the wrong way, if
>done correctly and streamed then Flash is a superb tool, a lotta people
>don't like it because they don't know how to use it .. properly.
I don't like it because many sites that use it do so in a way that
wastes my time, and is irritating and distracting. Even if I could be
bothered to learn to use Flash well, this would not do anything to
improve my experience with sites created by other people.
>
>Someone said that if they even consider doing it in Flash then they're
>basically in the wrong business, bull*hit, look around at some big companies
>like Sony, Iiyama, BBC (to mention a few) and it's obvious that they rely
>heavily on Flash to get the graphical and animation side of their message
>across (no I don't have shares in Macromedia .. 8O) ... wish I did
>though!!!).
After a little searching, I found a free tool that disables Flash (and
various other irritating and distracting advertising tricks). On the
occasions when I have mentioned it to colleagues, I have been asked how
to get a copy, not told that I am missing anything of any value.
>I use Flash where needed, and it is needed when doing things which would be
>massive in persay gif format
>like a rolling animation, Flash also looks a lot crisper and sharper due to
>the fact that it's vector based.
On some very rare occasions, I have visitred sites where there is
something in Flash that might have been interesting, but never has it
seemed to be interesting enough for me to take the trouble to switch off
my Flash blocking tool. No matter how much the page author may have
thought that Flash was necessary, as a visitor, I have always found a
better way to use my time than to enable Flash.
--
Owen Rees - opinions expressed here are mine; for the full disclaimer
visit <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html#disclaimer>
for e-mail use "owenrees at waitrose.com" instead of the From address
Pete Wilson
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.cfm
--
Pete Wilson
http://www.pwilson.net/
DV
"Ian.H [dS]" <i...@WINDOZEdigiserv.net> wrote in message
news:rn3b1v864auepncgv...@4ax.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Flash has its places, for "bits n bobs" in Web design, I fail to see
> its purpose. Large download times (not being very welcoming for the
> dialup users that are amongst us), normally tacky intros with even more
> tacky music.
If the site is done properly then download times shouldn't be an issue.
People forget that the whole point of Flash is that it's a Vector based
application and once you start shoving in big bitmaps, even if they have
been compressed, it will slow down.
On saying that, it is still possible to have a large movie and, with a short
preload, minimise waiting times to less that you would have with an HTML
site. The problem is that it's a lazy solution to HTML. Do it in Flash,
set everything to 100% sizes and hey presto! resolution issues are a thing
of the past no matter whether it's someone on WebTV or someone with 2
monitors at hi resolution running IE across both monitors, it'll just resize
to fit.
Compatibility issues are something else entirely though. No answer to that
apart from offering an alternative. Certainly, don't discard Flash
completely! That's a cop out suggestion (Not you Ian, I'm speaking
generally). There are tons of good ideas in everyday life that can't be
used by 100% of people but the makers don't chuck the idea away otherwise
the term "niche market" would never exist.
I used to do tons of Flash work for people, including some real hardcore
stuff - not porn ;o) - just heavy sound and graphics, but it's died down
now. It's one of those things that is a fantastic idea but was overused by
people who didn't know what they were doing and went into decline. I would
think that its use will creep up again in more suitable forms -
presentations etc, much better than Powerpoint!
Travis Bickle 硎熔
presently in the process of learning JS @ Uni ... any recommendations?
I think you (and others) have a dislike to Flash because it simplifies and
exceeds what you can do with JS, and no mater how pretty or well designed a
site is, you won't like it; simply because it's Flashed ... a lot of people
are anti-Microsoft (just to be different), you are just anti-Flash ...
P.S. I do agree with on the lack of the British Medias interest in the ISS
and all things Astronomy, probably far too inteligent for their under
developed neanderthal matter, I also thought the Suck Page was actually
pretty cool ... 8O)
Ian.H [dS]
Hash: SHA1
In a fit of excitement on Sat, 4 Jan 2003 08:44:30 +0000 (UTC), "DV"
<nos...@deepspace2000.freeserve.co.uk> managed to scribble:
> I used to do tons of Flash work for people, including some real
> hardcore stuff - not porn ;o) - just heavy sound and graphics, but
> it's died down now. It's one of those things that is a fantastic
> idea but was overused by people who didn't know what they were doing
> and went into decline.
This is the best point made so far I think.. and one I totally agree
with.
We had sites like joecartoon.com which IMO, worked ok, the "style" of
the whole outlook (not just the actual site) "fitted in" with Flash. On
the whole, I've come across _so_ many sites where kids have a few
stupid bouncy chars that spell out some "l33t" name of their 'clan' and
some cheap tacky music that'd sound better as background music in a
pr0n flick.
Everything in life has it's place (except maybe the Ford Fusion ;) )
but Flash and "the web" I don't think are partnering sides. Animations,
presentations, sure, I'd say Flash was probably the quickest and
"easiest" way (I'm no Flash expert and aware that like everything, it
can get complex.. but simple for simple work), Web sites, no (IMO).
Saying that, as a complete opposite to what I've just said, a little
while back I did come across a site completely done in Flash that was
definitely well thought out and definitely not the work of a bored
teenager on 2 bottles of K. The site in question:
http://www.siljan.se/aq/autumn2002/index.htm
Regards,
Ian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3
iQA/AwUBPha/KWfqtj251CDhEQJC7QCfbIMOtGrqbr+RYtaM9jm7c0phFAoAoPxk
KiV1f9+3FsgkePjDN1NMXwj4
=MDW7
Ian.H [dS]
Hash: SHA1
In a fit of excitement on Sat, 4 Jan 2003 04:20:22 GMT,
pwi...@world.std.com (Pete Wilson) managed to scribble:
> imo: nice, restrained, useful, non-cloying menu in flash:
>
> http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.cfm
That has to be one of the most useless uses of Flash I've ever seen!
The navigation is way too small and obscure and noway needed to be done
in Flash. This is exactly the kind of site that I think of when looking
for a particular waste of time, effort and resources.
That menu/nav is not far short of the uselessness of the rotating balls
java applet navigation/menu system.
Just my opinion =)
Regards,
Ian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3
iQA/AwUBPha/zWfqtj251CDhEQLulwCg/GfaMfXaYY700NEjBIX+onNuMv4AoPDF
kinkZt9GDl0kUwOIEDCcLqh/
=4pfM
DV
"Ian.H [dS]" <i...@WINDOZEdigiserv.net> wrote in message
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Saying that, as a complete opposite to what I've just said, a little
> while back I did come across a site completely done in Flash that was
> definitely well thought out and definitely not the work of a bored
> teenager on 2 bottles of K. The site in question:
>
>
> http://www.siljan.se/aq/autumn2002/index.htm
That IS a nice site. I like the idea of having a desktop background with
lines on so you can resize your browser to see how much fits at different
resolutions.
Andy
Adam Cimarosti
your site could easily be reproduced looking as it is without having
to use either flash or javascript!
the buttons on top could be simple CSS styled <a> links
<div class="menu">
<a href="contacts.html">CONTACTS</a>
<a href="asdf.html">ADSFHDAH</a>
<a href="asdffgtttt.html">SDFASDH</a>
</div>
all you would need to do that is then is just create two images:
an image for when the mouse is out, another for when the mouse is over the
button.
div.menu a,
div.menu a:link,
div.menu a:visited,
div.menu a:active
{
/*stuff here*/
}
div.menu a:hover
{
/*stuff here*/
}
"Mattymartman" <matt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ZfR9.1398$KF3...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Owen Rees
<travisTAXIDRI...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<zdxR9.131$gv.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>:
(I believe in reply to my message - but not actually quoting any of it!)
>So your a JS man, explains all (no disrespect in that statement); I am
>presently in the process of learning JS @ Uni ... any recommendations?
Just say no. (More seriously, learn many languages until you are able to
appreciate their similarities and differences, and can absorb new ones
with very little effort.)
Although I have played with JS a little, that was mainly to learn enough
to be able to debug the broken code that prevented me from being able to
use various web pages.
The few pages on the personal site referenced in my signature are not
representative of the majority of the pages I have created. Most of the
pages I create are in support of my job, and behind a corporate firewall
so I can't show you what they are like. Out of over a thousand pages (at
least, that's what my link checker seems to think) perhaps two have any
script of any kind on them, and they were created as demonstrations of
the right and wrong ways to achieve various effects (the right way
always includes the functionality being available when the script is
disabled).
Generally I try to write pages that contain no scripts, and that
validate. That is mainly because I create pages in order to share
information, rather than as art or for amusement.
>I think you (and others) have a dislike to Flash because it simplifies and
>exceeds what you can do with JS, and no mater how pretty or well designed a
>site is, you won't like it; simply because it's Flashed ... a lot of people
>are anti-Microsoft (just to be different), you are just anti-Flash ...
I dislike J[ava]Script almost as much as I dislike Flash in any page
that is intended to give useful information rather than be art or a toy.
A few people seem to have learned how to limit their use to things that
do not undermine the usability of a page, but many pages are clearly
written by people who have not yet understood how to put the reader of
the page first.
Richard Watson
> That IS a nice site. I like the idea of having a desktop background with
> lines on so you can resize your browser to see how much fits at different
> resolutions.
That's /so/ last year ;-)
Seriously though my window manager displays the width and height of
the current window in the middle of the screen as I resize. Doesn't
yours do that?
--
Richard Watson
e-mail:ric...@doilywood.org.uk jabber:ric...@jabber.doilywood.org.uk
http://www.opencolo.com/ - Value for money colocation
Ian.H [dS]
Hash: SHA1
In a fit of excitement on 05 Jan 2003 19:27:40 +0000, "Richard Watson"
<ric...@doilywood.org.uk> managed to scribble:
> "DV" <nos...@deepspace2000.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> > That IS a nice site. I like the idea of having a desktop
> > background with lines on so you can resize your browser to see how
> > much fits at different resolutions.
>
> That's /so/ last year ;-)
>
> Seriously though my window manager displays the width and height of
> the current window in the middle of the screen as I resize. Doesn't
> yours do that?
Mine does when running WMaker but not on this crappy windoze box.. only
Putty windows do.
Regards,
Ian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3
iQA/AwUBPhiQlWfqtj251CDhEQIFogCeNElYmVZF2dWJ/1G95WlTlEMHU2MAoPjJ
MSr74d1uBsyXp4fuHarysBTm
=MOWP
Mike Barnes
>In a fit of excitement on 05 Jan 2003 19:27:40 +0000, "Richard Watson"
><ric...@doilywood.org.uk> managed to scribble:
>
>> "DV" <nos...@deepspace2000.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> > That IS a nice site. I like the idea of having a desktop
>> > background with lines on so you can resize your browser to see how
>> > much fits at different resolutions.
>>
>> That's /so/ last year ;-)
>>
>> Seriously though my window manager displays the width and height of
>> the current window in the middle of the screen as I resize. Doesn't
>> yours do that?
>
>
>Mine does when running WMaker but not on this crappy windoze box.. only
>Putty windows do.
Visit <http://www.jugglesaver.co.uk/sizer.html>. As I resize a window,
"Sizer" pops up a tooltip showing me the changing pixel dimensions. If I
right-click on a window border, "Sizer" show me a pop-up menu of sizes
(e.g. 640x480) that I have defined. Very simple, very effective.
--
Mike Barnes
Stuart Millington
<i...@WINDOZEdigiserv.net> wrote:
[window sizes]
>Mine does when running WMaker but not on this crappy windoze box.. only
>Putty windows do.
Try Opera - it is an option for non-maximised windows.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stuart Millington -
- mailto:ph...@dsv1.co.uk http://w3.z-add.co.uk/ -
- *ALL* HTML e-mail rejected -
Andy Mabbett
<nos...@deepspace2000.freeserve.co.uk> writes
If you like solid black squares :-(
--
Andy Mabbett
"Most big corporate websites are still so arrogant that they refuse to
communicate to customers and answer their questions in plain language."
Jakob Nielsen
Jack Howard
<usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>In message <av6kq7$pdm$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, DV
><nos...@deepspace2000.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>> http://www.siljan.se/aq/autumn2002/index.htm
>>That IS a nice site.
>If you like solid black squares :-(
Solid black squares? I didn't see any of those, but I'd agree with the
previous poster - that is incredibly beautiful, at least in IE with
Flash and JS enabled. Seriously impressive graphic design.
Not a lot of use in Lynx, mind (just a title and [EMBED}!), a little bit
of plain HTML text would be useful to at least let a visitor know they
need graphics capability to see it, but other than that, it is indeed
very nice.
--
- Jack Howard, Systems Development Engineer, Firstnet Services Limited
===[ http://www.firstnet.net.uk <--- Total Internet Solutions ]===
===[ This message subject to http://www.firstnet.net.uk/disclaimer.html ]===
Richard Watson
> In message <RiBYgWvK...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>, Andy Mabbett
> <usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
> >In message <av6kq7$pdm$1...@helle.btinternet.com>, DV
> ><nos...@deepspace2000.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
> >>> http://www.siljan.se/aq/autumn2002/index.htm
>
> >>That IS a nice site.
>
> >If you like solid black squares :-(
>
> Solid black squares? I didn't see any of those, but I'd agree with the
> previous poster - that is incredibly beautiful, at least in IE with
> Flash and JS enabled. Seriously impressive graphic design.
On mozilla 1.2 with JS and Flash I get a blue shape and nothing else.
What am I missing?
Andy Mabbett
<jho...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> writes
>>>> http://www.siljan.se/aq/autumn2002/index.htm
>
>>>That IS a nice site.
>
>>If you like solid black squares :-(
>
>Solid black squares?
Yes.
> I didn't see any of those, but I'd agree with the previous poster -
>that is incredibly beautiful, at least in IE with Flash and JS enabled.
...and there you have it.
>Seriously impressive graphic design.
Seriously flawed web design :-(
Andy Mabbett
<quiero...@tin.it> writes
>all you would need to do that is then is just create two images: an
>image for when the mouse is out, another for when the mouse is over the
>button.
>
>
>
>div.menu a,
>div.menu a:link,
>div.menu a:visited,
>div.menu a:active
>{
> /*stuff here*/
What "stuff"?
Jerry [J.L.E]
"Andy Mabbett" <usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote in message
news:$yNCnOlI...@pigsonthewing.org.uk...
> In message <U2HR9.56663$Q%4.18...@news1.tin.it>, Adam Cimarosti
> <quiero...@tin.it> writes
> >all you would need to do that is then is just create two images: an
> >image for when the mouse is out, another for when the mouse is over
the
> >button.
> >
> >
> >
> >div.menu a,
> >div.menu a:link,
> >div.menu a:visited,
> >div.menu a:active
> >{
> > /*stuff here*/
>
> What "stuff"?
What you want the style to be, [exp] - text-decoration: none;
font-weight: bold; - etc. !...
Bad day at the office Mr Mabbett ?
--
Jerry...
Location: West Sussex. United Kingdom.
Please reply to group, sorry, but ALL mail to this address is now
deleted at source.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.438 / Virus Database: 246 - Release Date: 7/1/03
Jack Howard
<usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> writes
>In message <6$2Ahu8ge...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk>, Jack Howard
><jho...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> writes
>>>>> http://www.siljan.se/aq/autumn2002/index.htm
>>
>>>>That IS a nice site.
>>
>>>If you like solid black squares :-(
>>
>>Solid black squares?
>
>Yes.
Would you care to elaborate on that? I could easily claim to have seen
thirteen Cornish pixies doing the dance of the damned when I viewed the
site, but that's not going to help anyone who didn't see what I saw! :-)
>> I didn't see any of those, but I'd agree with the previous poster -
>>that is incredibly beautiful, at least in IE with Flash and JS enabled.
>
>...and there you have it.
>
>>Seriously impressive graphic design.
>
>Seriously flawed web design :-(
Why? The site is intended for a specific audience, and works for that
audience. Agreed, if it was a public information site like a bus
timetable or railway information page, it would be awful, but it's not,
it's an "art" site. Complaining that it's not accessible to everyone is
like objecting to the funding of traditional art galleries because oil
paintings aren't accessible to the blind...
Richard Watson
> Complaining that it's not accessible to everyone is
> like objecting to the funding of traditional art galleries because oil
> paintings aren't accessible to the blind...
However some art galleries do try very hard to make their pictures
accessible to blind people, to the point of having someone available
to describe the painting to you.
Jim Ley
<ric...@doilywood.org.uk> wrote:
>Jack Howard <jho...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Complaining that it's not accessible to everyone is
>> like objecting to the funding of traditional art galleries because oil
>> paintings aren't accessible to the blind...
>
>However some art galleries do try very hard to make their pictures
>accessible to blind people, to the point of having someone available
>to describe the painting to you.
TATE imap
<url: http://www.tate.org.uk/imap/>
allows you to download PDF files that can be printed by a suitable
printer (or possibly rendered by one of the live Haptic devices) I
understand that a university in canada is doing similar work with
other paintings, so not only descriptions but also raised images are
freely available. (see also the Touch Tours at the tate <url:
http://www.tate.org.uk/imap/pages/touch.htm >
Hey, even I've attempted to render paintings more accessible to the
blind: <url: http://jibbering.com/2002/9/img-desc-talk-tyndall.svg >
or for a more professional description by someone with more experience
of image description * <url:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/200206/imagemeta/smilanno/esw-davep.mp3
> There's no reason why paintings are an inherently visual
experience.
Jim.
* Dave P doesn't need a 2nd name check in uknwa in a couple of days...
Esther Matut
I took a look at your site, and honestly doesn't look like you even need
flash.
I would work on the coloring and graphics as well (no offense). But
everything just
sort of clashes with the site.
Regards, Esther
Martin Tanton
><url: http://www.tate.org.uk/imap/>
>allows you to download PDF files that can be printed by a suitable
>printer (or possibly rendered by one of the live Haptic devices) I
>understand that a university in canada is doing similar work with
>other paintings, so not only descriptions but also raised images are
>freely available. (see also the Touch Tours at the tate <url:
>http://www.tate.org.uk/imap/pages/touch.htm >
>
I remember a while ago seeing a documentary about a percussionist with
a prominent symphony orchestra who was completely deaf, but who could
obviously understand the music sufficiently through her other senses
to do a professional job, so it's possible that something of a
painting's quality could be understood through a raised image linked
with a description. It has to be faced though that paintings are
primarily created to be appreciated by the sighted, as music is for
those who can hear. An awful lot is going to be lost in the
translation.
I don't particularly like the site discussed here
(http://www.siljan.se/aq/autumn2002/index.htm) although it's been very
skilfully done, but it's obviously been created to show the owner's
graphic design/animation talents, and it's hard to do that without
putting the graphic design on display. The expected audience is
obviously sighted and I don't think a partially sighted reader would
gain any benefit from increased accessibility, it's unfortunately just
not meant for him.
It's possible that the accessibility of the web will lead to a new
form of expression, open to all, regardless of disabilities, but
traditional artistic forms have been created in expectation of an
audience that can see, hear, or both, and it's unrealistic to set high
expectations in translating one sense into another.
--
Martin Tanton
www.shadow.co.uk
Tel: 01322 551485
Jack Howard
<ric...@doilywood.org.uk> writes
>Jack Howard <jho...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> writes:
>> Complaining that it's not accessible to everyone is
>> like objecting to the funding of traditional art galleries because oil
>> paintings aren't accessible to the blind...
>However some art galleries do try very hard to make their pictures
>accessible to blind people, to the point of having someone available
>to describe the painting to you.
Which is all very well for well funded public educational institutions,
but a bit over-the-top for a personal website.
Jim Ley
<jho...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <87hecdc...@raphael.doilywood.org.uk>, Richard Watson
><ric...@doilywood.org.uk> writes
>>Jack Howard <jho...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> Complaining that it's not accessible to everyone is
>>> like objecting to the funding of traditional art galleries because oil
>>> paintings aren't accessible to the blind...
>
>>However some art galleries do try very hard to make their pictures
>>accessible to blind people, to the point of having someone available
>>to describe the painting to you.
>
>Which is all very well for well funded public educational institutions,
>but a bit over-the-top for a personal website.
Very possibly, but describing a painting whilst I understand very
difficult, it's still something we can have a go at in a few minutes
and doesn't cost much time, and will help people, including sighted
ones, and important agents like google.
Still I think the art gallery examples are more to do with showing how
orgs do make oil paintings accessible to the blind, rather than saying
we should do it.
Jim.
Matt Probert
<jho...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> broke off from drinking a cup of
tea at Firstnet Services Limited to write:
>In message <87hecdc...@raphael.doilywood.org.uk>, Richard Watson
><ric...@doilywood.org.uk> writes
>>Jack Howard <jho...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> Complaining that it's not accessible to everyone is
>>> like objecting to the funding of traditional art galleries because oil
>>> paintings aren't accessible to the blind...
>
>>However some art galleries do try very hard to make their pictures
>>accessible to blind people, to the point of having someone available
>>to describe the painting to you.
>
>Which is all very well for well funded public educational institutions,
>but a bit over-the-top for a personal website.
>
And completely non-sensible in the case of people born blind - they
have no concept of imagery, and as such can not understand what is
being described (so they tell me). It's a pointless exercise.
Matt
Andy Mabbett
<jho...@blackhole.firstnet.co.uk> writes
>>Seriously flawed web design :-(
>
>Why? The site is intended for a specific audience, and works for that
>audience.
It's not linked from anywhere else then, including search engines?
Andy Mabbett
<mar...@shadow.co.uk> writes
>I remember a while ago seeing a documentary about a percussionist with
>a prominent symphony orchestra who was completely deaf, but who could
>obviously understand the music sufficiently through her other senses to
>do a professional job
Evlynne Glennie? One might also mention an obscure deaf composer,
called, er, Beethoven...
>I don't particularly like the site discussed here (http://www.siljan.se
>/aq/autumn2002/index.htm) although it's been very skilfully done, but
>it's obviously been created to show the owner's graphic
>design/animation talents, and it's hard to do that without putting the
>graphic design on display.
That doesn't preclude a page which says "sorry, you must run Javascript
to view the artwork on this site; or helpful <alt> text. Then there're
the sound effects...