Re: Vexille

The Wanderer wrote:
SpaceGirl wrote:

Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:

SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I also hate music, but audio feedback is okay sometimes.i

The decision if/when audio feedback is okay for me is not yours to
make.

Yes and no. it's not your decision to make to NOT allow audio
feedback for those who want it. So we provide audio feedback. This
can be a GOOD thing for people with difficulty seeing a display; it
gives some other kind of feedback other that visual.

So you (should) allow people to turn it on if they want it. This means
that they retain the decision of whether or not to have it, without
being forced to have it - for however brief a period - if they do not
want it.

So, the same for graphics then? Apply your thinking to all media: All web sites should have no images. If a user wants images they can turn them on.

How is that any different?


It's always disable-able.

Yeah? I'd like to see how you do that, say, on [1]. Except for
turning off the speakers, that is.

All the sites we do, if they have audio, we provide a sound off and
volume control. Like you, I listen to music while at the computer and
the last thing I want is some web site annoying me.

"It's always disable-able" means "it is always possible to disable it on
every site on the entire Internet", not "every site we do provides a
means to disable it". There are certainly many sites which do not
provide a way to do that.

I agree, not all web sites are good. I hate web site that have audio that I cannot disable.

For that matter: how is the user supposed to disable a page's audio
before the page is first displayed and the audio first starts playing,
without disabling either Flash or their computer's entire audio
subsystem beforehand?

Exactly. Well you can now in Windows Vista (per-window audio control), but that's besides the point. Bad sites have audio all over the place (unless the user is expecting it, such as on a music site). Good sites may have some subtle audio, which should be disable-able.


For another point on the Flash debate: I hate embedded-Flash pages, for
four reasons - not all of equal importance, and not given in any
particular order.

A: if I do not happen to have sound playing when I visit the page and
the plugin is automatically loaded, they take over my system's sound
device, so that nothing else can play sound until I restart the browser;

Your computer is broken? This wouldn't happen for most people.

if I *do* happen to have sound playing when I visit the page, the plugin
cannot access the sound device, and if I should *want* sound from Flash
later on I cannot get it without restarting the browser.

You really need to fix that... your computer is not capable of playing two sound sources at once!?

B: It takes up resources on my system unnecessarily, both memory and
CPU, limiting the things I an do elsewhere.

Okay; so, all web sites should be designed to work on the oldest computer? Of course not. We'd have no graphics, no video, no animation. Back to plain text web sites.

C: There is a strange apparent bug in my (somewhat outdated) browser
which will routinely lead the entire browser to die if I right-click on
something Flash under the mistaken impression that it's an image - which
happens all too often with ads.

Change browsers? All the things listed so far are in your control, yet you are blaming Flash. It's got nothing to do with that. YOU made a choice to use whatever platform you are using, then you bitch that some things won't work? Riiiight :D

I really do think sites should be made as accessible as possible, but at the same time I don't think that you should have to limit creativity in order for a site to work on every platform. If I choose to create a site that's purely Flash, that leaves the market open for another site that's not Flash. If I choose to create a site that is just an interactive video, great, people who're into that sort of thing may love it. People who don't have broadband... well that's just a shame, but it's video. You cannot do it any other way.

Where do you draw the line? Why are you dictating what can and cannot be used? What gives YOU the right to say that someone CANNOT have a Flash site with audio and video? If people visit these sites, use them and enjoy then, if you choose not to take part that isn't the fault of the designer if you have the power to install whatever you need to view it yourself.

We make sites for audiences - not every single person on the planet. It's impossible to please everyone, and somewhat insane to even try. If you see a gap in a market, or something that's not been done before, even if it does rely on a technology that some people may not have available, why not go for it? If you can justify it commercially, if you can produce something the majority of your target audience will use and enjoy, what's wrong with it? It's all about personal choice, for you, and providing what we think will work best with an audience. Hopefully we can meet somewhere in the middle.

D: The routine lack of any way to navigate backwards and forwards correctly.

This is my pet hate for Flash, along with bookmarking. These are the single two things which stop me from suggesting using Flash more in our projects. I think Flash is amazing, probably the most important technology online right now, but these two flaws mean that it could never replace some of the most base functionality of a browser. It's a shame. But I have to balance this with the things we want to try and explore online as far as video and animation goes.

The Web *does* consist of pages, and short of an absolute revolution in
interface technology (something to supersede the "browser"), very likely
always will. If you want to provide an interactive experience, have the

It's already happening. AJAX, Flash, WinFX. You have sites, but less so pages. We need to find new ways of describing these things.

user download and run a separate program which connects out to your
server and does exactly what you want it to with the results.

After all, that's more or less what Flash is - it just pretends to be an
ordinary part of the browser instead.

Yes, pretty much. Actually Flash itself is a browser! It has it's own HTML renderer built in.

We give the user an all round experience, and they can choose to turn
elements of that experience off.

Opt-out is almost inherently a bad model.

If you watch a movie at home you have sound and graphics. You have to opt out if you want to no listen (mute your TV). You have the option to interact if you hit the DVD menu button.

Also: unless you give them the ability to access the same content
without the disadvantages of the client-side interactive model, you are
not really offering them a choice of "experience" or "no experience" -
you are offering them a choice of "use it" or "don't use it".

Yes. If you go to a cinema and blindfold yourself and put your fingers in your ears you miss out on most of the experience. You can still smell the popcorn :)

Stop trying to draw lines between media!


--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
.

Quantcast