My new funny website.

[Mr.6502]

Cut and paste?  I made that site for my basic web design class, I haven't had time to go back and make all the elements gell together. I wrote almost the entire thing by hand to learn css and xhtml.  I added the flash menu and scripts to use a flickr feed to automatically update the galleries after so it would be a usable site.   Anyway it's not done either, but it's far from being cut and paste.  I designed it from the ground up as well.  Hopefully I can address some of the issues with it in my advanced web design class.

My main goal in using that menu with it was to learn how that flash menu and the actionscript in it worked since it interfaces with html/xml so well.  I modified a lot of the actionscript in the flash file to work so that it would have 2 instances of it on the same page, since a lot of the callout function names had to be changed and point to different files and such.  I still need to go back into the actionscript and modify a lot of the design elements.  Since the entire thing is coded in actionscript, even the visual elements, it's very difficult to understand, it's not a typical flash like file at all where there are graphical elements, which I expect why it's so fast and small.


Adding the javascript to put a html feature in there instead of a flash menu should be pretty interesting, which I will try to do if I get time.  

 I still don't agree that flash is just being implemented because there's no other solution.  There's no reason that the entire web couldn't be flash based.  Websites I've seen like the Keio-ensoku site are what inspired me to try to become a web designer.  They're all encompassing and engrossing and show the potential of the web.  No non flash site I've ever seen has that kind of potential to interact with a viewer, at least not one that doesn't have a huge team of developers that have put thousands of hours into coding it.

When I said copy and paste I was referring just to the flash menu itself as the same menus appear on other sites and appear to be practically identical.  I understand what you are saying about changing things in it as I am familiar with mostly actionscript flash files as I have developed quite a few of them.  

But if you are already programming in a dialect of ECMAScript fixing (what sounds like) crappy code and the destination is a browser, might as well try javascript out :-D

Because of the limitations of flash, any times I've worked with it professionally it has been to provide, essentially, flash applications that run on desktops, not in web browsers.  Usually the intranet sites I work on have to meet accessibility guidelines that flash can't accomodate.  Many of the corporate websites on the internet will not use it for anything vital on their internet sites for the same reason.  

There isn't actually a reason to exclude disabled folks from being able to view a site.  For an individual's site its just their personal preference to exclude people because of their disability.  If the page is made well, it can be beautiful and still be 100% accessible to disabled visitors.  The key is to learn how to develop the page elegantly.  

I hope one of the courses includes making a webpage that looks beautiful as it degrades from a full browser with plugins to a browser with no plugins to a browser with no JS all the way to a text based browser.  If you build your sites with that in mind the net result will work on the vast majority of browsers with very little work and will be beautiful and accessible.

[chimera15]

When I said copy and paste I was referring just to the flash menu itself as the same menus appear on other sites and appear to be practically identical.  I understand what you are saying about changing things in it as I am familiar with mostly actionscript flash files as I have developed quite a few of them.  

But if you are already programming in a dialect of ECMAScript fixing (what sounds like) crappy code and the destination is a browser, might as well try javascript out :-D

Because of the limitations of flash, any times I've worked with it professionally it has been to provide, essentially, flash applications that run on desktops, not in web browsers.  Usually the intranet sites I work on have to meet accessibility guidelines that flash can't accomodate.  Many of the corporate websites on the internet will not use it for anything vital on their internet sites for the same reason.  

There isn't actually a reason to exclude disabled folks from being able to view a site.  For an individual's site its just their personal preference to exclude people because of their disability.  If the page is made well, it can be beautiful and still be 100% accessible to disabled visitors.  The key is to learn how to develop the page elegantly.  

I hope one of the courses includes making a webpage that looks beautiful as it degrades from a full browser with plugins to a browser with no plugins to a browser with no JS all the way to a text based browser.  If you build your sites with that in mind the net result will work on the vast majority of browsers with very little work and will be beautiful and accessible.

We had a large section of our web design class which dealt with user accessibility and following those guidelines.  I just never agreed with the laws that the government sites have to follow.   I don't see why I shouldn't exclude disabled people, why I should limit my tools and abilities, and why I should make things harder on myself in my design so that less than 10%, and possibly even 1% of the possible people that would view the site can see it in whatever even further degraded way they would view it in.

It's like 10 times worse than putting 20 handicap parking spaces in a parking lot, that nobody ever uses!!!  It just makes it harder on everyone, and less of an experience for the sake of the few people that should expect to have to have it harder on themselves because of their condition in the first place.

It's not my problem that disabled people can't view my website.  I refuse to design for the weakest possible viewer.  It's not going to take my websites to the next level.  You can be elegant perhaps with such tools, but you're never going to be MIND BLOWING, and mind blowing is what I want to aim for, even if I never make it.

[timw4mail]

We had a large section of our web design class which dealt with user accessibility and following those guidelines.  I just never agreed with the laws that the government sites have to follow.   I don't see why I shouldn't exclude disabled people, why I should limit my tools and abilities, and why I should make things harder on myself in my design so that less than 10%, and possibly even 1% of the possible people that would be view the site can see it in whatever even further degraded way they would view it in.

It's not my problem that disabled people can't view my website.  I refuse to design for the weakest possible viewer.  It's not going to take my websites to the next level.  You can be elegant perhaps with such tools, but you're never going to be MIND BLOWING, and mind blowing is what I want to aim for, even if I never make it.

You have lost any respect I might have had for you.

[AndrewZorn]

I CANNOT READ YOUR POST as your text is too small please enlarge it you should not be telling people like me i cannot read your post you are probably talking behind my back arent you you scum

[chimera15]

I CANNOT READ YOUR POST as your text is too small please enlarge it you should not be telling people like me i cannot read your post you are probably talking behind my back arent you you scum

roflol

[chimera15]

You have lost any respect I might have had for you.

You know, I'm not heartless, I just don't agree that design, let alone function as in parking lots, should be limited for the weakest.  The solution lies in designing specifically for individual handicaps that allows them to be as or possibly even more functional than a normal capable person.  Not for every designer to design in their fields for them.  For instance designing a walker/weelchair that can climb steps, instead of every bloody building having to have a ramp.  The solution shouldn't be for the many to suffer and slow down to the speed of the handicapped person, because the few handicapped people can't keep up.

[timw4mail]

You know, I'm not heartless, I just don't agree that design, let alone function as in parking lots, should be limited for the weakest.  The solution lies in designing specifically for individual handicaps that allows them to be as or possibly even more functional than a normal capable person.  Not for every designer to design in their fields for them.  For instance designing a walker/weelchair that can climb steps, instead of every bloody building having to have a ramp.  The solution should be for the many to suffer because the few can't keep up.

Well by that viewpoint, I shouldn't have to deal with Internet Explorer. I shouldn't have to care what percentage of the population uses it. Because it's the biggest stumbling block to web design. Internet Explorer insists on doing everything just slightly differently. From a design standpoint, it's my biggest obstacle. So I should just ignore it.

That's what you're saying isn't it?

[itlnstln]

Not to drive this further into irrelevancy, but I love it when I'm at the store see fat people using the scooters.

[AndrewZorn]

all this sounds so familiar but i cant think, FROM WHERE...

[itlnstln]

I don't know if I should laugh or punch that guy in the throat.  I'm leaning towards punching him in the throat.

[chimera15]

Well by that viewpoint, I shouldn't have to deal with Internet Explorer. I shouldn't have to care what percentage of the population uses it. Because it's the biggest stumbling block to web design. Internet Explorer insists on doing everything just slightly differently. From a design standpoint, it's my biggest obstacle. So I should just ignore it.

That's what you're saying isn't it?

Yeah, pretty much, if they choose to be non standard, then it's their loss.  But even so, all the ie's together make up something like 40% of the market, and hardly non standard, they pretty much are a second standard, and hardly a handicapped minority to write off.


http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

[AndrewZorn]

I don't know if I should laugh or punch that guy in the throat.  I'm leaning towards punching him in the throat.

well, the abbreviation is fairly well-known, it is much easier to simply abide by what it is telling you to do

[chimera15]

I hope karma catches up with you.

Show Image

roflol

I hope there's a Spock around to take me to Talos IV when it does. roflol

[hyperlinked]

You know, I'm not heartless, I just don't agree that design, let alone function as in parking lots, should be limited for the weakest.  The solution shouldn't be for the many to suffer and slow down to the speed of the handicapped person, because the few handicapped people can't keep up.

Portability and accessibility is not just something to do for those less fortunate than you. Regardless of how you feel about people with disabilities, it's not all about inconveniencing you so that a minority can be accomodated. Stuff that's accessible is also far more durable. Content that's made accessible can be easily integrated into whatever future technologies come about  that we cannot even envision today and when those new devices come about, the inventors may make the decision that they can't accommodate the minority of designers who decided that everything should be in Flash.

Although we keep bringing up the name "Flash" the issue of accesibility isn't a game of Flash lovers against the world. You can have awful Javascript or other standards based protocols that suffers from the same problems that Flash does.

It might just be my impression, but what I see is a guy who's feeling insecure and is getting defensive in response to critique. The things that are getting pointed out have nothing to do with how any of us feel about art and creativity or handcuffing artists so that they can't create anything beautiful.  Nobody gives a damn how you built a site if you did it that way because that was to the best of your ability at the time or if you just don't have time to learn how to do it a better way. It has nothing to do with how we feel about creativity and art. Contrary to popular belief, really good developers are not cold pure left brained logic machines. Web development is very much a right brained discipline as well in many ways.

BTW Tim, the bunny game was a neat example, but I think I gotta agree with Chimera that it's not that impressive. It probably would have been better and easier to do that game in Flash. Flash is perfect for stuff like that.

[chimera15]

Portability and accessibility is not just something to do for those less fortunate than you. Regardless of how you feel about people with disabilities, it's not all about inconveniencing you so that a minority can be accomodated. Stuff that's accessible is also far more durable. Content that's made accessible can be easily integrated into whatever future technologies come about  that we cannot even envision today and when those new devices come about, the inventors may make the decision that they can't accommodate the minority of designers who decided that everything should be in Flash.

Although we keep bringing up the name "Flash" the issue of accesibility isn't a game of Flash lovers against the world. You can have awful Javascript or other standards based protocols that suffers from the same problems that Flash does.

It might just be my impression, but what I see is a guy who's feeling insecure and is getting defensive in response to critique. The things that are getting pointed out have nothing to do with how any of us feel about art and creativity or handcuffing artists so that they can't create anything beautiful.  Nobody gives a damn how you built a site if you did it that way because that was to the best of your ability at the time or if you just don't have time to learn how to do it a better way. It has nothing to do with how we feel about creativity and art. Contrary to popular belief, really good developers are not cold pure left brained logic machines. Web development is very much a right brained discipline as well in many ways.

BTW Tim, the bunny game was a neat example, but I think I gotta agree with Chimera that it's not that impressive. It probably would have been better and easier to do that game in Flash. Flash is perfect for stuff like that.

If there's anything I've learned about the computer world, anything you make or create is worthless and Dunsel as soon as you make it. lol I don't really care about the future, cause you can do everything you think you can to make something future compatible and you'll be wrong, as you said, it even effects things you wouldn't think it would.

That's probably one of the reasons I like keyboards so much, there's only been one major upheaval in keyboard formats in all the years of pc's, that can't easily be adapted for at least, so that's pretty good. lol

[Rajagra]

They should get their own house in order before making demands on us.

[chimera15]

No one uses ramps anymore.