The Cock Robin Forum View topic

cockrobinonline · **Just having fun** Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 153

Good morning

do you know another web site ?

bye
bruno

http://peterkingsbery.free.fr
http://cock.robin.free.fr
http://cock-robin.awcreation.com
http://www.cockrobinonline.fr.fm
http://www.steeoui.de/Music/cock_robin.htm
http://www.peterkingsbery.net
http://es.geocities.com/cockrobin_sp/index.html
http://business.fortunecity.com/interest/686
_________________
just around a corner, half a mile to heaven

GPR · Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:38 pm Post subject:

Hello out there!

What about Anna's homepage? She didn't decide what style she finally prefers, so you will find 4 different designs in the testing area. Every fan is welcome to help her find a decision Wink

Here you go: http://www.anna-lacazio.info

Use your mouse and have fun Wink

_________________
success has many fathers, only the failure is yours alone Wink

Angelik · Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:47 pm Post subject:

Galahad · Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:11 pm Post subject:

Well, flash is really nice for some very artistic design. It could be the case here and give a powerful result. The main disadvantage about flash is then to get a good referencing in search engines but it's not always necessary useful if the website is well backlinked.
_________________
I used to be schyzophrenic but we're ok now.

conundrum · Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:11 pm Post subject:

I don't like Flash animations either (I usually skip or block them). Of all the 3 html designs, I prefer the ''html 3'' one.

GPR · Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject:

Hi ya'll!

I myself refused to programme in flash for a long time. But only for technical reasons. The computers were much slower and the download time was longer than today. It is somehow a similar development as we experienced with text-based displaying and the change to graphical based displaying, which started quite slowly with Apple's/Mac's OS, WINDOWS. OS/2, or GEM. People firstly found all that not more than a temporarily thing, sort of ''gaming''. Today, few people would fall back to the simple displays of old host computers with amber or green / black text displays. But it is a matter of fact that flash, shockwave etc. come with important advantages, for the designer as well as for the viewer.

Flash makes websites much more lively and already attracts worldwide much more viewers than the somehow static html-based sites. HTML gives criminals by far more opportunities to abuse the designer's work as well as the viewer's intents. The data-streams give the creator some security also considering his copy/rights. It is much harder to hack a flash/shockwave/real or similar data-stream than to hack html or to just simply copy from the screen. HTML has one more very big disadvantage: to display flash or other streams, the viewer only needs a very few add-ins, whilst the viewer might need quite a lot of add-ins to display all the different possible ''gimmicks'' you can find in html-programming. HTML was meant as kind of a standard, but today, there are so many derivates, super-html, d-html, x-html, whatever, and there is no guarantee, that the website is displayed the way the programmer intended it to be displayed. Flash in comparison at least almost guarantees that the result on the viewer's screen comes close to what the programmer intended. And it is easier to scale flash than to scale jpegs or other older formats, because the quality of the older dpi/resolution-dependent formats fades with zooming. Flash means a compilation to vector-based streams and can grant a better quality - as long as the programmer takes good care Wink

However, a lively html-page needs many tricks to become lively. Without animations, such as gif-animations, no html-page becomes lively in any way. And wherever a user wants to enjoy audio or video features, he will be dependent from add-ins again, because no serious offerer offers audio or video content without the protection of a compiled data-stream.. Also, without PHP or JAVA, few of today's websites would offer ANY attractive content. But then, where is the difference between a lively flash-page and a lively html-page? Just btw, most viewers don't even know if they are loading a flash or a html page, they often only recon it because a pre-loader displays his work in the background on screen Wink

No offense, I respect all opinions! I just don't see a reason to hide behind senseful progress Smile

Isn't the result on screen the most important thing? But everyone is welcome to give reasons for sticking to html! Perhaps I've overseen some detail. I'm ready to learn Smile

Just go ahead!

Best regards,

GPR (GrandPaRolf, hey, an oldtimer who prefers the progress? .. )

conundrum · Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:36 pm Post subject:

It's not about progress, it's about usefulness. Sometimes Flash helps, sometimes it's useless, it depends on what you're doing (it's the same with php and sql). Animations can be a real annoyance (fortunately there are tools to block them). Considering html, there are precise specifications. Dhtml is not a derivative, it's just a name to describe how to build a page (now they call it Ajax). Xhtml is no derivative either, it's the successor of html (applying xml to html, it's only a question of syntax, and it's easier to maintain accessibility).

GPR · Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:07 pm Post subject:

Hi there

Well.... don't take this reply for ''hitting back'', I didn't take yours for a ''lesson'' but appreciate your statements Smile

I would like to propose: let's handle everything with a little touch of humor, shouldn't we? Wink

If one handles things THAT strict, there would be no way to use metaphores, pictures etc. anymore. In Asia, this would lead directly into the loss of one's face - and sowith to the loss of connections, businesses, friends, and sometimes the loss of quite a fortune.. Smile

In this sense: You're right, it is about usefulness. Whereas I think that the usefulness is more important for the programmer, while the usability, as one result of that usefulness, so-to-speak, is important for the user. First of all, I would like to point out that ''naked'' FLASH is as useful and as useless as ''naked'' HTML Smile

Only, flash streams are more secure than html. In so far, the usage of flash wherever it can substitute html, means a clear progress to me Wink

It is of course only my very opinion that the usefulness of flash, if handled smart enough, is practically given widely. I think I can prove myself right, but one might not accept this.. No problem, why bother? Not only trickfilm-like sequences are animations, but even a blinking line, mouseovers etc. are kind of animations. Sure, a long flash-film sequence might be annoying, if there is no useful information in it. Bad programming, if the user has no chance to make use of a website quick and easy... Flash alone offers not enough, or none at all uncomplicate instruments to for example administrate databases etc. In so far it seems to be quite useless, but it is the same with html! And at least flash is helpful to create, as a plus, interesting, attractive and lively surfaces which still allow the use of the, today.., more useful instruments offered through PHP, ASP, JAVA etc. Under the surface of a flash stream, one can hide, or use all the same which is possible otherwise too - or vice versa Smile

Now, if a programmer uses an environment such as SuperHTML (which indeed is of course really no derivative of HTML but an interesting programming environment), Netobjects/Cold/Fusion, even Namo etc. to combine the advantages of HTML, WML, XML, SHTML and ASP, JAVA, PHP, SQL etc., or if he does the same using a FLASH programming environment (not all people know that there is not only (ex-)Macromedia Flash (now Adobe, who gave up their own product ''LiveMotion'' for good reasons and bought Macromedia instead..) that compiles to flash streams..), does it really make a difference? Afterall, you're right: flash CAN be useless. Flash alone without other instruments. It depends on how a programmer understands and uses his instruments Wink

FLASH is, and delivers more than art, it allows more than many people are willing to see in it. The programmer is responsible for the result.. Good point though, your point Smile

However, didn't you notice the smilies? Guy, I studied informatics quite a while ago, its now 21 years ago, and I started very late.. If an ''oldtimer'' like me talks about ''progress'' and puts a smiley after it, what could it possibly mean? Wink

Still, and in this case seriously, I take the developement of flash for a progress - because I know how to use flash streams to increase the security of webpages in comparison to easier hackable html. In so far, flash is useful for me as a programmer, and the usability for the user, results from the combination of flash for the surface and PHP, JAVA, ASP, SQL etc. for all which FLASH itself is unable to deliver. .. YET Wink

Let's see, where the development of FLASH will lead us to Smile

Back to STRICT handling and interpretation. Derivative depends on how you define derivative.. Btw, it is a matter of the interpretation of my line, if one sees in it that I listed examples for html derivatives or if I listed ''many html derivatives'' and other languages and environments..For SuperHTML is no language but a programming environment, I thought my line was not easy to misinterprete, but, sorry, my fault, I should have done better Wink

I will be more careful with my English in the future Smile

My real mistake however was to overdraw one thing: ''many derivatives of html''.. There are not too many derivatives around, I admit Sad

Sorry

Despite possible misunderstandings, overdone attempts to draw pictures, let's have a look also at this. DynamicHTML is in fact more than only a description, it is defined as an extended HTML which allows the usage of scripts such as JAVA - and describes how that is to be done. ''Description'' and ''syntax'' - where is the borderline? And talking of definitions: ''derivative'' goes back to latin, and due to the definition of ''derivative'', isn't it a little hard to explain why dhtml shall not be a derivative of html? W3C doesn''t say so, but if, it was not the right institution to change languages such as latin, French, English or German, nor the meaning of words Wink

Is XHTML a/the successor of HTML? Sure, you're right, no doubt! W3C defined xhtml a successor of html, but nevertheless, let's have a look back: SGML was the predecessor of HTML and XML. The same time, both can be taken for derivatives of SGML which was way too complicate and followed a slightly different intention. Now, I don't want to be a penny-pincher, but I would like to state that if xhtml contents more than 50 percent of html and less than 50 percent of xml, xhtml MIGHT be called a derivative of html, couldn't it ? Wink

But I admit, this is more kidding than serious! However, the point of view is not bad, isn't it? Wink

..kidding again..Let's cut out chtml, wml, shtml etc. here, and why bother with ''derivative'', ''successor'', ''extension'', ''add-on'', ''plug-in'', ''description'', ''syntax'', whatever? Fact is, neither the Markup Languages, nor Flash nor Shockwave are able to deliver FULLY satisfying usability at the front end, standing alone. We may have a different viewpoint in detail, we may handle or interprete definitions slightly differently, but afterall we seem to mean all the same. A toast to the user and usability, and to all programmers who take good care Smile

Cheers!

GPR
_________________
success has many fathers, only the failure is yours alone Wink

conundrum · Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:48 am Post subject: