From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 11 21:03:44 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B650816A41A for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:03:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jonathan+freebsd-questions@hst.org.za) Received: from hermes.hst.org.za (onix.hst.org.za [209.203.2.133]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E801E13C448 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:03:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jonathan+freebsd-questions@hst.org.za) Received: from [10.1.11.1] ([10.1.11.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by hermes.hst.org.za (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1BKuEjX021426 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:56:15 +0200 (SAST) (envelope-from jonathan+freebsd-questions@hst.org.za) From: Jonathan McKeown To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:04:09 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <47AFC80B.8090303@gmail.com> <20080211211052.X5691@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <47B0AF73.6030901@chuckr.org> In-Reply-To: <47B0AF73.6030901@chuckr.org> X-Face: $@VrUx^RHy/}yu]jKf/<4T%/d|F+$j-Ol2"2J$q+%OK1]&/G_S9(=?utf-8?q?HkaQ*=60!=3FYOK=3FY!=27M=60C=0A=09aP=5C9nVPF8Q=7DCilHH8l=3B=7E!4?= =?utf-8?q?2HK6=273lg4J=7Daz?=@1Dqqh:J]M^"YPn*2IWrZON$1+G?oX3@ =?utf-8?q?k=230=0A=0954XDRg=3DYn=5FF-etwot4U=24b?=dTS{i X-Spam-Score: -4.359 () ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.61 on 209.203.2.133 Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:03:44 -0000 On Monday 11 February 2008 22:26, Chuck Robey wrote: > All you folks who are focussing on YouTube are (purposefully?  I don't > know) the fact that with just about half of the entire Web using flash in > one way or antoehr, not using Flash is a huge problem, as anyone who > browses without a flashplayer knows. Just to provide a counterpoint to this sweeping generalisation, I browse without a Flash player and it's never caused me any problem at all. There are a few sites which don't work without Flash. Having checked on a number of occasions, I've found (and I stress this is a personal opinion) that heavy use of Flash is a fairly reliable marker of a site I wouldn't be interested in whatever publishing techniques were used. It's rather like the old saying in the British advertising industry: only sing in an ad if you have nothing to say. How does Flash fit in with accessibility guidelines? In many countries, a commercial site which doesn't degrade gracefully when viewed with (eg) Lynx may fall foul of legislation protecting people with disabilities such as visual impairment. In short, I think ``half of the entire Web using Flash'' may be a bit of an overstatement even if you count Flash ad banners (which frankly I can do without), and the small number of Flash-only sites I encounter hasn't caused me temporary inconvenience, never mind ``a huge problem''. Jonathan