Plug-ins, including Flash

[Bradley Miller]

At 12:15 PM 3/20/2003 -0600, you wrote:

>A site I supported until recently had four different plug-ins that were
>required by various developers: Flash, Authorware, Crystal Reports, and
>Filenet IDM.  These plug-ins run up to 20MB each, and have considerable
>overlap in function.  When we reached the point where we were getting version
>conflicts - one site had to have v.3, one had to have v.4 - we had to say
>"enough" and refuse to install any more.
>
>These systems can have some use if you are working within an intranet with a
>standardised document management system.
>
>On a publicly accessible web site they're just plain wrong.  Sure, they can
>add flavor to the experience, but I object to a web designer forcing me to
>download and install software that I did not choose.
>

You've chosen to be on the site and use the content -- why can't a designer 
specify what you use?

>If there were a mandatory registration fee, would you download the Flash
>plug-in?  Have you downloaded the Nagware version of Apple's Quicktime?  Most
>plug-ins have been fairly restrained about loading spy-ware and spam on a
>user's computer, but some have been eggregious, and some are things like 
>gator
>which are primarily spy-ware.  Where do you draw the line?

Spyware  -- how do you draw the line between what people are putting on 
their PC vs. what's paid for?   If my program "phones home" to know that 
it's a legit copy . .  is that bad?   If I say right out in the open "if 
you steal this software because you don't feel like paying for software the 
software will check whether your copy is legit and either run or not run" . 
. . I think that is a good thing.

>
>Flash is allowing spammers to limit your ability to disable the spam - 
>this is
>outrageous!  If there is a legitimate reason to have controls for the flash
>content, then those controls should be available, and one prominent one 
>should
>be "NO"!

Spam -- as in email?   Or blatant advertising?   If you buy a magazine do 
you chastise the publisher for the ads in it?  Do you rip them out?

>
>What about the people who have marginal systems or connections, for whom the
>plug-in alone is a significant load on their system?

420K for a download -- runs on everything that I have here.

>
>What about the people who are running a locked-down corporate computer?  Are
>they going to call their IT department and say "I want you to load Flash 
>on my
>computer so I can browse this job search site"?

I guess they'll just need to not browse on corporate time and go do it from 
home . . . . oh the atrocity!

>
>If you want to dress your site up with special layouts and animation, go 
>ahead
>and use these things to "enhance the viewing experience", but don't rely on
>them.

No animation . . . enhance viewing experience -- mainly keep Joe Schmuck 
happy and updating his info.  They have to be relied upon for speed and 
better user experience from a "I click and it comes in -- no waiting" 
mentality.

>
>If you make your content accessible only through propietary, closed-source,
>non-open-standard software you shut people out, to say nothing of betraying
>the spirit of the open source movement.

On a plugin that 90+% of all web surfers have on their 
pc?   Closed-source?  The SWF protocol is wide open to looking at . . 
.   Non-open-standard?   Are they supposed to give it away for 
free?  Someone please explain to me why everything has to be open-standard 
. . . is it to be free?