![]() ![]() ![]() I had to tell them it was not really feasible given they have a stupid menu made with a stupid plug in. I had someone the other day ask me to print of a menu for fricking Jack in the Box. Why do 99.99% of all restaurant sites suck hard. I guess I will just have to continue to use Flash until HTML 5/CSS 3 matures a bit more. Even when IE 9 comes out there is only a small sliver of the corporate world that will use it. Mugtug sketchpad Pc#So what are we supposed to do with all of our PC clients that use IE 6 and IE 7 and IE 8? I feel Flash will still be around as long as IE doesn't support HTML 5 and CSS 3. ![]() Remember most of us designers are not really tied to Flash the plugin or actionscript the language but Flash the design application. Most of us have no real love for actionscript and I personally would have no problem using a design application that just exported a set of HTML 5, javascript and CSS 3 files. We really don't care what language the final product has as long as it can do the same stuff. Then every designer in the world that uses Flash wouldn't really care what the outcome is. In fact I really hope Adobe just ports the shell of Flash to compile CSS 3 and javascript content. I can tell you that my students wouldn't mind using CSS 3 and HTML 5/javascript if they had a visual tool to do so. Now if somebody would just make a visual application to do this then the transition could start. So CSS3 seems more like the visual animation portion of Flash (without the GUI of course) while javascript the actionscript portion of course. I can tell you that example played a bit smoother and used a bit less cpu with Safari compared to Firefox. I think this shows a big advantage over Flash, as has been pointed out, because javascript is open source, the browsers can compete over the fastest native implementation of it, but this sort of thing just doesn't happen with Flash, because it's all down to Adobe how efficient (or inefficient) their Flash support is. I'm not sure who's fastest right now, but javascript engines got incredibly faster and more efficient in the past year, and I think they'll get even better in the next year. It started with Safari, went to Firefox, and then Chrome. But in the example page you linked to, I don't think it was used appropriately, and the proper course for the author would've been for most of that to be done using CSS.Īs for javascript itself, the biggest area browsers are currently fighting over is who has the fastest javascript engine. Javascript can be efficient though, when used appropriately. CSS 3 should be used for any 'transforms', but it can't perform calculations. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |