Flasher Archive

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject:	Re: FLASH: Publish 3 and 4
From:	Russell E. Unger
Date:	Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:42:19 +0100

> Kevin and others,

Why? Why do this? Just say RUSS?

> This is starting to look like some of the ridiculous posts about 7.0.2
> on another list.
>

Ridiculous? How is this ridiculous? This is genuine concern for users, who
are not me and may not be aware of what could happen to them. A reputation
is a hard thing to build, especially in the freelance world, and I do not
know of many full-timers specializing in Flash right now. I could be wrong
on it, but think a bit deeper on the subject and you can see how this tiny
little "ridiculous" issue could have some real bearing on someone.

Furthermore, the SW702 is the farthest thing from ridiculous. It's an
uphill battle that *has* to be fought, and I'm beginning to wonder if you've
seen that, either. Call a matter of opinion, but what do you do when it's a
client opinion versus your own?

> I think what is lacking here is an undestanding of what publish does.
> Publish is intended as a tool that helps to produce the html for Flash
> movies.

No misunderstanding here. What I think is missing here is consideration for
persons who are not yet developing Flash4 content, and it SHOULD NOT be
assumed that everyone will instantly migrate to the tool just because it is
the latest and greatest. Director posts alone should reveal that, based on
previous experience. Same with some MS schtuff in the past. Let's face it,
you upgrade because you want to keep current. If the tool is worth its
salt, it will allow backwards compatibility and will allow you to work in
lower levels. Allowing you to do so should also allow you to work with
options that are friendly toward that lower-level. Fault it as you will,
it's an uncool and potentially dangerous to a persons livelihood to have a
pop-up window occur when you've developed in a lower version of a tool
because you know that it accomodates your audience.

I've already said it is a lot better that AfterShock. That's a given. I've
already said that I know how to fix it and prevent certain "pop-up" windows
from appearing. Think about the people here who may not be as savvy as you
are. That's one of the biggest reasons, to me, to be a part of this list.
To assist others and gloat about my tremendous good looks. A lot of people
who are incredible at this tool, far better than I could hope to aspire to
be from an artistic standpoint, know far less about some of the more
technical issues.

> As any good tool it is fully configurable and accomodates some
> basic choices when run without any further customization. The basic set
> of templates are just that, a basic set.

So, I should have purchased the GT version? Believe me, I certainly would
have paid for it. I would almost gather that the pain that has already been
caused over all of this could have been alleviated by simply spending that
amount of time making the HTML Publishing a bit backwards compatible as
well.

> One of these templates is the default template. This template correctly
> defines the required Flash player as being version 4. I think this is
> perfectly normal as we are after all talking about Flash 4. Now what is
> being asked for is that using this template and chosing to export the
> movie as Flash3 it should change behaviour. Why ?

Why not? It's the same issue. Better yet, if you want to be a bit more
narrow about it, why even allow the tool to work with Flash 3, then? Why?
Purchase Flash 3 if you need to work in that arena. Keep your previous
version on your machine with Version 4. I do that, but I am not going to
believe that everyone else does.

A lot of people using this tool will not know the first thing about HTML or
how to edit those templates. Broad generalization to assume so. Seems to
me that there is no real need for this argument other than an understanding
of the person who doesn't grasp why this F4 Player window is popping up in
his F3 .swf file.

> This does not make any
> sense. If you want to publish a Flash 3 movie you have another template
> that should be used. If the Flash 3 template isn't to your liking
> because it also produces an alternative image then build a template for
> your use. This takes about 30 seconds to do.

It's not about the image. It's about the calling of the F4 player or noting
that a person hasn't upgraded. That causes a lot of alarm. Have you even
seen the issue that I am describing? Please say you have or else arguing
against it would seem to be a moot point from your stance...at least to me.

Russ

------------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE send: unsubscribe flasher in the body of an
email to list-manager