Re: FLASH: Flash Player 5

[Gregg Caines]

The fact of the matter is that if the plug-in had undergone adequate

testing,

then it wouldn't be called a beta version.  So, MM has a link to an

inadequately

tested plug-in above the link to the player that non-beta testers should be

downloading.  The majority of downloaders are not useful as beta-testers,

yet download page is clearly telling people to download the wrong player.


I quote (from the download page):


"Flash Player lets you experience animation and entertainment in your Web

browser. Follow the three simple steps below to get your free Web player.


Get Macromedia Flash Player 5 Beta NOW"


... and then its on to the actual 3 steps (which is about 2 steps too many,

but

that's another argument) you need to follow to download the correct player

for

the majority of the users.


In my opinion, that is misleading and provides the masses with buggy

plug-ins.

I would think that MM's goal should be to make that page the EASIEST and

CLEAREST it could possibly be.


Macromedia would serve themselves well to take a good look at the usability

of their website: they really are shooting themselves in the foot.  I

sincerely

applaud the fact that they took off the 'go to shockwave.com' step.  I think

that's

a step in the right direction, but the casino ads, beta confusion, and

superfluous download steps are only going to hurt their browser penetration,

and our confidence (as developers) in them.  I know that the plug-in is one

of

the most ubiquitous.  That's the only reason I use it.  But does that mean

that

they should be careless about its continued growth?


I think this is a good place to voice those concerns.  Other developers

might

not realize these things that are going on, and so this kind of talk can

raise a

little 'awareness'.  There are Macromedia people on this list too, and I

know

they are at least listening (and I'm often surprised at how well they

listen).


---------------------------------------------------

Gregg Caines

n e o m e t r i x  systems inc.

http://www.neometrixsystems.com

gcainesneometrixsystems [dot] com

>

On 8/3/00 at 2:20 PM, JGL <infodesignthenet [dot] com> wrote:

>

> > Still curious why the buggy F5 player is available at the download

> > center though . . .

> >

> > Shouldn't it be removed . . like immediately!

> >

> > I can't see any justification for having it there . . . especially

> > since there are known bugs that affect F4 sites.

> >

> > Isn't that one of the great powers of the web? Instant changes?

>

> You are obviously very upset by this and I respect that. MM's decision

> to release a beta is causing crises for your project. You've got a right

> to be angry about it.

>

> What's lacking is much support from other designers, or so it appears.

> It seems that you have posted similar messages 3 or 4 times -- I could

> be wrong, maybe it was someone else -- and haven't gotten a lot of

> me-too responses. I only remember a handful of people saying they didn't

> notice any problems and a few more praising the speed of the Flash5

> player.

>

> I downloaded the player as soon as it was available and I probably look

> at a few dozen Flash sites a day. So far, no apparent problems, nor any

> with my Flash4 projects.

>

> All this doesn't help you. You obviously have found a bug in the player

> that most people haven't yet noticed. But considering the *apparent*

> success rate of the beta player, I doubt that your appeal to MM is going

> to help you. I would guess that they would thank you for the suggestion

> and politely explain why the beta version won't be coming down at this

> time.

>

> And if you have indeed found a serious bug in the Flash5 player, then

> you are almost obligated as a member of the Flash designer community to

> follow John Dowdell's daily pleas that this be reported to the Flash5

> design team.

>

> In the meanwhile, you seem to have only a couple of things you can do.

> 1) Continue to post a warning not to download the wrong player -- word

> it so that it is effective without sounding condescending to the

> generally uninformed masses. 2) Be very direct in explaining the problem

> and its consequences to the site owner. Let her or him know that it is a

> bug -- albeit a rare one -- with the Flash 5 player and that you are

> cooperating with the Flash design team to fix it.

>

> This may all very well be moot when the final version of the player is

> released (just several weeks away?). Is your target audience likely

> enough to be without Flash4 to cause a sizeable problem in the short

> term?

>

> We've all been in your position at one time or another. It's no fun.

>

>

> .. . . and a webmastermacromedia [dot] com link would be nice too . . . :)

>

> I doubt a Webmaster or the equivalent would be of much help at MM. The

> Web design staff probably has more influence over implementation than

> content. Why don't you try calling MM to find out which is the most

> likely person or department to contact? There's a phone number on the

> following page:

>

> http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/cscontact/

>

> Best of luck,

> Ken

>

> ---

> Simplelives * Web design

> http://simplelives.com



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Full flasher archive now available online at:

 http://www.chinwag.com/flasher/archive.shtml

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to

http://www.chinwag.com/flasher or email

helpchinwag [dot] com