Sneak PeakFlash site UPDATED 8/30


JasonMurray wrote on 9/5/2004, 3:43 PM
How many times is it necessary for me to say I'm not building a HTML+CSS site? That's child's play ANYBODY with a little experience can do that. FOR Pete's sake HTML is just a mickey mouse markup language!


I thought I should make the offer since there's much criticism but little actual offering of help going on.
rique wrote on 9/5/2004, 4:01 PM

You're probably one of those UN-SERIOUS people who run their monitor(s) at 1024x768 too! ;->
JasonMurray wrote on 9/5/2004, 4:19 PM
Yeah, 1024x768 with floating browser windows around 800x600. Cos that's all I need, and thats all the space I want websites to take up on my screen.

I've only built IT e-commerce sales support and fashion labels and brands websites, I don't know much. :)
BillyBoy wrote on 9/5/2004, 5:33 PM
How can I take anyone "seriously:" that wants to learn about Vegas yet doesn't want to have more than a fraction of their screen set aside to the tutorials when viewing them? You try to run Vegas in a 800x600 window at 1024x768? The point is not that you can't, but why would you want to?

No, actually you don't know much from my viewpoint. I authored one of the Web's most detailed and popular HTML tutorials, that when it was up (isn't anymore because its badly outdated) got almost a million hits in a less than year. So I guess I know a little about HTML. Even in its present state HTML is limiting. The future isn't HTML. its XML.

Flash the next logical evolution is what I'm doing. As far as bland HTML, been there done that, years ago. Big deal. Sorry, not impressed with HTML or people that limit themselves to that area. Show me a ALL FLASH site you authored with lots of bells and whistles, then we'll talk. Jason, one of your posts was included in anti-flash rant brackets. That speaks volumes on how you feel about Flash and explains all your negative comments. Saying you can "help" grow tomatoes when I'm trying to grown corn isn't helpful.

I've seen similar "arguments" actually rants, with the anti image crowd, the anti-audio crowd, the anti-multimeda crowd, the anti-Java crowd. The anti-JavaScrript crowd, the anti-Active-X crowd, the anti- CGI, anti- PHP, anti CSS crowds and now the anti Flash crowd. Some things never change, some people always see the glass as half full. The web IS constantly changing. I prefer to try new technologies.
JasonMurray wrote on 9/5/2004, 5:48 PM
One ... XML's a data transport protocol. Why not write your tutorials in XML anyway if it's now the future? A bit of XSLT and suddeny it turns into a very legible HTML page.

Two ... I run my web browser at 800x600, not fullscreen. This is not the way I run Vegas.

Three ... rather than "one of the Web's most detailed and popular HTML tutorials" why not actually name it? Come on, put your money where your mouth is. I might be impressed. ;)

Four ... as far as anti-flash rant brackets go, your sarcasm detection mechanisms seem to be malfunctioning. As I said many posts ago, I'm not opposed to the use of Flash, it's just not ready for the bigtime due to the useability and accessibiity issues it presents. Therefore, you use it to pretty up your site but you don't put critical information in it.

Actually, here's an idea for you -- since the tutorial aspect of the site is what's proving to be the annoyance -- why not turn the tutorials into executeable files, and offer them as a file for your site's visitors to download?

+ Can run the tutorials at fullscreen via the standalone Flash player
+ No browser Javascript / window sizing issues
+ Doesn't 'need' the website to run fullscreen


Think about the goal of your website, not the limitations of your delivery mechanism (thats not a dig at Flash, HTML is also limited in different ways). What *IS* the goal of it? Give me the simple one liner. Give me a sentence that starts with "The goal of my website is ...". I just want to know.
apit34356 wrote on 9/5/2004, 6:26 PM
JasonMurray, BillyBoy learns by actually suffering thru the development process. BillyBoy is more of an enduser that a system designer or engineer. The simple fact of this thread reflects that he did not define the operation environment of the app., this does not mean that his ideal is bad, just not research out enought before starting. When you papachute out of a plane, its best to have done your precheck before you jump, BillyBoy prefers doing it on the way out the door, at the airshow. It will be interesting watching BillyBoy develop his ideal website.

BillyBoy has been helpful with tutorials for beginning users, but are they the first, no way!
JasonMurray wrote on 9/5/2004, 6:32 PM
I think most of us learn that way ... its the difference between learning and teaching ;)
Spot|DSE wrote on 9/5/2004, 8:41 PM
I must be un-serious too. In my main suite, I run triple 15" monitors, and 1024 x 768 is the best I can run each monitor. I got tired of always looking at the top of a 20" pair of flat screens that sat too high on my monitor shelf. So I bought 3 15" monitors that lie down low to the shelf. 3 shorter monitors are so much better than 2 taller monitors.
Matt_Iserman wrote on 9/5/2004, 9:37 PM
If one were to cruise around the net a bit, they would find that suprisingly few serious web sites are all or even slightly Flash-based. Additionally, most set themselves up to cater to/support those with screen resolution as low as 800x600 (e.g. Yahoo, MSN, CNN, Barnes & Noble).

Flash may or may not be the future; however, the technology is certainly not the present. There are too many limitations.

Of course, it is your web site; make it however you like. Those of us who have commented (with one exception) are only trying to help. Part of that includes stating "If your site continues as is/all Flash, I won't be going there." Nothing personal. Not an attack. Just a statement of fact. Others may share my opinion; others may not. You can take the advice given to you ("don't go all Flash") or ignore it.

You have designed good tutorials. It would be unforunate if that content were buried by bells and whistles.

Good luck and take care,
Matt Iserman
AlexB wrote on 9/5/2004, 11:33 PM
Just wanna ask: which graphic card do you use for the triple monitors? Parhelia?
Grazie wrote on 9/5/2004, 11:35 PM
Same here Alex! Grazie
apit34356 wrote on 9/5/2004, 11:43 PM
I believe that Spot has stated in the graphic card thread "Matrox P650 and Parhelia are my two faves." P650 supports three monitors. I think Spot did a review of the P650, maybe at VASST site or DMN.

AlexB wrote on 9/5/2004, 11:52 PM
I got kind of dizzy looking at three Monitors, so I'm back to two 19" TFTs. Using 2x1280x1024 with the P750 and liking it.
Small contribution to the topic: personally I don't like too much flash on a site. Earth spinning far too fast, and my choice of colors would be different. But interesting effort. Installed flash player 7 and now I can see the Site even with Mozilla firefox, my favourite player.
Spot|DSE wrote on 9/6/2004, 8:29 AM
I'm not using the parhelia in this machine/room, it's too noisy.
I'm using the Matrox Millenium P650 with the triple head drivers. Works wonderfully, and dead sillent.
Cheno wrote on 9/6/2004, 10:18 AM

Why don't you work on more tutorials instead of a cheesy way to deliver them?

As for HTML tutorials, if you helped write the world's greatest, I guess you must understand the technical aspects of the development, however you lack much in design.

I think we've all benefited from your tutorials, why not work on more of them and not worry so much about the delivery until you can get it right?

BillyBoy wrote on 9/6/2004, 1:07 PM
This thread is hilarious. Honest, some of you guys crack me up.

Lets see, I get told my picture scares people (me too when I look in the mirror) hint (was just a placeholder) they don't like the color scheme, don't like the fonts, don't like the text size, don't like full screen mode, don't like Flash in general, etc., etc., but PLEASE write more tutorials.

BTW, I was told in the past repeatedly the site my tutorials are at now was cheesy looking. I agree. I never tried to make it look pretty, just put the tutorials up quick and dirty, just. haphazard in no kind of order. Which, no surprise to me, I was critized for also.

Now when I say when I have a few minutes I'm working on a better web site, again, I get the you don't know what you're doing crap.


A reminder from how I started this thread:

I said:

"At this point it still has a lot of rough edges. Mainly would like some feedback if you have trouble loading, if or not you have Service Pack 2 installed, what browser and version,etc.. "

Did l ask if anyone liked the color scheme, the font choices, that I used Flash, or any of the other stuff some are whining about ever when I repeatedly said it is in no way the finished product?


For the people that actually bothered to give me feedback ON WHAT I ASKED FOR thanks!

For the rest of you that used this thread to take another cheap swipe at me and air your bias about Flash and other things you don't like may I suggest you enroll in a reading comprehension class.

Finally, yea, I do know a far amount about HTML and related web technologies. Which is why I chucke when I'm told why don't you do it in HTML with CSS. As far as "design" making a site that is mainly intended for tutorials artful is like putting a silk dress on a hog. Its still a pig. I'm making the content easier to access.

Wait and see.
JasonMurray wrote on 9/6/2004, 3:26 PM
Finally, yea, I do know a far amount about HTML and related web technologies. Which is why I chucke when I'm told why don't you do it in HTML with CSS. As far as "design" making a site that is mainly intended for tutorials artful is like putting a silk dress on a hog. Its still a pig. I'm making the content easier to access.

No you're not. If the content were easier to access this thread wouldn't be threatening to take over Sony's website by force. And again, why not point me in the direction of this fabled HTML tutorial you wrote back in the 90's if you're so proud of it? (Maybe I used it, maybe I'll be impressed, try your luck)

You've still not answered my question about the goal of your site and your target audience, instead choosing to once more respond with a bunch of miscellaneous notes and shots at responses from a week ago.

Just give me a straight answer to those questions, maybe we can take it from there.

And why not consider the download-and-play tutorials?
John_Cline wrote on 9/6/2004, 3:56 PM

What we have here is another one of Billy's, "I know more than everyone here combined" situations. He has absolutely no grasp of the obvious and he's going to do whatever he wants to do despite very good advice from people that actually do know more than he does.

He isn't going to listen to me simply because he hates my guts, but he's not going to listen to any of you either.

In my opinion, the best way to distribute his marginally useful beginner's tutorials is to make them available for download or viewing online as Adobe .PDF files. It works exceptionally well for Ed Troxel and his Vegas newsletters.

JasonMurray wrote on 9/6/2004, 4:10 PM
I've seen a fair bit of praise for his tutorials in here, so I don't want to write them off as marginally useful :)

From what little bits of information I can pick up, BB seems to be constructing a Vegas-like user interface in Flash, perhaps to teach the beginners about what tools perform what functions within the application. Can't really judge what it is or how well it works at this stage, but I'm sure he's got a big plan of some kind for the tutorials - its the site that holds and delivers them to the users that's causing grief.

This kind of thing (interactive tutorials, etc) is something that Flash is certainly suited to, and a damn nice idea to boot.
BillyBoy wrote on 9/6/2004, 4:44 PM
You two are marginally useful is demonstrating the crap I put up with.
Just wondering, WHERE are any tutorials either of you wrote?

What's that? Neither of you have written a single one, I'm aware of. No kidding. I've noticed. So has everyone else. So again, PRICELESS. Someone wants to judge what I'm doing and hasn't done a damn thing himself... and can't apparently.

apit34356 wrote on 9/6/2004, 5:08 PM
BillyBoy, well you are right about people telling you to redesign your website, but that thread was somewhat a heated debate and now this thread is a heated debate. Can you put in a link in your current website to your testing site? That way only really interested people will visit and you can have a feedback prompt at exit point. Why have pointless debates, it is your project.
JasonMurray wrote on 9/6/2004, 5:29 PM
You two are marginally useful is demonstrating the crap I put up with.

You're an idiot. I was standing up for you and your tutorials.

Won't make THAT mistake again, will I...?

I note you still have failed to provide any kind of linkage or even the name or information about your supposed mid-90's HTML tutorial.
JasonMurray wrote on 9/6/2004, 5:30 PM
Can you put in a link in your current website to your testing site?

That's also a great idea.
Eyepeace wrote on 9/6/2004, 5:48 PM
I admit my newness here, but this thread got me searching around. I just started looking at your old tutorials, and while they aren't pretty as you say, they have some very useful information. I can't access that same level of quality in your flash tutorials. I can't even read them. The colors and font size are just not conducive to clear communication.
One other aspect of this thread I'd noted earlier today is that every thread that is inflammatory, filled with name calling, and overall angst contains BillyBoy and John Cline. If you two dislike each other so much, why not just ignore each other? I notice that Spot is in a lot of them too, but he seems to mostly hold his temper even when called names.
Is this forum always this volatile?
Billyboy I hope you continue to write tutorials and I'll keep looking at them, but if they aren't readable, then your work is essentially for naught, isn't it? What's more important to you; getting your message across or pointing at an all-flash site that no one can use? I believe you are wanting to help people first and foremost?