| Groups | Blog | Home |
flash (macromedia) : TO FLASH 8 OR NOT TO FLASH 8 (A RESPONSIBLE WEB DESIGNERS DILEMMA)
internet. Both are valid, although there are some who would rather argue than work... Camp # 1: Maximize viewer compatibility. Camp # 2: Use cutting edge technology and force upgrades/loose viewers. I have always belonged to Camp # 2, so I post new technology as fast as I can. I feel this not only gives me the latest tools to play around with, but furthers the advancement of the internet. (Also, when is the last time you saw a job opportunity that read, "Must use Flash 2"....) But, and this is a huge but, what does your project/client require? Your xhtml won't even validate if you use flash so..... Define your requirements, then proceed with confidence knowing your doing the best thing for the project/client. I take the nod from the software manufactures, (Microsoft, Macromedia, Adobe, Etc.) and always use the latest version. Again, Camp #1 is absolutely valid and correct, if that's the way you want to go, or the project/client requires it. I think both camps can go too far, fact and point, look at the changes in technology on the internet over the past 10 years. If you stick to you guns too long, in any Camp, you may very well be left behind in a cloud of old pixels. Explain the pros and cons with your client, help them decide, that's part of your job. Believe it or not, I have been programming websites, (html & flash) for almost 8 years, and only once has a client requested Camp #1. Good luck, Jon [quoted text, click to view] "mediumbear" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message news:dgsj5p$59d$1@forums.macromedia.com... >I want very much to start working with Flash 8, and have already purchased >a > copy. What I don' t know is when it is safe (AND NOT ANNOYING) for me to > begin > requiring that users have flash player 8 to see the website. > > I mostly want to take advantage of the new font rendering and layer > effects... > which are very awesome indeed. > > When will it be safe to expect people to update? > > Any links to threads talking about this? > > My first site would be for a Chicago based music group who maybe pulls in > 500-1000 non-repeat visits per month. > >
I want very much to start working with Flash 8, and have already purchased a
copy. What I don' t know is when it is safe (AND NOT ANNOYING) for me to begin requiring that users have flash player 8 to see the website. I mostly want to take advantage of the new font rendering and layer effects... which are very awesome indeed. When will it be safe to expect people to update? Any links to threads talking about this? My first site would be for a Chicago based music group who maybe pulls in 500-1000 non-repeat visits per month.
[quoted text, click to view] > Believe it or not, I have been programming websites, (html & flash) for > almost 8 years, and only once has a client requested Camp #1. > Good luck, > Jon About the same time here, and I have Camp #1 in 90% cases. I guess you don't do much of corporate clients. I do some stuff for electronic products companies from Korea, their MUST is compatible with majority of views and when comes to flash, always one or two versions back to the current one. You need to keep in mind that the mind blowing super computers with big flat screens and red hot VGA, are mostly on our end only. A mortal in office won't upgrade computer in at least 3 to 4 years and people who surf for fun and not for work just to see what's new, are too cautious about downloads and upgrades. I was doing game for Samsung last week where requirements were flash 5, the most was MX (not mx 2004) only because the projector file was simply too large for them. Flash 5 and MX is about 100 over KB difference, now Flash 8 is 3 times the size so the download and bandwidth usage was the issues for them having thousands of visitors a day. So i guess, the Camp 1 and 2 really depends on what's your end client. Even macromedia do not use latest flash on their website, why do you think is that ? -- Regards Urami -- <urami> http://www.Flashfugitive.com </urami> <web junk free> http://www.firefox.com
Now that specifically may be since they didn't make their own site and get
the classic "ok so those did the site, didn't give us the FLA and we're stuck with the old version" problem :) [quoted text, click to view] > So i guess, the Camp 1 and 2 really depends on what's your end client. > Even macromedia > do not use latest flash on their website, why do you think is that ? > > -- > Regards > > Urami > > -- > > > <urami> > http://www.Flashfugitive.com > </urami> > > <web junk free> > http://www.firefox.com > </web junk free>
[quoted text, click to view]
> Believe it or not, I have been programming websites, (html & flash) for > almost 8 years, and only once has a client requested Camp #1. Nice - what kind of client base do you have? I'm with urami on this one - most of the clients I have worked with over the last few years have wanted to develop for one or two versions prior to the current to try to maximise exposure, and this includes work for bands, clubs etc, as well as white collar corporates (mind you, bottom line, most (big) bands are run by large corporations anyway...) -- ------------------------------- Remove '_spamkiller_' to mail -------------------------------
uhmm I was only kidding :)?
anyway if they update content from 9 to 30 days why the hell: 1. we still have no copy link / open in new window for the navigation's right click menu 2. the exchange's flash version still is ages behind the HTML version we had few years ago in terms of speed and usability. -- Regards, Stan Vassilev [quoted text, click to view] "urami_" <runnerHaHaHIHI@HAHAHIHIflashFugitive.com> wrote in message news:dgtpn9$pf$1@forums.macromedia.com... > > > Stan Vassilev wrote: >> Now that specifically may be since they didn't make their own site and >> get the classic "ok so those did the site, didn't give us the FLA and >> we're stuck with the old version" problem :) > > Does not work this way, there is a marketing team which dispatch > the work via agency and there is many people working on same project. > Each of us has agreement and it clearly state that all the source is > belong > to the company. This is 5 years contract and regardless amount of work > they > pay monthly same amount. All the content belongs to them, by right i > should not > even keep copy of the work and can't use it nor any of the materials given > in my future projects. There is no 'play play' with this people, the first > thing before you even talk money is a legal lecture of what is going to > happen > if .... hypothetically ....you violate the agreements. > > Not to mention that is hard to stuck with old fla, they change content > every 9 to 30 days, > plus, what would be a problem to save old fla in new program ? > > > > > -- > Regards > > Urami > > -- > > > <urami> > http://www.Flashfugitive.com > </urami> > > <web junk free> > http://www.firefox.com > </web junk free>
[quoted text, click to view] Stan Vassilev wrote: > Now that specifically may be since they didn't make their own site and get > the classic "ok so those did the site, didn't give us the FLA and we're > stuck with the old version" problem :) Does not work this way, there is a marketing team which dispatch the work via agency and there is many people working on same project. Each of us has agreement and it clearly state that all the source is belong to the company. This is 5 years contract and regardless amount of work they pay monthly same amount. All the content belongs to them, by right i should not even keep copy of the work and can't use it nor any of the materials given in my future projects. There is no 'play play' with this people, the first thing before you even talk money is a legal lecture of what is going to happen if .... hypothetically ....you violate the agreements. Not to mention that is hard to stuck with old fla, they change content every 9 to 30 days, plus, what would be a problem to save old fla in new program ? -- Regards Urami -- <urami> http://www.Flashfugitive.com </urami> <web junk free> http://www.firefox.com
Several kinds, corporate, entertainment, small businesses, non profits......
I do quite a bit of multimedia/video work, not so much straight web work these days. I do want to point out, for clients I always clearly explain the options + & -. Most of the time the project requirements dictate what Flash version I use. And that's about it. I have never seen a problem with using flash, viewers having to update plugins, etc. It's free and only takes a few minutes. It seems to really bothers some people, but I suspect many things bother those kind of people :) Jon [quoted text, click to view] > Nice - what kind of client base do you have?
Just to comment on Sneelock, yeah I do agree with you, it just makes me wonder
why installing FlashPlayer is a big bother to some people and yet almost all of them have managed to install some sort spy ware like hotbar on their machines. I just find it amusingly funny.
[quoted text, click to view] Infinite Darkness wrote: > Just to comment on Sneelock, yeah I do agree with you, it just makes me wonder > why installing FlashPlayer is a big bother to some people and yet almost all of > them have managed to install some sort spy ware like hotbar on their machines. Well, spyware install w/o you knowing about it while player you need to consent to. -- Regards Urami -- <urami> http://www.Flashfugitive.com </urami> <web junk free> http://www.firefox.com
So you want MM to pay us everytime we publish to player 8? dont hold your breath - and not because
MM is cheap (they arent) but it's not practical or logical. MM just spent 2 years developing the version of flash and the player - i wonder how much cost they endured to give us these great new features for us to play with? where's the weight now? :) [quoted text, click to view] >
> Hey, until MM makes a serious effort to improve the adoption rate of Player 8 > why should individual developers and designers be doing the heavy lifting for > them for free?
Now I'm not too conversant with either Flash player 7 or 8, but here's where I
see the problem: With Flash 8 authoring one is encouraged to write some heavy video streaming stuff that would bring 7 to a crawl - I saw the MM evangelist show side by side demos of the 2 players - 7 looked like it was standing still. The catch is you need Flash 8 player to play this stuff back. OK I'm at least famil;iar with Joe Public and most will think they are already up to speed with player 7, and it 'll take time for the public to adopt free, or whatever, it's just the nature of the beast. I mean telephone support at MM told me it was still too early to promote Player 8 on their website! Can you believe that! In fact if you play a video on MM website there is no request to upgrade to Player 8. Hey, until MM makes a serious effort to improve the adoption rate of Player 8 why should individual developers and designers be doing the heavy lifting for them for free?
hi there,
I think it is quite funny and probably it is a strategy that MM is applying for us to start purchasing our copies, playing with Flash 8 and publish our websites, probably because our websiteswill demand the used off flash 8 and bythe time they have more customers to buy Studio 8, end users will already have updated the player thru our websites directed into MM Site FPlayer update....." Is there any README File that tells that no support for flash player is available, there aint, atleast i havent seen it. I purchased my copy, and the problem i now have is that until i published my whole site created in Flash 8 i have noticed that some parts and animations are not available, what should we do? I know that a " flash player 8 site required" banner at index, but i deal with mid-aged people around 40 to 60/70 year old ppl.... should i now go back and spend more cash on creating another web site for flash MX compatible? My question is, i just need to know if there is a possible way that we have a small swf on our sites which contacts directly to MM site and update automatically to flash player 8, you have it on MM (get flash player). Our what do MM recommend us to do in this case.....? I aint complaining about Studio 8, cause i have seen it has some great new features.....but really would like to apply them to the website and have user compatibility. I do appreciate some help and support....i do now that it is a mayor mass deal right now....but....suggestions can be constructive....thxz mates, JagSv
[quoted text, click to view]
>should i now go back and spend more cash on creating another web site for flash MX compatible?Exactly the thing i'm doing these days. Creating a website in Flash 8, i keep in mind that it then must be published for player 6 as well and use apropriate animation tricks (that are supported by p6). Then a script loads the version of my website accordingly to the player version installed on visitors' PC. So the site is viewable in any case, the question is how does the visitor see it (because the flash 6 version may appear pretty far from perfection). And yes, i place a small banner at the bottom of the screen saying "this site doesn't look like it's supposed to on your obsolete flash player version :) to take the full advantage now and in the future, please install player 8" (read "install flash player 8 to increase your download bandwidth and get multiple other bonuses" lol ) And by providing this warning i make my website immune to those who would say "oh, but this site looks awfull on my desktop" (because it might indeed look so in flash 6), making it a problem of their own. I know it seems to be doubling the effort for creating a website, but this is my personal way of solving the Dilema. I'm in Camp#2, but most of the clients here in Russia are Camp#1.
But why do you say you can make a living with an older version of the player and not with a newer
version which allows more features, which in turn makes you a better developer? i am just trying to understand your logic. i am sure i am just missing something. I totally get what you mean about player adoption - but the way you phrase your argument it is apparent you are totally against progress - or you just dont want to be in the fore front of the group pushing the progress forward? [quoted text, click to view] Habana Jim wrote:
> The logic is that MM has, and is, and will, make a mega bundle on their > products, and good for them - they have fine products. The more Studio 8's they > sell the more Mercedes those hard working MM team will be able to afford , not > to mention houses and vacations!!! I as an individual designer will make > nothing from promoting Player 8, however, I can make a living using Flash MX > 2004. Now, if anyone wants to lift heavy weights be my guest, like MM I'll wait > and follow in the muscle mens slip stream - excuse the mixed metaphors. > > (MM just spent 2 years developing the > version of flash and the player - i wonder how much cost they endured to give > us these great new > features for us to play with? where's the weight now?) >
The logic is that MM has, and is, and will, make a mega bundle on their
products, and good for them - they have fine products. The more Studio 8's they sell the more Mercedes those hard working MM team will be able to afford , not to mention houses and vacations!!! I as an individual designer will make nothing from promoting Player 8, however, I can make a living using Flash MX 2004. Now, if anyone wants to lift heavy weights be my guest, like MM I'll wait and follow in the muscle mens slip stream - excuse the mixed metaphors. (MM just spent 2 years developing the version of flash and the player - i wonder how much cost they endured to give us these great new features for us to play with? where's the weight now?)
How do you know the site couldnt be seen because of an outdated player? perhaps it was security
settings in the browser - or poor network connection at that time or other factor...? it's up to the developer to build a site properly - if a site is built that requires flash player 8 then the developer needs to integrate a player detection and offer a link to download the latest player - there are so many ways to do this and ultimately it's up to the developer how they would like to implement player detection. I highly recommend to stop assuming things without doing a little reading first - take a few seconds to search "flash player detection" in the knowledge base of this site: http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/flash/flashplayer_detection.html [quoted text, click to view] jag_sv wrote:
> Exactly, why can?t MM have a message showing that out of date > version...download..... > I think if they spent lots of $$ and time doing this Studio 8 they must have > thought of this issue before and the must have a solution. Is it that MM doesnt > want to release it? Hopefully i could get my site showing and running. > Ex. I went to my customer and said " hey, check out the site ( on a meeting ) > when they poped open the site with a big screen and sound....suddendly the site > didnt show have of its content....i said..." well, that is due to outof date > version" they said, we want audience not to leave the site..... > Hopefully MM comes with a solution to this problem....ASAP. > > But meanwhile what do we do?????? > > JagSV
Funkme,
Thankx fro the reply and info....i would like to know what type of script you can use to detect the type of version and then display the site accordingly to thier flash player version....Also, is there a possible way to save the swf or the .fla into MM Mx2004 without loosing the animations.....for example, the site i am creating right now doesnt require much, but i have developed some icons and some animations that does require the flash player 8, due to text enhancement.....etc... Thanx all for the replies. Cheers Mate, JagSV
Funkme,
Thankx fro the reply and info....i would like to know what type of script you can use to detect the type of version and then display the site accordingly to thier flash player version....Also, is there a possible way to save the swf or the .fla into MM Mx2004 without loosing the animations.....for example, the site i am creating right now doesnt require much, but i have developed some icons and some animations that does require the flash player 8, due to text enhancement.....etc... Thanx all for the replies. Cheers Mate, JagSV
I'm struggling with this same issue. Wouldn't it be great if viewers to our
Flash8 sites could get a message saying "You're version of Flash Player is outdated, click yes to install FlashPlayer 8"? Seems like there used to be messages like that in the past a while ago. But when I go to a site with Flash 8 (if I don't have the player), video made with the new codec just doesn't show.
Exactly, why can?t MM have a message showing that out of date
version...download..... I think if they spent lots of $$ and time doing this Studio 8 they must have thought of this issue before and the must have a solution. Is it that MM doesnt want to release it? Hopefully i could get my site showing and running. Ex. I went to my customer and said " hey, check out the site ( on a meeting ) when they poped open the site with a big screen and sound....suddendly the site didnt show have of its content....i said..." well, that is due to outof date version" they said, we want audience not to leave the site..... Hopefully MM comes with a solution to this problem....ASAP. But meanwhile what do we do?????? JagSV
can you repost thoe links? i just posted same questions, b/c i can't read
your thread. thanks, jon (could also email them to me at crash ta cdcdigital dotcom.) [quoted text, click to view] "jccrtv" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message news:dhhk5c$l28$1@forums.macromedia.com... > Hey Chris, that's helpful. Thanks for posting the links. > > Jim
i included a link to player detection methods in my last reply to this thread.
--> www.mudbubble.com - www.keyframer.com - Team Macromedia <-- --> http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/flash/3d_animation.html <-- --> http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en&as_ugroup=*flash* <-- --> mudbubble mailing list: stserv@mudbubble.com with "subscribe news@mudbubble.com" in body <-- [quoted text, click to view] RGolfer wrote:
> HI, > > I am struggling with the same issue .. sort of. In Flash 8 there is a check > version option when you publish your flash movie. It automatically insert > script to check for outdated players. On the HTML page a nice little note comes > up and states "Get Flash". You are then able to add diferent text to replace > this statement at that point. I am still trying to figure out how you can > insert a basic HTML page with a nice note stating "before you continue you > should install the most receint Flash" at the top along with the GET FLASH > message. If any of you knows how do do this it would surely help me out. > > } else { // flash is too old or we can't detect the plugin > var alternateContent = 'This site uses Flash technology.' > + 'To view this site you should download a free version of Macromedia Flash > Player.' > + '<a href=http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflash/>Get Flash</a>' > + '<!--#include virtual="/Includes/TopPageEN.asp" -->'; // this include does > not work .. any idea on how to be able to have this accept an include?? > document.write(alternateContent); // insert non-flash content > } > > Ron
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/flash/flashplayer_detection.html
[quoted text, click to view] Jon Parkhurst wrote:
> can you repost thoe links? i just posted same questions, b/c i can't read > your thread. > > thanks, > > jon > > (could also email them to me at crash ta cdcdigital dotcom.) > > > "jccrtv" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message > news:dhhk5c$l28$1@forums.macromedia.com... > >>Hey Chris, that's helpful. Thanks for posting the links. >> >>Jim > >
HI,
I am struggling with the same issue .. sort of. In Flash 8 there is a check version option when you publish your flash movie. It automatically insert script to check for outdated players. On the HTML page a nice little note comes up and states "Get Flash". You are then able to add diferent text to replace this statement at that point. I am still trying to figure out how you can insert a basic HTML page with a nice note stating "before you continue you should install the most receint Flash" at the top along with the GET FLASH message. If any of you knows how do do this it would surely help me out. } else { // flash is too old or we can't detect the plugin var alternateContent = 'This site uses Flash technology.' + 'To view this site you should download a free version of Macromedia Flash Player.' + '<a href=http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflash/>Get Flash</a>' + '<!--#include virtual="/Includes/TopPageEN.asp" -->'; // this include does not work .. any idea on how to be able to have this accept an include?? document.write(alternateContent); // insert non-flash content } Ron
Hey Chris, that's helpful. Thanks for posting the links.
If I had said that I coudn't make a living using Flash 8 you would be correct
in thinking my logic was faulty. But of course I never said that, indeed I attended an MM seminar on Studio 8 and was very impressed. I will use it and I hope everybody on the Internet embraces Player 8, and live happy ever after, or at least until v9 is launched. I am talking of the here and now, and especially for the small shops who need to feed themselves and their families. It doesn't make sense for them to take on the mantle of "cutting edge" geeks looking to make a name for themselves. I understand there are large corporate accounts which are already deploying and preparing for development with Studio 8. I would think that at the very least the several hundred MM partners who were involved in the development of v8, will be ready to deploy shortly. But your argument with Jagsv can be turned against you, and I am not trying to win any points here! You say: "it's up to the developer to build a site properly - if a site is built that requires flash player 8 then the developer needs to integrate a player detection and offer a link to download the latest player - there are so many ways to do this and ultimately it's up to the developer how they would like to implement player detection" I am sure Jagsv will agree with you (and he should thank you for providing the link). I agree with you. Why then hasn't MM on its website done precisely that - developed with Flash 8 and integrated a player detection system? There could be a good reason (and I suspect its called - all eyes on Adobe). I'm all for progress, but you know what happened to the Light Brigade when they charged without thinking it through! In other words I am happy to follow MM's lead, but I don't intend to get out ahead of them on the Flash Player 8 adoption issue. Regards [quoted text, click to view] Chris (mudbubble) wrote ...But why do you say you can make a living with an older version of the player and not with a newer version which allows more features, which in turn makes you a better developer? i am just trying to...
thanks chris. I think i was searchign for another post and replied to this
one. :( Thanks anyway mate. :O) Jon [quoted text, click to view] "Chris (mudbubble)" <chris@REMOVEmudbubble.com> wrote in message
news:dhhls0$c1q$8@forums.macromedia.com... > http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/flash/flashplayer_detection.html > > > > Jon Parkhurst wrote: >> can you repost thoe links? i just posted same questions, b/c i can't read >> your thread. >> >> thanks, >> >> jon >> >> (could also email them to me at crash ta cdcdigital dotcom.) >> >> >> "jccrtv" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message >> news:dhhk5c$l28$1@forums.macromedia.com... >> >>>Hey Chris, that's helpful. Thanks for posting the links. >>> >>>Jim >> >>
When a first time visitor comes to the website that uses Flash 8, the user is
automatically sent for the update(I think). This is built into Flash 8. I agree...it depends on the client's needs. For streaming video....Flash 8 uses half the bandwidth of all other types of streaming video without compromising the quality. Windows media player, quicktime and whatever else require twice as much bandwidth than does the new video compression built into Flash 8. In my opinion...this changes everything. Lookout...here comes the next big wave of internet rich media content. We run full screen video on our page with no waiting for buffering(instant video). http://nomorelag.com
[quoted text, click to view]
> We run full screen video on our page with no waiting for buffering(instant > video). http://nomorelag.com Well, not quite. Even on my work's T1 line it was laggy as all hell... -- ------------------------------- Remove '_spamkiller_' to mail -------------------------------
On the topic of how long to wait for the general populace to upgrade to a new
tecnology, the answer I've seen most usability experts give is 1 year. This is what Jakob Nielsen recommends in his book "Designing Web Usability." Of course, I've always felt that the answer depended more on your audience. If you are doing a site that will be used by younger, more technology familar people, a box popping up asking them to install the latest version of the plug-in won't scare them off. Installing the Flash plug-in is fairly painless due to its small size and the way most browsers automate the installation process these days.
hey cool man! thanks for posting that - nice to know our advice helps.
:) [quoted text, click to view] jag_sv wrote:
> Hey Chris, > > Thanks Alot for the info, for the links and for all those helpfull content you > showed me. I will try to apply that on the site and will keep you all > informed.... > I spoke with my customer today and they where a bit pissed due to the "not > showing site" in all the pcs....but i just let them express themself to get the > anger out........then i said what you had told me about that there is a way to > auto detect the flash player version and offer the visitor a download link to > update to the most current player....they were stuned......but thanks alot > Chris!!!! Your helpful info is really appreciated!!! > > Thankx Mate! > > JagSV
Hey Chris,
Thanks Alot for the info, for the links and for all those helpfull content you showed me. I will try to apply that on the site and will keep you all informed.... I spoke with my customer today and they where a bit pissed due to the "not showing site" in all the pcs....but i just let them express themself to get the anger out........then i said what you had told me about that there is a way to auto detect the flash player version and offer the visitor a download link to update to the most current player....they were stuned......but thanks alot Chris!!!! Your helpful info is really appreciated!!! Thankx Mate! JagSV
Chris or Anyone that knows,
I would preciate just a bit more help...I have downloaded the Flash Player Detection Kit...all the files where succesfully downloaded. The problem i have is that i am trying to use the Express Installation Method, i have already read all the content and how to do it, but i dont know why it is not working for me ( maybe i am too bad at flash, jejeje ) I copy all the files into the server and then i try to play it and check if it gives me the option to download automatically and install the flash player......i can view it on computers that have the player 8 already installed and it gives a message Installation Complete.... but when i play it in a computer that has fp6 it just displays a blue screen and no message...and no installation, i have already left it for more than 1 hour there loading and nothing happens....i would appreciate some help here....cause i am only able to manage the link to the flash player site in macromedia..... Thankx, JagSv
Chris or Anyone that knows,
I would preciate just a bit more help...I have downloaded the Flash Player Detection Kit...all the files where succesfully downloaded. The problem i have is that i am trying to use the Express Installation Method, i have already read all the content and how to do it, but i dont know why it is not working for me ( maybe i am too bad at flash, jejeje ) I copy all the files into the server and then i try to play it and check if it gives me the option to download automatically and install the flash player......i can view it on computers that have the player 8 already installed and it gives a message Installation Complete.... but when i play it in a computer that has fp6 it just displays a blue screen and no message...and no installation, i have already left it for more than 1 hour there loading and nothing happens....i would appreciate some help here....cause i am only able to manage the link to the flash player site in macromedia..... Thankx, JagSv
JagSv,
Can you please tell me what version of flash 6 you have installed? Thanks ,
Wrench,
The version of flash the computer has installed is 6 rc21 ( flash player ). It is wierd because i am not sure if its me the one whos doing the bad thing, the server or the file itself. Would appreciate lots of help, i have temporarly set a link to go and update the flash version. But i would rather have the Express Installation page in my site so visitors will find it easier and have no prob installing it. Thxz, JagSv
since the original topic of this thread has changed, it would be a good thing to start a new thread
with a descriptive subject line - that way MM rep will have a better chance of catching it. thanks --> www.mudbubble.com - www.keyframer.com - Team Macromedia <-- --> http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/flash/3d_animation.html <-- --> http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en&as_ugroup=*flash* <-- --> mudbubble mailing list: stserv@mudbubble.com with "subscribe news@mudbubble.com" in body <-- [quoted text, click to view] wrench wrote:
> JagSv, > > I've been testing both the 6.0.21.0 and 6.0.29.0 players and both seem to fail > with the new detection code. The line in the script that is causing the > problems is 'GetVariable("$version")'. For some reason these two players in IE > fail respond to this function. If there's any Macromedia techs checking this > thread out it would be great if they could confirm the behaviour I'm seeing.
Yes, i think it would be great to have some support on that, i back up your
comment. Hopefully we canfind someone that can help us with that......i would appreciatte and i guess all of the people who have that same problem would too.... Thnkx, JagSv
JagSv,
I've been testing both the 6.0.21.0 and 6.0.29.0 players and both seem to fail with the new detection code. The line in the script that is causing the problems is 'GetVariable("$version")'. For some reason these two players in IE fail respond to this function. If there's any Macromedia techs checking this thread out it would be great if they could confirm the behaviour I'm seeing.
I think I've identifed an issue with F8 penetration that may bare some
relevance to this thread...check out my post http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=194&thre adid=1061399&enterthread=y Phil
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |