How to produce this kind of animation?
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Jim on 26 Mar 2010 10:20 On 2010-03-26, Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>> PC fans don't change speed. >>> >>>> They most certainly do. Or, at least, every PC I've used that was made in >>>> the last 3 or 4 years can alter fan speeds. I've got a Fujitsu behind me >>>> that sounds like a hovercraft at times, then calms down. >>> >>> They even have settings apart from 0 and max rpm, and I think they're >>> generally under the control of most OSes. >>> >> Out of curiosity, how would one alter the fan speed on a Mac? > > Putting your finger in the fan alters it quite drastically I have found. Although it does tend to produce a sort of "Ow!Bastardbastardbastard!" sound, I've found. Jim -- Twitter:@GreyAreaUK "[The MP4-12C] will be fitted with all manner of pointlessly shiny buttons that light up and a switch that says 'sport mode' that isn't connected to anything." The Daily Mash.
From: Yurts on 26 Mar 2010 12:58 On 3/26/2010 5:01 AM, Chris Ridd wrote: > On 2010-03-26 09:56:19 +0000, Woody said: > >> On 26/03/2010 09:48, Chris Ridd wrote: >>> On 2010-03-26 09:30:29 +0000, Pd said: >>> >>>> Adrian Tuddenham <adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Perhaps you can afford to lose a few customers; but if you can't, the >>>>> website needs to work both with and without Flash. >>>> >>>> I still see websites that are utterly broken without Flash, and take >>>> ages to load and full of pointless animation that adds very little to >>>> the overall message if you enable Flash. >>> >>> The Crumpler (laptop/camera bags and so on) site is similarly >>> Flash-encrusted. To their credit they've created an HTML version of it >>> as well. >> >> I don't have a problem with that - if they want to show off that they >> can do flash, fine, as long as there is an accessible site too > > It seems like a waste of money to me to produce two versions of the same > website. Accessibility is NOT a waste of money! I'm not sure they'd have to make another website, there is lots of good alternate accessibility tags in html (which you should be able to use on a flash site as well) in order to make a site accessible.
From: Chris Ridd on 26 Mar 2010 13:02 On 2010-03-26 16:58:52 +0000, Yurts said: > On 3/26/2010 5:01 AM, Chris Ridd wrote: >> On 2010-03-26 09:56:19 +0000, Woody said: >> >>> On 26/03/2010 09:48, Chris Ridd wrote: >>>> On 2010-03-26 09:30:29 +0000, Pd said: >>>> >>>>> Adrian Tuddenham <adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps you can afford to lose a few customers; but if you can't, the >>>>>> website needs to work both with and without Flash. >>>>> >>>>> I still see websites that are utterly broken without Flash, and take >>>>> ages to load and full of pointless animation that adds very little to >>>>> the overall message if you enable Flash. >>>> >>>> The Crumpler (laptop/camera bags and so on) site is similarly >>>> Flash-encrusted. To their credit they've created an HTML version of it >>>> as well. >>> >>> I don't have a problem with that - if they want to show off that they >>> can do flash, fine, as long as there is an accessible site too >> >> It seems like a waste of money to me to produce two versions of the same >> website. > > Accessibility is NOT a waste of money! I'm not sure they'd have to > make another website, there is lots of good alternate accessibility > tags in html (which you should be able to use on a flash site as well) > in order to make a site accessible. That's not what I meant. It is a waste of money having an accessible site *and* an inaccessible, Flash-based site. IOW the Flash-based site is a waste of money. -- Chris
From: Peter Ceresole on 26 Mar 2010 13:18 Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > That's not what I meant. It is a waste of money having an accessible > site *and* an inaccessible, Flash-based site. IOW the Flash-based site > is a waste of money. I realised that's what you meant, but I'm not at all sure you're right. It depends on your intention- but I'd bet if you are selling things, that there are quite a few people who will be attracted by animated content, and the Flash version may well generate enough interest to pay for itself. Remember you're dealing with humans. Cats who look at the flames. -- Peter
From: Chris Ridd on 26 Mar 2010 14:03
On 2010-03-26 17:18:25 +0000, Peter Ceresole said: > Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> wrote: > >> That's not what I meant. It is a waste of money having an accessible >> site *and* an inaccessible, Flash-based site. IOW the Flash-based site >> is a waste of money. > > I realised that's what you meant, but I'm not at all sure you're right. > It depends on your intention- but I'd bet if you are selling things, > that there are quite a few people who will be attracted by animated > content, and the Flash version may well generate enough interest to pay > for itself. > > Remember you're dealing with humans. Cats who look at the flames. And Mac users who look at $shiny! -- Chris |