That site appeared straight away Cheese head, but that's no surprise on public computers. That front pic is amusing! I didn't bother to look any further though.
I've mentioned this before - without admin privilages, I can't install programs!
Including Flash!
www.five.tv detects no flash, and gives a link to a text version launching within 48 hours - that was weeks ago, still no text version.
In case any of this is a thinly-veiled reference to my Flash-only, Moonfruit sites (as these have been mentioned above - coincidence?) may I just say that I love it and the reasons are thus:
- It's easy to edit pages
- They cache just like HTML (ie. once loaded don't have to load again)
- Look the same wherever and however you view them
- Changing the window size just scales the whole thing
- The service is CHEAP (currently £39 per year for 80Mb of space - quite a good deal I think)
- Apart from the .moonfruit.com I have complete freedom over the first part of the URL
- It's easy to apply a new style to the whole site
- The security and stability of the site is top notch and your files won't suddenly disappear overnight as seems to happen with so many ISPs (viz-a-viz ITV Schools, TV Room, TV-Ark (many times))
- It's easy to edit pages (I know I listed that twice but it's a big bonus)
As I say I don't have any services to which I can upload HTML anyway and besides, HTML is a crap language and not suited at all to multimedia applications. It was initially designed purely as a way to organise TEXT - i.e. Hyper TEXT - not Hyper Images, Sound, etc. etc. Why on earth do you think all media rich content has to play in a codec of some sort? If HTML was as good as some on this site tend to go on about, then it would contain W3C compliant, open source streaming video, animation and sound codecs, but it doesn't.
Get off your high horse guys. What should we do, have an internet where every plug-in and codec that W3C didn't come up with is banned or frowned upon? No video files, no sound files, nothing except static text and pictures?
If HTML was as good as Hymagumba is always banging on about, then it would contain W3C compliant, open source streaming video, animation and sound codecs, but it doesn't.
XHTML is fab - HTML is getting old.
Plus - SMIL is a W3C thing. And that is what object is for anyways - to allow a plugin to play something.
This is part of the argument anyways - Flash is for animation - HTML is for text. Why use Flash for text when it means plenty of your visitors cannot see the thing? It'll like filling a shop with stairs and then going to laugh at anyone with a wheelchair.
From the reaction of most people here, I think I'll stick with HTML. It's so much easier anyway, as I suck at Flash. My domain would run out before I even get a design prepaired.
Lol. It uses CSS up to a point. I'd have used it completely but I created a lot of HTML content before I even remembered about it. Links, text and headers all come from a CSS file, but the Table and Cell background colours (No way am I scrapping tables) don't.
As for being compliant, we'll just have to wait and see...
www.five.tv detects no flash, and gives a link to a text version launching within 48 hours - that was weeks ago, still no text version. 
