|
|
Posted by Spex on 09/22/06 23:33
Jukka Aho wrote:
> Spex wrote:
>
>>> The QT plugin, at least in Windows environment, doesn't seem to have
>>> a full-screen mode, which is a big, big minus.
>
>> You need QT Pro for that.
>
> Well, that's just ridiculous. "Pro" version for basic functionality such
> as full-screen playback? Apple should get their act together.
If you say so...
>
>>> Also, in order to have the QT plugin installed on a Windows system,
>>> you first need to install the QuickTime player, which is everything
>>> but minimalistic in its cluttered rounded-edges weird-UI theming
>>> craze.
>
>> Real and MPC are aesthetic classics are they?
>
> I have not touched the "real" Real Player in years, so I honestly don't
> know how it looks today. But I'd rather not say what I thought about it
> back when I was still forced to use it (that is, when "Real Alternative"
> wasn't yet available) since this is, after all, a family newsgroup.
>
> (OK, Real Player at least _used_ to be an ad-ridden, nasty and clumsy
> piece of spyware that installed pesky auto-starting "services" totally
> without the user's consent, required registration by e-mail address,
> sent all kinds of information of playback preferences to The Man, and
> generally tried to take over your machine. Perhaps they've sobered up
> now and backpedalled these "Pinky and the Brain" style world domination
> schemes of theirs a bit, but I'm not inclined to try their offerings
> again if I can at all avoid them.)
>
> As for Media Player Classic, it's just like a normal computer program
> should be. Standard menus, standard user interface, light-weight,
> functional; no "theming" or other useless gimmicks.
That could be a description of QT Player as seen from the perspective of
someone using OS X. It sticks out like a sore thumb on windows for
obvious reasons.
>
>> Don't be a cheap skate just buy QT Pro and our experience will improve
>> dramatically. QT Pro is well worth the peanuts it costs to upgrade.
>
> If you want me to view videos on your website, you'll use a format that
> doesn't drive me away or force me to buy additional software. (You're
> free, of course, to make a licensing deal with Apple that allows you to
> offer QT Pro as a free download for the users of your web site. That
> would at least be a somewhat reasonable proposition. I'd probably still
> not download it, though.)
Your internet experience is absolutely no concern of mine. If I made
the creative decision to embed video in a page any you want to dick
around trying to view it in a way it was never intended then thats up to
you.
>
>> What is flattering is the steps M$ has gone to plagiarise the look of
>> QT Player in Vista.
>
> I don't like the current breed of MS media players any better than I
> like QT, so I wholeheartedly agree with your observation. (Hence my
> recommendation for Media Player Classic, instead of the MS media player.)
>
>>> Yet another great tool for overcoming the brainfarts of web designers
>>> and media player developers alike is the MediaPlayerConnectivity
>>> extension for Firefox [4], which allows playing back silly "embedded"
>>> web video in regular, non-embedded players (yes, in full-screen mode,
>>> too) and figuring out the actual URLs of the streams, which the web
>>> "designers" so often try to hide in their convoluted-but-futile
>>> JavaScript-based obfuscation attempts.
>
>> Those web developers are clearly less brainfarted than those fools
>> that want to watch full screen video that was originally encoded for
>> a small embedded window. You must be a measurebator that likes to
>> observe compression artifacts up close and personal.
>
> Whether you like it or not, web pages (and, therefore, web video) is
> viewed in multitude of environments and settings - not just on desktop
> PCs, but also on portable devices, on "tv-out" based systems, etc.
> Sometimes there's just a single person watching, sometimes a group of
> people.
I don't know what your beef is, it's almost as though you're trying to
have a rant but haven't found the right subject. Its pretty clear that
websites that want the user to be able to download content make it very
easy. There are loads of shareware and freeware utilities that can
convert one format to another for whatever purpose. Those websites that
want to retain some level of control will stream it or use some
proprietary plugin technology but ultimately if the user really wants
the content and break copyright several applications are available to
make screen grabs and make audio recordings of any type of content on
any web page.
Do you seriously think websites are designed to be viewed in group
situation? If they were they would be designed differently than they
are now. Clearly a judgment is made as to the mode of reception for a
given site. Group viewing is going to be way down the list of design
criteria.
Any single postage-stamp sized fixed solution that seems to work
> for the web designer on his screen may not work at all for the users of
> that website, so it's better to offer a choice than restrict and lock
> down things. (Then there's the accessibility side of it. Webmasters that
> deliberately try and make it _harder_ for the visually impaired and
> hard-of-sight to experience the web are in dire need of some good
> old-fashioned spanking and attitude adjustment.)
>
That is just a plain ludicrous proposition. I don't know any webmaster
who has actively gone out of their way to make things difficult for the
visually impaired. There are poorly designed websites that may be hard
to read but it's not necessarily the webmaster's fault. Over keen
marketing people who insist on the company's print branding guidelines
being used on the web are the main culprits. I've witnessed many times
the "We want our website to look like our brochures" syndrome.
It's down to the operating system to provide accessibility for
handicapped and visually impaired people. Its a core requirement best
suited to the operating system which will give the user a consistent
experience across all applications. BTW, OS X has a fantastic set of
controls for handicapped people you'll be pleased to know.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|