RE: FLASH: Bandwidth & Binaries

[Sooy, Matt]

OR, when a situation is best remedied by use of a flash file, you could

email a binary attachment DIRECTLY to the/those persons who would benefit

from it.  Please do not make a habit of filling my box with attachments.


matt


> -----Original Message-----

>

From: lenhabtcorp [dot] com [SMTP:lenhabtcorp [dot] com]

> Sent:	Friday, August 28, 1998 12:44 PM

>

To: flashershocker [dot] com

> Subject:	FLASH: Bandwidth & Binaries

> 

> As a newbie here, I apparently breached local netiquette with a 12K Flash

> attachment a couple of days ago. I also shot myself in the foot in doing

> so

> by sending a version protected from import. Sorry about that.

> 

> But I'm interested in raising the issue of binary attachments here. I

> suggest the bandwidth issue may be a non-issue for many (most?) of us, and

> there are many benefits particularly with respect to Flash.

> 

> 1) Flash produces very small files considering what they do. The design

> intent is Web delivery after all. Attaching flash files is not like

> attaching Photoshop documents, Director movies, or even a hefty gif or

> jpg.

> 2) Considering the low end of the spectrum at around 33.6 dialup

> connections, you should get throughput of about 3K bytes per second (33.6

> is

> what I use at home and downloads of compressed files run from about 2.6 to

> 3.8K per second) possibly more. So a 12 K file takes about 4 seconds to

> receive at the low end.

> 3) Suppose that ten people sent one file of this size each day. The

> additional download time for slow connections would be 40 seconds. There

> were about 102 messages posted yesterday. Suppose HALF of them included

> attachments this size? The download would be an additional 204 seconds or

> 3.4 minutes. That 3.4 minutes per day buys you 51 example files. Seems

> like

> a valid tradeoff here.

> 4) But how many people have connections significantly faster than 33.6? I

> myself am on a T1. How many have a continuous connection, even at ISDN

> speeds? For those of us who do, mail just comes as it does. Volume in

> terms

> of number of emails is more significant to me than file size since there's

> the need to look at what that envelope in the tray is all about.

> 5) Which brings us to the next issue: "Old Chinese Proverb". In the case

> of

> Flash a picture probably is worth a thousand words or even 2000. How many

> times does someone express a need to do something which others don't quite

> understand because they can't see it? And how often is an answer given

> that

> doesn't address the real question because of this? How often is the same

> answer repeated in different ways in an attempt to communicate something

> graphical in words alone? Seeing the movie and maybe taking the time to

> fix

> it or pass back an example would save all this. This could conceivably

> reduce the volume in terms of numbers of messages. It would also increase

> the signal to noise ratio.

> 6) The Chines Proverb seems even more relevent in Flash than elsewhere. If

> I

> have a problem in Director, I can quote a few lines of Lingo or maybe get

> a

> few lines that help. Same in DHTML with scripting and style sheets. Or

> nearly any programming language. This stuff works with words (including

> symbols) and is effectively communicated with words. But Flash is driven

> exclusively with dialogs and other graphic elements. It is much more

> difficult to communicate about a graphics program whose interface is fully

> graphical without some reference to the thing itself.

> 7) Of course, not all Flash movies are 12K or less. But I'd be surprised

> if

> the number of binary attachments actually reached 50%. 10% would probably

> be

> more reasonable. And, if the list software used here is anything like

> lists

> I've managed in the past, you can set a maximum attachment size to ensure

> that no one sends something larger than the commonly agreed upon standard.

> 8) The alternative to attachments used here frequently is pointers to Web

> sites. There's certainly value in this, particularly for people who

> maintain

> sites devoted to Flash information. For myself, I run two servers. One is

> intranet only, the other is a subscription-only internet server. My

> company

> would not be happy if I opened the second one up for Flash examples. I do

> maintain several sites across the internet and could conceivably devote

> one

> of these to Flash. But it turns into a bit of pain to ftp a flash file and

> update an html page to point to it for the sake of answering an email.

> It's

> a lot easier to drag the file from Explorer to Outlook and hit send. So

> it's

> also much more likely I'd do it if I had something useful on hand. Plus

> I'm

> disinclined to open things up to random strangers. Somehow a list such as

> this is different.

> 

> Speaking of bandwidth, here's a fair amount of it. But I think it's

> relevent. What do others think? Should attached Flash movies be considered

> on topic here? This inquiring mind wants to know.

> 

> len harrison

> instructional designer

>

lenhabtcorp [dot] com

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> To UNSUBSCRIBE send: unsubscribe flasher in the body of an

>

email to list-managershocker [dot] com. Problems to: ownershocker [dot] com

> N.B. Email address must be the same as the one you used to subscribe.

>

For info on digest mode send: info flasher to list-managershocker [dot] com

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To UNSUBSCRIBE send: unsubscribe flasher in the body of an

email to

list-managershocker [dot] com

.  Problems to:

ownershocker [dot] com

N.B. Email address must be the same as the one you used to subscribe.

For info on digest mode send: info flasher to

list-managershocker [dot] com