Ohhhh!!! That's quite interesting. Anything to do with Gucci is interesting. That would make me feel awful again knowing how these items cost a fortune.
Posted by: may36 at September 5, 2006 04:43 AM
--------------------------------------
It seems they're emulating Flash with JavaScript, rather than creating a true, accessible, semantic (well, as close as you can currently get) site using web 2.0 technologies. Web 2.0 ideas, the social aspects or involving users, are also missing from the picture. Not a wow site for me, just a pointless show-off of dev skills.
Posted by: Niko at September 5, 2006 10:38 AM
--------------------------------------
I love how they did it w/o Flash, but it runs VERY jumpy on my machine, kind of lags a bit... I've got a pentium 4 1.8Ghz, so perhaps it requires a much faster computer to run smoothly... I bet if it was in flash it wouldn't have been so jumpy during the transitions/fades.
Posted by: Josh at September 5, 2006 02:31 PM
--------------------------------------
Might be perfect for surfer 2.0 ...
Posted by: Waas at September 5, 2006 07:16 PM
--------------------------------------
Great! I want to know how they did it...
Posted by: Tulsi at September 5, 2006 07:42 PM
--------------------------------------
Am I missing something? Or are you? There is Flash in their website, be it marginally concealed.
Code snippet from site:
movie:"flyplayer.swf?file=85th-gucci-final.flv&autostart=true"
And what does Web 2.0 have to do with anti-Flash? Seems to me that Web 2.0 should have more substance than "anti-Adobe" before it becomes anything more than hype.
Let's keep it clear here. I'm not pro-Flash,
but falsely crediting (or improperly qualifying) a brand's activities or use of technology doesn't bring any of us any value.
Posted by: Scott at September 5, 2006 07:52 PM
--------------------------------------
Hey Scott, I spotted the news around the Web. I wasn't able to find any Flash in the site, and I thought this was nice to post.
I trust you, and I will be happy to revise my post accordingly. I'm not necessarily a fan of Web 2.0 technologies (until a few days ago I couldn't tell you what they were) I simply enjoy innovations.
Posted by: Martina at September 5, 2006 08:39 PM
--------------------------------------
FYI - AJAX stands for Asychronus JAVASCRIPT and XML. It's a technology thats been around for at least 5 years and is only now starting to get popular due to the rise in Web 2.0 companies wanting to add interactivity without using Flash.
It's a passing fad that will die off due to browser incompatibilities, takes twice as long to develop as Flash, is twice as expensive (for no real benefits), it doesn't stream well...should I go on?
Ajax is well suited to small usability enhancements like widgets, sortable tables and dynamically populated dropdowns, but not good for whole site or apps.
Posted by: Matt Voerman at September 6, 2006 02:28 PM
--------------------------------------
what's special about nice dev techniques when there's not really a point in using them? it's not about which tools you use, it's the thought behind it and which tools you choose to employ for those.
Posted by: fab at September 11, 2006 09:50 AM
--------------------------------------
What gets me about the site is it is completely unusable. Try actually ordering a product - the first ten told me to go visit a gucci store... I'd rather know this sooner than waiting 2 seconds for an animation then to find I can't buy!
Pretty but pants..
Posted by: Aron Codie at September 13, 2006 09:46 PM
--------------------------------------
its a very nice web site, but what make web 2.0 a better place is not just the tech (flash or xml/js) is the possibility of more interaction from the users.
Posted by: jose at September 13, 2006 11:50 PM
--------------------------------------
|
