17 Dec 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Nice site. But they've done the highly annoying defeating the back button trick. God, I hate that.

17 Dec 2003 | kev said...

meh. screw the back button. This site is killer.

17 Dec 2003 | pek said...

My only complaint, having to select the text in order to chage it's point size or leading.

17 Dec 2003 | Jon Gales said...

Weird... It doesn't work in Camino but looks great in Safari. I first thought you were crazy (the site loads in Camino, but doesn't do anything... Just sits.). Never had that happen with Flash before.

17 Dec 2003 | JF said...

My only complaint, having to select the text in order to chage it's point size or leading.

Yeah, I agree. Would be nice if it worked this way: If no text is selected, and you changed the size, everything would change. But, if you had some text selected, and you changed the size, only that text would change.

17 Dec 2003 | ed said...

amazing site. wow. these guys are good. i agree too that having to select the text in order to change anything about it, but other than that, this site is flawless. wow. very very cool.

17 Dec 2003 | cc said...

It seems to me that the reason for selecting the type is that it leads to the choice of more weights within the same sentence. a few words are set it in 'bold', and, the other few words in 'light', etc. Basically, beyond the superficial inconvenience lay great possibilities. Very useful!

17 Dec 2003 | pek said...

CC - you are correct. I hadn't thought of the situation where someone would want to do that. Good catch!

17 Dec 2003 | 8500 said...

I am underwhelmed. The interface is nothing but difficult to use. Also when text runs outside of the browser window (as the background text on the first page does) it bothers me since I am trying to read it as opposed to study it.

17 Dec 2003 | Darrel said...

I'm not sure what's so profound about this. They sell type. Obviously, they should SHOW the type. They did that in flash with a big scrolling area. Makes sense. But it's nothing new.

Too bad it's too big for my browser.

Nice type, though.

17 Dec 2003 | miles said...

I showed this to several non-web people who were all impressed and had no problem navigating the site.

The one obviously flaw with using flash for all this is that non-bitmap fonts are handled so badly and some of the examples look fuzzy as hell.

17 Dec 2003 | Don Schenck said...

I, too, am underwhelmed. Then again, I'm the AntiStyle ... so if I do not like it, then it's probably good.

(why, God, do *my* sites look like they were created by a three year-old on an Etch-A-Sketch?)

17 Dec 2003 | Martin Mes said...

Ahhh...another Flash miracle from our Belgian friends at group94 (klasse, dames en heren!). Their Stratocucine has been a long time Flash fav of mine...

18 Dec 2003 | jkottke said...

Breaks the mold and my browser. Doesn't work on Firebird on Mac or PC or Safari on the Mac. I've seen this type of thinking before....

18 Dec 2003 | JF said...

Breaks the mold and my browser. Doesn't work on Firebird on Mac or PC or Safari on the Mac. I've seen this type of thinking before....

Works fine in Safari for me.

18 Dec 2003 | jkottke said...

Sorry, that should have said Camino, not Safari.

19 Dec 2003 | adam said...

Doesn't work in Firebird for the PC. I've never had that happen before either, what are they doing that would break Flash functionality?

19 Dec 2003 | g94 said...

Hmm...

Firebird is a pre-release 0.7 and it says on their homepage (http://www.mozilla.org/products/firebird/) that "Mozilla Firebird is a Technology Preview. While this software may work well enough to be relied upon as your primary browser, we make no guarantees of its performance or stability in its pre-1.0 state and it should not be relied upon for mission".

So I think that if Firebird is not capable at this time of displaying a FlashMX website that connects with a sql database using loadvars, well then Mozilla has a big issue ;-)

(there were similar issues with Safari and Flash in it's pre-release phase... fixed now).

24 Dec 2003 | Wintergreen said...

Large missing flash plug-in icon means I keep moving. Since flash has become the new medium for full screen adverts, it's been so perverted as to be entirely worthless. There's only three sites that *require* flash: movie sites, junior web designers sites, and now this. None of those three are worth it. I fail to see the beauty. In fact, I fail to see anything. My loss, I guess.