IMIKYA site

[Merciless]

Hi guys, even though if your looking at the site with FireFox the top banner will not be centered, (because even with help from DD forum guys i could not get it to center in firefox) i released a "beta" type version of the site, so that people can help me look over it and fix/add stuff, if you have any ideas or things you think are bad broken or dumb i'd appreciate it, so far i've determined that it is a bunch of eye candy. :D be sure to listen to the music.

- http://IMIKYA.cOm

-ReT

[Twey]

Problems:It doesn't validate (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://imikya.com/nm.htm) HTML Trans is outdated It's fixed-width It's table-based, a hack that, with the onset of CSS, has become essentially obsolete It uses various forms of obsolete presentational markup The Flash objects are created with Javascript, so even users with Flash can't see them if they don't have JS The music.

[Merciless]

1. Does anything?
2. what do you mean HTML trans is outdated
3. it doesn't matter that its fixed width because thats the minimum width it can be... it cant go any smaller, it could enlarge i suppose, but, ??
4. How am i supposed to use CSS to organize that, i saw it on killerchetneys site, care to elaborate?
5. It uses various forms of obsolete presentational markup < what does this mean?
6. the javascript was used to eliminate those grey boxes that appear around flash animations in internet explorer, got any better ideas?
7. how is there anything wrong with the music? you just dont like it?

- you straight up blew me away twey, now i hate myself, how can i fix it? :( :( please tell me before i go and commit suicide :( :(

[BLiZZaRD]

Twey does that, don't take it (too) personally. Just worry about 1 - 5, the rest are personal grudges Twey has about using site design based on items visitors might have (i.e. Flash, JS, etc.) enabled.

But if you use Flash, use JS as well, because I have yet come across a person who has one but not the other (unless they are testers, coders, or those that will not install Flash for any reason, but they don't count anyway :p )

Yes, most well viewed sites will validate, and although you may have a number of errors, take the time to correct them, it will make the site look better in the end anyway :)

2, he means use HTML strict, it will throw more errors in your face when you validate, but apparently it is the "to do" today as trans, although still supported is out dated because of slack ass browsers not being compliant with modern ones :p ( I use trans too )

3, fixed width cause viewing problems on lesser grade monitors, those still using 800X600, or smaller no WS LCDs, etc.

4. Learn CSS. It's actually not that hard to get a grasp on the basics and it can turn your site around in a matter of days.

5. Not sure about this one :D

[Merciless]

:o so CSS is my main problem then, thanks blizzard, your the best, i'll go do just that.
- Edit: where would i go about starting to find css stuff? dynamic drive? and is the site so bad
that i should remove it from the internet???

[Twey]

No, of course not. It's perfectly usable. You asked me to list flaws, so I did so. The Flash is actually done very nicely -- it's all too common to see a big blank "you need to install Flash Player" messages when viewing sites that use Flash.

As for the music, it's generally considered a bad idea because a) it adds quite a lot of bulk to the page, which can deter people on slower connections altogether, and b) it irritates people. If you must have music on your site, dedicate a whole page to it, obviously labelled "music" or similar, and have it play when the user starts it, not automatically.

Don't worry about #5 too much: when you switch to HTML 4.01 Strict, the validator will complain about it. Essentially, I was talking about things like
<div align="center">instead of centring the <div> and/or its contents using CSS.
the javascript was used to eliminate those grey boxes that appear around flash animations in internet explorer, got any better ideas?Do you mean Microsoft's new "click to activate" security feature? If so, embed the Flash using normal HTML, then reload the source using Javascript.
it doesn't matter that its fixed width because thats the minimum width it can be... it cant go any smaller, it could enlarge i suppose, but, ??Well yes, that's pretty much the definition of a fixed-width design :) If it can't go any smaller, you should make it so it can, but your site is sufficiently well-organised and the minimum width sufficiently small that the minimum isn't too much of a problem -- it might irritate users with smaller displays or browser windows, but it's unlikely to render your site unusual. I'd be more worried about making it expand to fill the available space -- fixed-width sites often look tiny on large displays, where a pixel is considerably smaller than you'd expect. This is one of many reasons not to use pixels to size things: people on large displays will have suitable default font sizes, but a pixel doesn't scale with the display, so something whose size is specified in pixels will look much smaller in comparison to the text on a large display. For example, on a sufficiently large display, your site would only be able to fit a single word (or less) on each line.
Just worry about 1 - 5, the rest are personal grudges Twey has about using site design based on items visitors might have (i.e. Flash, JS, etc.) enabled.Hardly. In this case it's not too much of a problem, since the site doesn't rely on either to present content, but with some sites it can impair usability. In this case, it simply means that some people who otherwise could see the Flash wouldn't be able to do so. I imagine that the designer of the site would like the Flash to be seen by as many people as possible, so I pointed it out. The music, as I said above, poses one stylistic and one technical problem, but it's a point of style on which enough people agree that it's worth mentioning.

[BLiZZaRD]

Hardly. In this case it's not too much of a problem, since the site doesn't rely on either to present content, but with some sites it can impair usability. In this case, it simply means that some people who otherwise could see the Flash wouldn't be able to do so. I imagine that the designer of the site would like the Flash to be seen by as many people as possible, so I pointed it out. The music, as I said above, poses one stylistic and one technical problem, but it's a point of style on which enough people agree that it's worth mentioning.

Not to start a fight, but you DO do that Twey. If a site isn't perfectly aligned with the solar system and the Gods have sung their praise, there is something wrong with the site in your eyes. It is a nice stand point, but web site "perfection" can be annoying.

I tend to think of web sites like movies, you have different genres. Different styles of displaying the content. While you may like "The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill and Came Down A Mountain" I can say I actually HATE that movie, but on the other hand I LOVE "When Harry Met Sally" and you despise that one.

Sites are the same thing, I may enjoy Flash ONLY sites, while you hate them, but you may love perfectly designed sites about coding, where I would rather not even click to them.

You can't make a website that will please everyone, just like you can't make a movie that will please them all. You have to pick a specific group and aim to please them, my site caters to riddlers, who by nature have every decoding, encoding, decrypting and photo manipulation software on the market, this includes Flash. I have no problem making a Flash only main site, and not worrying about those (relatively) small number of folks that don't have Flash installed.

It's just two sides of the coin my good friend (and I mean that good friend part :) ) I just disagree that every site has to be a perfection of your higher web standards.

[BLiZZaRD]

:o so CSS is my main problem then, thanks blizzard, your the best, i'll go do just that.
- Edit: where would i go about starting to find css stuff? dynamic drive? and is the site so bad
that i should remove it from the internet???

OOps.. sorry Merciless... start HERE (http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/011/firstcss) A very basic resource.

Then the best option after you do that is to find what you want to control with CSS on your page, try it, test it, fix what won't work, and ask here when you get stumped.

I did that, and I made a complete CSS web site (50 pages) in 2 weeks. I can say I know CSS to a fair degree (at least for my needs) at this point. Not to bad for a couple weeks.

And leave your site up, no point in taking it all down, just make it better :D

I still tweak my site daily, and I doubt anyone here with more than 20 posts doesn't.

[Twey]

I just disagree that every site has to be a perfection of your higher web standards.I think you're missing my point. Obviously nothing is perfect. However, if someone asks me to point out the flaws in a given site, I'll do so, even if they're not flaws I'd normally even notice, because they could cause a serious problem in some cases. The fact that they don't do so in my case doesn't stop them from being flaws. Even if they cause no problems in any case of which we know, their mere potential to do so still means that they count as flaws, if minor ones.
I may enjoy Flash ONLY sites, while you hate themYes, but the reason I hate them is that I can't see them at all :) Something that stops people being able to at least extract the content from a site isn't a stylistic point, it's a technical flaw.

[BLiZZaRD]

My Love/Hate examples were just examples, I don't know if you really hate Flash (or love The Englishman for that matter :) ) And I do understand your point, my point though was that these "minor" flaws can't always be helped, and as such, instead of telling everyone to "stop using Flash or JS to present content" perhaps the site IS perfect for those that have those items enabled, in which case it isn't a flaw on the designers part, but more a general laziness on the visitors part.

If it were possible to disable php parsing through my browser, should I then argue that web designers shouldn't use that to present content because I refuse to allow php to be active on my browser? Hardly.

[boxxertrumps]

i think it is because flash is proprietary and only available on browsers that can pay a licensing fee.

and javascript is usually used for ads floating around the page, disabling it usually prevents annoyances.

so neither should be used to generate content, only games and effects.

[Twey]

I do understand your point, my point though was that these "minor" flaws can't always be helped, and as such, instead of telling everyone to "stop using Flash or JS to present content" perhaps the site IS perfect for those that have those items enabled, in which case it isn't a flaw on the designers part, but more a general laziness on the visitors part.Not at all. There are several very good reasons that a visitor might not want to have Javascript enabled, and even more that s/he might not have Flash installed.
Javascript:Security issues -- Javascript is one of the most abused native features of browsers these days. Since it is a prerequisite for many browser-based phishing and remote execution attacks, many people turn it off; also, Microsoft's common response to any sort of attack on IE is to advise people to turn off Javascript. Web irritations -- various types of popups, popunders, tracking cookies, and web bugs can be avoided by disabling Javascript. Lack of errors -- a lot of scripts are badly written so that they crash in certain browsers, rendering the site unusable, but provide non-JS fallback if the browser doesn't use Javascript at all. Lack of support -- this isn't so common nowadays, but some people still use browsers that don't even support Javascript.Flash:Proprietary software, whose source isn't open Only 32-bit versions exist, and 64-bit operating systems are becoming more popular The Linux version (and, I would presume, the Mac version) can be unstableNote that there is Gnash, which attempts to rectify these problems, but it is still incapable of playing many movies.
If it were possible to disable php parsing through my browser, should I then argue that web designers shouldn't use that to present content because I refuse to allow php to be active on my browser?Of course.

[BLiZZaRD]

I still disagree... going back to my movie analogy...

That would be like telling Hollywood to stop making "R" rated movies because there are more people alive under the age of 17 than there are over 17.

(not that there is or isn't, just saying)

[Twey]

Not so. R-rated movies are intended to not be viewed by minors. The analogy only works if you make your sites Javascript- and Flash-based because they've got some information about a Javascript- And Flash-User's Conspiracy that you don't want non-Javascript- and Flash-users to see :)

Rather, your argument is more like saying that we shouldn't bother putting in wheelchair ramps or signs in Braille because there are more abled (if that's even a word) people than disabled.

Completely off-topic, I'm entirely against censoring movies. In fact, I'm entirely against censoring anything, based on any criteria :) If the parents feel that the child can't handle the content of R-rated movies, it should fall to the parents to ensure that the child doesn't see them; it shouldn't be enforced by law, and especially not on the basis of some magic age limit ("as soon as people pass this age, they morph into mature adults!"). I know some 25-year-olds who are less mature and more likely to be psychologically damaged by R-rated movies than some 16-year-olds I know.

[BLiZZaRD]

IS So and your post proved my point... they aren't intended to be viewed by minors... but exactly on whose standards?

Of course it isn't a perfect analogy, but the point is made... Person A is over here saying no they can't/shouldn't/don't do that, while Person B is saying sure/do it/go ahead.

Who is right and who is wrong?

I wasn't saying make a Flash site just to keep out those that don't have it installed. Like wise for JS. But you could (if you dig hard enough) find reasons for EVERY content producing language not to be used. So when does the web designers preference (in this case making an "R" rated movie) prevail over what the vast majority may or may not have installed on their computer?

And I agree about the Law of the "magic age" I know my children better than some suit at the FCC... and I also know my older cousin shouldn't watch this movie, but son can handle it..

[Twey]

IS So and your post proved my point... they aren't intended to be viewed by minors... but exactly on whose standards?Huh? So you design a Flash site for the sole purpose of stopping people without Flash from seeing the content within?
Of course it isn't a perfect analogy, but the point is made... Person A is over here saying no they can't/shouldn't/don't do that, while Person B is saying sure/do it/go ahead.Er, not at all. I'm not sure if I've misunderstood you, but I completely fail to see what this is meant to represent. Myself and you, with one saying to use Flash/Java/<insert flashy plugin here> and the other saying to avoid it? I was talking about it from the user's perspective.
when does the web designers preference (in this case making an "R" rated movie) prevail over what the vast majority may or may not have installed on their computer?Well, to use the Web at all the user needs a browser. Browsers, by definition, support HTML; therefore, it can be assumed that anybody who wants to view your page can handle HTML. That's a given. Javascript and the various plugins can be used on top of that, of course, but it has to be borne in mind that since people might not have these things installed/enabled, they are additions to the content, and shouldn't be relied upon to display the content itself, at least without HTML backup.

[BLiZZaRD]

Well, we could be confusing each other, that is possible :D

My meaning was that you said "R" rated movies are not intended to be viewed by minors. I am telling you that is not the case.

As a screen writer (keep your fingers crossed, some large companies are reading my script right now :p) I write a movie about (and with content) that I want in that particular movie. In my case a ton of swear words, gun violence and sex. Now, on my end I want every body and their mother to go watch my movie. The FCC will approve my movie and place an "R" rating on it because of said content. So I wrote it, I directed it, I put it on the market. Some one else said who can and can not see it. That part is not up to me.

As for websites, I make my site with content that I like to use, want to see there and a design I like. My hopes, again is that everyone and their mothers will visit my site. The browsers having or not having some plug in, or language disabled says who can and can't view my site. That part is not up to me.

If it was I would personally go to everyones home, install said plug ins and set my site as their home page (and remove IE while I was at it :p) but I can't.

So the original point remains... Yes I want to design my site for everyone to view, but I won't do so at the cost of some very nice scripts, languages, and add ons that fewer (and fewer by the day) people don't have installed.

To use another real world example from my site... the riddle is mostly plain HTML/CSS however, if you are playing the riddle trail you will HAVE to have Flash Player installed to complete it. In 1 and 1/2 years of being on line I have just under 4 million unique visitors. Of those 4 million, 3.2 million have reached the first level that is entirely Flash. Of those 3.1 million have passed it. (And then there are only 12 people who are at the end :D )

Personally I don't think those are bad numbers, and I can't see the point in removing the Flash levels just so less than 1&#37; can continue to play.

[Twey]

As a screen writer (keep your fingers crossed, some large companies are reading my script right now ) I write a movie about (and with content) that I want in that particular movie. In my case a ton of swear words, gun violence and sex. Now, on my end I want every body and their mother to go watch my movie. The FCC will approve my movie and place an "R" rating on it because of said content. So I wrote it, I directed it, I put it on the market. Some one else said who can and can not see it. That part is not up to me.Oh, I see what you mean now. The analogy is still a way off, though, since the finished product that reaches the user isn't intended to be viewed by minors. It doesn't matter how it's become R-rated, what power struggles and court cases went on between the author and the FCC, but the final product is R-rated.
So the original point remains... Yes I want to design my site for everyone to view, but I won't do so at the cost of some very nice scripts, languages, and add ons that fewer (and fewer by the day) people don't have installed.It's not a case of removing the Flash parts completely, just writing a backup for those without Flash. Like I said, it's perfectly acceptable to use things like that, but not to rely upon them.

[BLiZZaRD]

It's not a case of removing the Flash parts completely, just writing a backup for those without Flash.

And there is the problem... For example my Flash only level.. you have to click on the Flash, open other pages, guess the right order of the Flash pieces, etc etc etc... To emulate this I would need a heavy dose of JS.. which again is the other "evil do-er" here (AND... would put all the "answers" in the source code) :D

The other option is, for those that don't have Flash, is to make a "place holder" an image with some links. Which is so very not the same thing.

Which leave the option of removing the Flash completely and adding in it's place an HTML only level. But in this case not only do I use them I have to rely upon them.

Catch 22. Now the delima, who do I side with? Those who can and like me, want to see the Flash up there? Or the less than 1% who can't see it?

[Twey]

And there is the problem... For example my Flash only level.. you have to click on the Flash, open other pages, guess the right order of the Flash pieces, etc etc etc... To emulate this I would need a heavy dose of JS.. which again is the other "evil do-er" here (AND... would put all the "answers" in the source code) :D Don't forget that Flash can be decompiled :) Also, I'm fairly sure you could do it server-side (if I'm understanding what you're explaining correctly).

[boxxertrumps]

and remove IE...

You know how? TELL ME. Please...

People without flash/JS on their browsers is like the special education class at school.

they're lagging behind but you have to make an effort.

[Twey]

People without flash/JS on their browsers is like the special education class at school.

they're lagging behind but you have to make an effort.As I said before, it's not really a case of "lagging behind;" there are some very good reasons to not use Flash and/or Javascript.

[BLiZZaRD]

Heh, you don't have to remind me that it can be decompiled. :D

Could I do it server side? Yes, but then I would have to have about 3 separate files to do the job of the single Flash movie, and it wouldn't be as fun.

Besides my Riddle basically teaches the players (I know! Learning through fun??) about their computers and things of that nature, so most don't try to cheat it, they just play the game and enjoy it.

The level in question though is a board game, where the dice roll, you move your pieces, and cards get turned telling you how many spaces to move, etc etc. Its a fun one :D

[Twey]

I would have to have about 3 separate files to do the job of the single Flash movie, and it wouldn't be as fun.It's possible to pack as much as you like into a single PHP file if that's really a bother to you. As for it not being as fun... well, that's part of the meaning of "degrading," isn't it? If the degraded version had all the features of the full version, there'd be no point in using the full version :)

[mburt]

You need a <title> tag :)

[BLiZZaRD]

It's possible to pack as much as you like into a single PHP file if that's really a bother to you. As for it not being as fun... well, that's part of the meaning of "degrading," isn't it? If the degraded version had all the features of the full version, there'd be no point in using the full version :)
True, and it may be possible to do it in one page, but I work with Flash how I know how and I can't see how to do it in php with this one in particular :)



You need a <title> tag :)

Erm...



<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<title>Enter The Car</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/cwot.css" />
</head>


You mean besides the one that is there? :p

[Merciless]

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: HOLY CRAP GUYS, not only am i more uncertain about my site now, i think by reading this arguement i've forgotten how to tie my shoes.

PS. should i use javascript or something else to embed the flash animations? im not trying to spam anyone lol. twey you sound like someone who looks at a lot of sites with questionable material :P

Two other PS's, first, Twey, the music doesn't auto play so you have to click it for the music to start playing so i dont know what your talking about., and, ....... back to the resolution thing, Blizzard made a good point, its a target audience, a bunch of reckless gamers, i dont think any of them care about web security and i doubt any of them have 800x600 resolution,

[BLiZZaRD]

Heh. Sorry, didn't really mean to abduct your thread :)

[Twey]

I work with Flash how I know how and I can't see how to do it in php with this one in particularThen it'd be good practice for you :)
PS. should i use javascript or something else to embed the flash animations?If you want to reach as wide an audience as you can with your Flash, you should embed them using HTML.
Twey, the music doesn't auto play so you have to click it for the music to start playingThat's good. Does it start downloading when the user loads the page, or when it's played? The latter is preferable, possibly with some form of background loading so the user doesn't have to wait so long (but engineered also so that it doesn't slow down the loading of the rest of the page).
back to the resolution thing, Blizzard made a good point, its a target audience, a bunch of reckless gamers, i dont think any of them care about web security and i doubt any of them have 800x600 resolutionHuh? Why wouldn't they care about security? They're not going to be doing much gaming if their systems get trashed by spyware or some cracker; on the contrary, since gamers tend to be performance enthusiasts, they tend to try to keep their systems as clean as possible. As for the resolution, remember that not everybody browses full-screen.
You've made the classic mistake of saying "this is my target audience and I'm not going to bother with anyone else," which is contrary to the nature of the Web. Not all of your target audience will fit that stereotype, and even the ones that do will sometimes hit exceptional circumstances (not browsing full-screen, computer broken down, dragged off to Granny's house and forced to use her top-of-the-range-in-1995 computer to check the site).
twey you sound like someone who looks at a lot of sites with questionable material :PHuh? :confused:

[boxxertrumps]

I think Merciless meant ****.

And sites should look the same regardless of resolution.
Fixed width wrappers and junk.

[Twey]

I thought that's what s/he meant too, but I'm not sure how s/he came to that conclusion :p

[boxxertrumps]

I have ~4 Gb of "Questionable content" on my HDD.
Some people have more, some less. But everyone I've met has at least a little.

[BLiZZaRD]

I have ~4 Gb of "Questionable content" on my HDD.
Some people have more, some less. But everyone I've met has at least a little.


I have a ton on one of my HDD's and I did a detailed search and all of it has one thing in common.. the installer name is MS... :p

[Merciless]

Twey i'd be interested how i embed it using HTML without getting that stupid "click here to activate this thingymawubbet" that you get in internet explorer, and you obviously dont understand the gaming community, cuz im pretty sure i've got the stereotype figured out :P haha. and blizzard by all means feel free to abduct my threads, i've never seen such a barrage of mind stimulating arguement in my life :rolleyes:

PS. they need a seperate section of these forums to thank people , cuz apparently the new "thank this user" thing wasn't even meant to be used! (dont think i didn't see that post about me in the whatever private elite coder section that you posted a while back, though it only let me in once for some reason, ever since then that portion of the forums has appeared invisible to me. :mad: ) <3 blizzard :p

[Twey]

Twey i'd be interested how i embed it using HTML without getting that stupid "click here to activate this thingymawubbet" that you get in internet explorerI already told you this one. Embed it using plain HTML, then set its source to itself using Javascript.
<embed src="flashobject.swf" id="someObject"></embed>
<script type="text/javascript">
var s = document.getElementById("someObject");
s.src = s.src;
</script>Do the same for the <object> element. People on IE without Javascript will get the "click here to activate" bit, but at least they'll still be able to see it (as opposed to the current version, where people on any browser without Javascript don't get to see the Flash).
apparently the new "thank this user" thing wasn't even meant to be used!If I remember correctly, it was more to do with you thanking seemingly random people.
it only let me in once for some reason, ever since then that portion of the forums has appeared invisible to me.It wasn't actually meant to be seen by you in the first place, ddadmin made some configuration errors :)
I have a ton on one of my HDD's and I did a detailed search and all of it has one thing in common.. the installer name is MS... Hahaha :D

[BLiZZaRD]

Here is your IE Active X fix (http://learningflashmx.com/fix_activex.htm) Learn it, love it :D

As for the post thing, you are correct, and this once I was wrong (so far) but when new members come in and post a simple "I like that" or "that's cool" especially to threads that are over 2 months old, it throws up red flags.

A lot of spam bots do that to try to overcome the post limit that some boards have.

Adapt and overcome, yes? :p



I already told you this one. Embed it using plain HTML, then set its source to itself using Javascript.
<embed src="flashobject.swf" id="someObject"></embed>
<script type="text/javascript">
var s = document.getElementById("someObject");
s.src = s.src;
</script>

So now the <embed> tag is valid? Really? :rolleyes:

[Twey]

No, but I've no experience with embedding Flash so I ripped it from the OP's Javascript :p

Use <object>, er, obviously. :o

[Merciless]

the <embed> thing was exactly what i was trying to avoid, its not worth that stupid grey box, that looks so beta-beta-beta. and blizzard, your a god , :D i'll try that flash fix.

[Twey]

Having two instances of the <object>, one created by JS and one created using HTML, works, but is rather inelegant.

The difference between <embed> and <object> has nothing to do with the grey box :)

[BLiZZaRD]

Using the link above, your code will still have the embed tag there. It is put in by Flash automatically.

However, when using the Active X script fix you can just remove the entire embed portion without worry. Here is my index page (partial) source, with the Flash and script fix there, your's should end up looking similar.

With this, your FLash will be viewable on all capable browsers and will validate (at least with Trans, haven't tried with Strict yet)



<script src="/scripts/AC_RunActiveContent.js" language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" ></script>
<script src="/scripts/AC_Flash.js" language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" ></script>
</head>

<body>
<center>
<br><br>
<noscript>
<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,0,0" width="550" height="400" id="language" align="middle" >
<param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" />
<param name="movie" value="language.swf" />
<param name="loop" value="false" />
<param name="menu" value="false" />
<param name="quality" value="high" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" />
</object>
</noscript>
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" >
<!--
AC_RunFlContentX ("movie", "language", "quality", "high", "src", "language", "width", "550px", "height", "400px" );
//-->
</script>