question about plug-ins

Hi folks.  I would like to ask for opinions you may have about plug-ins,
specifically Shockwave.  For example, the following site (which some of you
were kind enough to critique not long ago), uses a Shockwave movie for
browsers which already have the plug-in:

http://erslah.com/senegal/

For browsers that don't, we set it up to present a simple static GIF image
of the Shockwave movie.  We did this because if the plug-in is not detected
and the page requires it, Netscape 4 (contrary to IE4), gives a dire warning
about "security risk" and "danger" which scared off most of my relatives,
who subsequently did not see the animation.

No big deal, the animation is not crucial to the site, but it would be nice
to be able to provide a cross-browser experience.

My question:  From your own preferences and those of your less net-savvy
friends and relatives, would you say that most people don't mind getting
plug-ins for sites or that they would rather not fool with it or, even if
they did want to get it, would be scared off by the warning?

Thanks in advance.
--Eric
eric(at)erslah.com

HTML: hwg-critique mailing list archives, maintained by Webmaster @ IWA