Before I elaborate further, I want to make clear my support for web standards, usability and accessibility.
Saying it isn't doing it.
I have been developing with Flash for the last four years. Nonetheless, my philosophy is that if something can be done outside of Flash, it should.
Okay...so your entire claim is false.
rich media delivery cannot be done on the HTML layer. This becomes abundantly obvious due to the plethora of length tutorials on how to round corners or put a drop-shadow on a rectangle.
If that's "rich media", I'd love to know what you consider poor media - dead trees?
The whole UGC (user-generated content) revolution
...eh?
Flash made this happen. Not standards
It started out embedded into standardized markup, didn't it?
(have you taken a look at YouTube?s HTML?), not AJAX, but Flash.
It _would_ be hard to put '<object data="data" type="type"></object>' into a page without Flash; agreed.
I am not trying to diminish the necessity for ... AJAX,
Sweet gebus NO! The horror!
Rather than deny its merits and accomplishments, why not work to push it further into the circle of accessibility and standards?
Maybe because it's proprietary and Adobe can ruin it any time they want, thereby rendering any amount of time spent pushing it completely and utterly wasted in the long run.
No one wants technology and progress to be stifled in the name of standardization.
I personally do not want technology and progress stifled by uber-capitalists and their patent lawyers.
Please, try to make this with HTML/Javascript. I?m waiting?
It'd be easy for a JavaScript pro, and even easier yet if some big company made a GUI app to generate it via point-and-click. Of course, that's basically what Flash is - modified javascript with vector/animation/audio libs.
With Flash you have a plugin in which nearly 100% of users have at least some version of the player on their system.
Not like HTML or JavaScript.
The makers have been working to make the technology much more accessible (can you say the same for Windows Media Player or Quicktime?).
Erm, how about MPlayer? xine-lib? VLC?
it is simply obtuse to attempt certain things outside of Flash - here are a few examples:
* Physics engines
I have always seen (x)html (okay, only a couple of years ago) as a way to describe/structure a written document (controller/view), with css as a way to decorate it (view), and javascript as a way to interact with it (model/controller). This is where I find much of html strenghts. The tree can certainly provide a rather limited rich media (just take a look at the js 20-liners), but at a high performance cost (look again at the js 20-liners).
Flash, as it is now, is an excellent medium to provide rich multimedia to such documents. Flash by itself is a very poor way to provide a document (robots can't process it, back button becomes "useless", no uilt in ctrl+a support, etc).
I have found that people who fail to understand each other real features are the people who don't let the technology progress as it should.
You know, I really think it just depends. On the client, on the motive, on its purpose.... I have clients that really could care less about the search engines and how they rank. The site is for some promotional event or activity, and they want something informational, but very engaging, interactive and attractive. The site is for a niche group... this is one, and trust me there are more, situation where flash is the answer to their solution....
Then I have others, where search engines are the priority... just all really depends...
I have come to embrace the web design/development industry as a whole. Sure I'm choosy: love php, can't stand asp, wince at table infested, non - standards based markup and design. However flash, actionscript etc, is definitely in my toolbox...
While Reiso may well be playing Devil's advocate, I think he makes a compelling point or two. While I'm no web-developer, I'm savvy enough to have thought much the same as I read that article - nothing much said (accurately) in many words...
Shoot! I read in a book they use it in video production, and even video games. Although I prefer xml based web design, I'm not going to diminish what can be done with flash just because I'm not familar with it. Its darn good and you can do an awful lot more with it than you can with just xml based web design. Heck I wish I knew flash. But don't anybody forget that there are eh...semi open standards....like SVG that can do similar stuff and are xml based; However as reisio stated, these don't have physics engines...and this would probably be due to the fact that Flash has two things that SVG doesn't, and that's maturity, and alot larger user group.
quote:However as reisio stated, these don't have physics engines...
Actually, I think Reiso was exclaiming at the absurdity of such the statement; that Flash is the (only) appropriate choice regarding the implementation of a physics engine:
Somerandomdude:
quote:it is simply obtuse to attempt certain things outside of Flash - here are a few examples:
* Physics engines
Reiso:
quote:Say what?!
I'm sure there are plenty of Asylumnites who would also refute such a bizarre assertion. Somerandomdude is not just implying that Flash is the (only) appropriate solution, but that anyone who disagrees is stupid. I'd love to see what you lot (points pointedly into the orangey depths of the Asylum) think on this point in particular...
You know, I would like Flash so much better if people used it for things it's supposed to be used for:
- If it's a link and I can't right click to bookmark or open in new window; middle click to open in new window; or navigate to it using the tab key (or alternatives in some browsers), then it's BROKEN. That it has a cool little animation (or in most cases an irritating delaying animation that forces me to wait ten seconds after page has loaded to select an option on the main menu) is in no way an excuse.
- If it's a "skip intro" or "HTML version" link, putting it in Flash is SEVERELY BROKEN!
- If it's a resource such as a sound file, a video or an image, there is NO excuse for breaking or omitting the save function. Of course, Flash is hardly the only affected plug in (in fact almost all of them have this problem), but I consider any media that doesn't allow time shifting for when I'm going offline to be BROKEN. (About DRM* and/or encryption, especially when talking about streaming media - they can be time shifted without losing the DRM and/or encryption, and any authorisation mechanism that requires a per-use confirmation and not per-user is likewise BROKEN)
- Anything where the user may want to use the OS or browser UI features and Flash doesn't carry the feature over (text selections, cut/copy/paste, undo, browser history, tab navigation, search, context menus, keyboard shortcuts, volume control**, printing) is BROKEN.
- Flash is excellent for vector graphics, vector graphic animations, for many user interactions that have to be somewhat snappier than JavaScript allows, for things that need a little more computing power and speed, or for simulations and games.
* Why does my spell checker want to turn DRM into BD/SM?
** I have two simple rules for sound on the net:
1. If you don't provide volume control, you should provide NO SOUND AT ALL.
2. Default should be MUTED and absolutely NEVER ever FULL VOLUME! Though remembering user setting from last time is even better.
like anything else it's a tool - Something that can be used well or well abused..
Quite honestly, I've seen some pretty hideous abuse of some of our other favorite technologies as well, php, ajax, css - you name it.
They all have their place, but their uses are defined by so many factors: motive and intent of the site, expertise of the author, client insistence.... lol, BUDGET.
quote:While I'm no web-developer, I'm savvy enough to have thought much the same as I read that article - nothing much said (accurately) in many words...
Perhaps you say that not is much said for the very reason that you are not a web-developer... or have any at least no having experience as a flash developer in particular. I think this guy is venting more than anything else. The anti-flash mumbles do get a bit annoying from so - called "web standardistas".
I once had a client who insisted that they wanted a more "Flashier" site. They were replacing their standards bases CSS + Xhtml site with a all flash solution.... And proceeded to tell me about their CSS/Xhtml standards guy who "kind seemed like he had his nose in the air about the whole thing". This kind of bothered me, because I understood what they were saying. Being entrenched in the industry, I run into these guys all the time. It was hard to re-emphasize to them that standards based design was important. I am a standards based advocate, and I am a Flash author as well... I embrace both technologies, and it is hard enough make a case for standards based design to a client who really doesn't see the significance of it, especially when their guy snobbishly bashed their ideas of making the site "eye catching through flash".
So I think what this guy is saying is "Look, I am a standards based advocate, and I use flash also - stop bashing me and get off your high horse..."
Good point - but as you point out, he is having a bit of a rant, albeit, a counter-rant...
I've played with Flash, and I have an idea of what it can do (much as I have played with most things). As rightly pointed out, it is a tool. Whether it is more appropriate for certain solutions is one debate... but to question someone's intelligence for choosing otherwise?
I think you're right about his message ("get off your high horse"), but I think he's at risk of mounting one himself.
posted 12-04-2006 21:10
You should add that to his comments!
