Are you talking flv or swf?
If the latter, an action-scripted swf could cause problems - opens the door for abuse and/or, at the very least, the browser issuing warnings that a painfully long/complex script is trying to run.
I am talking maximum usability : I don't care in which form, but "satay" is recommended by Adobe for compliance with web standards.
I value your input - alot, you seem proficient in the field - but I'd love to leave this thread free of technicalities : it's the genuine "wanna play?" kind of question.
Plus, following a long long philo thread recently involving Bugs and self esteem : this is about "moving towards reality" -
I am proposing a target, we have bright minds enough around to clear all possibilities of security issues - this AND the local etiquette.
Eg. we have means : the question here is do we want to reach that target together?
We can wrap up such a proposal into strict rules, and clever Flash/Flash embed to enforce those rules, as suggested in the flash forum -
Mad Scis CAN do anything from 256 byte raytracers to securing your fun experience.
..Of course, as likeable as the target is, doing nothing about it is POSSIBLE and it is highly secure.
Having no DHTML on a website is secure. And possible. And bland.
But the Asylum is not known for being a bland place.
And winners never play with scared money : they set goals, estimate risks appropriately, and find ways.
If we only want [Flash] videos, we could have a [ video ] url [ /video ] UBB code and hook a server side script that will output an HTML5 video tag ( with <a href="url">Download the video url</a> in the fallback ) for .OGG and the likes or ping a service like keepVid.com or videoDownloader.com to fetch the url of the .flv in case the url points to youtube, dailymotion, ... and wrap it into Jeroen Wijering famous FLV player.
As long as these videos/Flash don't autoplay, I'm fine with it.
...hm, I probably brought up the topic with a bad example
The idea was more in the vein of "siggies" than videos (youtube just happens to be handy for quick embedding of music and videos).
Autoplay sound, except on some rare occasions (like a temporary splash page, or a site dedicated to music like lastfm), is not a good idea in webdesign, as we know.
Autoplay video is bad also, I second you on that, it distracts a lot.
But "slick flash based flarimen as sigs", now THAT appeals to me.
And that is where my approach differs from yours. New technologies are GREAT, but plain old users deserve some transition time - I don't like
to resort to the latest "might be an official technology someday IF", but I love learning about such things.
*to each his own* ,)
( btw, we an even accomodate Hyperbole : since your wish is not to see Flash content, what about an option to disable [ Flash ] tags for users who do not want them?
The question is for you and everybody - how would you feel about having the choice? - and to add another example of slick Flash integration from an inmate, http://cerebralboy.com/wordage/ )
It's not really new or unofficial technology. It's been specified by the W3C in 2003. To quote Jeff Schiller, Schilmania's cousin and guru of SVG, on the topic of SVG in IMG:
"If the user agent includes an HTML or XHTML viewing capability or can apply CSS/XSL styling properties to XML documents, then a Conforming SVG Viewer must support resources of MIME type "image/svg+xml" wherever raster image external resources can be used, such as in the HTML or XHTML 'img' element and in CSS/XSL properties that can refer to raster image resources (e.g., 'background-image')"
It's too bad this is not clearer in the spec. Also, see:
Okay, browser support for it is rather new, but it's coming and for free.
However, I think my suggestion above for a [ video ] UBB tag could be an interesting addition. WRT Flash animations in general, I'm still not sure. But I'm not an ActionScript/Flash monkey. Those people might want a [ flash ] or similar UBB tag. Dunno.
I don't think we should have any Flash in the Asylum. I believe just linking to whatever Flash you wish to show others is good enough. Why does this have to be so complicated?
(basically, I am just proposing, and the technicalities should not be a problem you take personnaly - had everybody
paid me the courtesy of keeping this thread tech babble free.
I am an inmate as any other - I am offering because major companies like MS feel there is a lot to invest
in reach media on the web - so you can expect more and more ways in which rich media will take over your web life,
and this forum is about webdesign also).
I don't want to sound bitter - but hyperbole has just expressed a NO, ok, you have expressed confusion. Anybody cares to
tell me why the anti-flash feeling?
Okay, end of debate I guess : I hope you can understand this is both surprising and interesting to me.
You certainly do not NEED to explain - thought that was clear, I just wanted to know, but wow! Quite a scoop
(and the reason is totally above my head - to me, Flash is more interesting now than it ever was before
beause it is full of clever scripting features)
Now I see a trend among companies towards so called "rich media", and the OPPOSITE trend in some users, many apparently.
So, guess that's good news for SVG as image sources on the web
...
One last question, though : is there any alternative to Flash (Silverlight or Java) that you guys are blocking the same way
(or would you?)
I'm not a big fan of Java for you never what JVM joe developer used, but things like Proce55ing are nice.
As for Silverlight, it's simple: DO NO WANT a proprietary and closed format that only works on 1 or 2 platforms. This is just accessibility and interoperability no NO NO!!!!!1
The same goes for Flash actually but to a lesser extent as it's available on wide range of platforms and semi open now.
I'm not blocking Java, Flash or Silverlight. I simply won't install Silverlight until given a very valid reason to install it. But one thing I often do for sure is blocking IFRAMEs and JavaScript on quite a few sites.
I can enjoy vector graphics as my sig? Let's see...
(...now I have tried all possible combinations of img and svg sources, three different svg files namely, a local html page for lab works, and it doesn't show,
png show when linked directly as documents only - on winxp sp2, Op 9.25, IE 7, or FF 2 for that matter - I feel it would work in Safari or Konqueror.
Adobe Illustrator, anyone?...)
Yeah It works wonderfully ONLY in Opera 9.5. Doesn't even work in FF 3 beta (but nothing seems to work there - btw, FF3 apparently uses Java as part of it's core).
...
A minute of silence for vector graphics on the web o)
(Am I really stuck with bitmap for the 5 years to come or what?)
As long as audio doesn't come into play...I don't see how Flash sigs could be any more annoying than animated .gifs anyway....
Clearly, "just linking to whatever Flash you wish to show others" isn't going to work for a sig...since the idea of a sig is to display it here...
Again, i see that audio could be an issue...but aside from that, why is this a big deal at all?
I say, if it can be done - which it appears it can - let's give it a shot.
We can always shut it down if it becomes a problem.
So, the votes are "mixed" here and now : DL's idea is the best - such a thing should be put together as a "proof of concept"
- because there IS interest and potential in it, and based on the "POC", the decision should be made to keep it or trash it (methinks).
(off to get a hold of TP privately and propose my services on the Flash side of things)
I'm really for this, at least on a trial basis, there's a fairly regular core collective here nowadays so we could happily give it a trial month and get everyone's opinion after we've done a couple of competitions or whatever.
If it can bring greater power to the animated sig then why not, even some interaction would be good fun. At first I was against it, when this topic first arose, but the more I think about it the more I think I'm talking myself into it!
If people are only interested in using Flash for making more interesting sigs how about implementing the test in the Signature forum. Then we can look at it after a month and see what we think.
Originally, it was restricted to sigs and multimedia forums, but :
I think it would restrict the possibilities : Flash offers educative possibilities as well (live tutorial in Photoshop forum for example,
"vidcap" of some painting exercise, etc..).
It would be great in the multimedia forum as well.
Since "action script" is a close parent of javascript, I can see "Flash 20 liners" as a good thing too.
And who wants a sig that is only for the sigs forum?
These are just my two cents, I am an inmate as anyone else - but how exactly would it bother you? What is your concern?
Webshaman, for example, uses a plugin to block Flash.
The Asylum itself could implement an "allow Flash in thread" option for new threads, like the ones that exist already.
My point here is : there are loads of ways to accomodate your needs and still test the idea, but what are your needs exactly?
Is it a concern about security? The project would be open source and monitored althrough development by TP -
And I am merely offering my services as the Flash end of it.
Please, let me know of real situations when it would bother you, so we can openly talk about ways not to.
I don't see any security risks and I have no issues at all.
Let's go for it.
On the subject of Flash educative possibilities, I'm going to apply that to a real world project very soon.
I'm building a computer, from scratch, and would like to document the whole build/installation in association with general commentary (i.e. why certain components were selected, why not sli or crossfire, why a psu with x watts, etc.).
I'm going to try to make this into a useful illustrated guide/tutorial for rolling your own computer rig..the twist I want to do it in such a way that it is not obsolete in 6 months. For example, DDR memory sticks have 2 notches and DRR2 has 1 notch but the overall principle is the same - you don't force something into place.
Remarkably, I did a google on tutorials/guides/etc for building computers and there is very little quality material out there. Lots of technical crap and lots of seriously outdated stuff, but very well laid step by step with good photographs.
posted 01-05-2008 12:26
