Is Flash The Future Of The Internet?

[qirexsys]

Originally Posted by magic_majax

By rights SVG should have replaced flash by now but it took so long to get any browsers to support it and Abode didn't get their plugin running too well. It might prove to be like VHS versus Betamax, SVG being Betamx, better but not so widely used.

SVG is a really powerful tool but there's not that much third-party software around to deploy it, unless you count text editors of course.

I totally agree! But alas, SVG really is going the way of the dodo, and it's unfortunate - I'd much rather use an open-source, standards-based technology. I just think it'd be great to be able to use vector graphics with consistency (animation or not). As far as software to deploy SVG, Illustrator has pretty decent support for it, and Inkscape has very, very good support for SVG. Now if browsers had consistent support...

[carlos_p]

Originally Posted by deepsand

Text - a human-readable sequence of characters

For the purposes of rendering such, Flash offers no advantages whatsoever.

It offers consistent rendering of typefaces regardless of browser and platform. That's a big advantage (and for a sequence of characters to be human-readable it must be materialized in a typeface). It can offer control over kerning too (to some extent). That's another advantage.

But that was not my point. Please read the remainder of my post.

[Xty]

Originally Posted by deepsand

It's a false analogy, in that inappropriate use and poor use are 2 entirely different qualities; i.e., they are members of different classes. in the language of logicians, your analogy makes an error of class.

Are you saying that inappropriate use of a technology is not poor use of that technology? They could hardly be members of different classes, being that they produce the same result and are therefore obviously derived from the major class of lousy taste.

[bj]

It offers consistent rendering of typefaces regardless of browser and platform. That's a big advantage (and for a sequence of characters to be human-readable it must be materialized in a typeface). It can offer control over kerning too (to some extent). That's another advantage.

It may be an advantage, but it has the disadvantage of acting more like an image of text rather than functional web text. You can't user scale it, you can't copy/paste it, you can't change the background (think colorblind people who can't read with your color choices and want to use their own.) Text in flash takes away user choices and usability.

[carlos_p]

Originally Posted by bj

Part of the problem is the HUGE PR hurdle with it from the awful uses it has been put to.

(...)

Let me give you an example of this. A friend and client who is a writer wanted to quote something JK Rowling said on her site.
(...)
My friend wanted to quote a sentence and tried to highlight it. Go ahead and try. You can't highlight. You can't right click and copy. And you can't paste. JK Rowling has since added a (butt ugly) text only version since.
(...)
Now this is an absolutely gorgeous site, or at least the accessibility version is. But the first rule of web design is don't piss off the visitors or they'll leave. JK Rowling pissed off a visitor. Obviously she must have pissed off more than a few since the site now has more than one version, so someone who works for her must have been savvy enough to pick up on the lack of visitors to her inner pages in the stats.
(...)
Obviously JK Rowling doesn't have to worry about name recognition or google serps but if she wants people to enjoy her website as much as her books . . . she should consider ditching a huge portion of the flash.

1-Again, the faults pointed out above are designer/developer's faults; don't blame the technology. It takes only one click on a checkbox in order to turn a textfield in Flash into a "selectable" TextField. Either JKR doesn't want people to copy the tiniest bit of text from her site, or the person who did it didn't bother to switch that on;
2-Yes, looks like JKR's site pissed off a visitor, because this visitor wasn't able to do what she wanted to do there. But not all visits are necessarily good visits. If what she wanted to do is not one of the sites' objectives, then the site is still fulfilling its objectives. Any project which is fulfilling its objectives can only be considered a success. (If your example site was a site about hair-care products, do you think it should cater for bald-headed people's needs?)

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by carlos_p

It offers consistent rendering of typefaces regardless of browser and platform. That's a big advantage (and for a sequence of characters to be human-readable it must be materialized in a typeface). It can offer control over kerning too (to some extent). That's another advantage.

But that was not my point. Please read the remainder of my post.

1) Text rendered in Flash is an picture of a character, not the character itself. This means that the image cannot be manipulated by the viewer in a like manner as can be done on plain text.

2) Cross-platform compatibility is neither guaranteed with Flash, nor unattainable in the absence of Flash.

3) Cross-platform compatibility with Flash in obtained by way of imposing additional requirements, with respect to required resources, on the client. Other methods of realizing compatibility impose burdens on the developer and/or the server.

[bj]

Any project which is fulfilling its objectives can only be considered a success. (If your example site was a site about hair-care products, do you think it should cater for bald-headed people's needs?)

A site that caters to readers and that doesn't have scalable fonts (I mean truly scalable, not two sizes fit all) isn't exactly filling the needs of the visitors, nor of the site owner.

[carlos_p]

Originally Posted by bj

It may be an advantage, but it has the disadvantage of acting more like an image of text rather than functional web text. You can't user scale it, you can't copy/paste it, you can't change the background (think colorblind people who can't read with your color choices and want to use their own.) Text in flash takes away user choices and usability.

I'm afraid you're mostly wrong.
You CAN select it, you CAN copy/paste it, etc. However, you DO need to know how to do it right.

And I DO think about colorblind people. My color choices are done with them in mind. Again, this is an issue of wether the site is designed by a designer or by an amateur.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Xty

Are you saying that inappropriate use of a technology is not poor use of that technology? They could hardly be members of different classes, being that they produce the same result and are therefore obviously derived from the major class of lousy taste.

Entry : inappropriate

not appropriate for a particular occasion or situation <a bathing suit is inappropriate dress for strolling the streets of this seaside village>

Synonyms graceless, improper, inapt, incongruous, incorrect, indecorous, inept, infelicitous, unapt, unbecoming, unfit, unhappy, unseemly, unsuitable, wrong

-----------------------------------------------------

Entry : poor

1 a : lacking material possessions b : of, relating to, or characterized by poverty
2 a : less than adequate : MEAGER b : small in worth
3 : exciting pity <you poor thing>
4 a : inferior in quality or value

[carlos_p]

Originally Posted by bj

A site that caters to readers and that doesn't have scalable fonts (I mean truly scalable, not two sizes fit all) isn't exactly filling the needs of the visitors, nor of the site owner.

I was reffering to the inability to copy/paste.
You're probably right in regard to text size.
However, let me ask you this one thing: do you have any numbers on how many web surfers actually *know* they *can* enlarge text on a webpage?

[carlos_p]

Originally Posted by deepsand

1) Text rendered in Flash is an picture of a character, not the character itself. This means that the image cannot be manipulated by the viewer in a like manner as can be done on plain text.

2) Cross-platform compatibility is neither guaranteed with Flash, nor unattainable in the absence of Flash.

3) Cross-platform compatibility with Flash in obtained by way of imposing additional requirements, with respect to required resources, on the client. Other methods of realizing compatibility impose burdens on the developer and/or the server.

1) mmm... the character itself? That used to be a piece of lead. Are we talking about those shapes that appear on a computer screen? I got news for you: they're all images;

2) 3) I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.

UPDATE: those of you who think text in Flash is that anti-userfriendly beast should check this out.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by carlos_p

1) mmm... the character itself? That used to be a piece of lead. Are we talking about those shapes that appear on a computer screen? I got news for you: they're all images;

2) 3) I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.

1) If you don't understand the difference between a character & a graphic image then we've nothing to discuss.

2) & 3) It's your claim, and you don't understand it?

If one accepts all of your statements at face value, it then appears that, while you may know a great deal about web site development, you lack a background in the basics of computing. And, I've neither the time nor the inclination to here teach such.

[edhan]

Originally Posted by philscanlan

Full flash websites are a HUGE mistake. Flash should be use sparingly, like embedded images, etc. to enhance the aesthetics of a page.

Yes. If flash to be used, it should be used sparingly as mentioned by philscanlan. It helps to make it presentable but not overdoing it with full flash site.

[brucet]

Jacob, you hit the nail on the head. Flash is mainly a tool for the big brands, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

The vast majority of commercial web sites are owned by very small businesses that have neither the skills to develop in Flash, nor the budget to pay someone else to do it. The most they can afford, or at least justify to themselves, is one of those annoying Flash movies that others here have mentioned - that sits on their home page, puts off visitors and kills their search rankings.

Flash is a brilliant tool for those who can afford it or who have the skills. For the majority of web sites it is not the future, at least in the medium term. It is just another sign that the internet is no longer a level playing field.

[danners02]

Can I ask if IT depts in major corps still have policies on blocking flash content for their employees due to security concerns?

I am currently designing a social networking site which I believe should be developed in XHTML/Ajax but the Polish development team are pushing for Flash - I am looking for reasons NOT TO so this thread has been very useful.

By the way - for those that like to embed flash into html, the latest method is SWFObject which works a dream plus allows for inputting alternate flash content within the html (in a noflash div) so you can SEO all you like
http://blog.deconcept.com/swfobject/

[carlos_p]

Originally Posted by deepsand

1) If you don't understand the difference between a character & a graphic image then we've nothing to discuss.

2) & 3) It's your claim, and you don't understand it?

If one accepts all of your statements at face value, it then appears that, while you may know a great deal about web site development, you lack a background in the basics of computing. And, I've neither the time nor the inclination to here teach such.

As it looks to me, you have the time but not the inclination to grasp the implications of what I'm trying to say.
We're getting into a philosophical question about the nature of a "character".
In Flash or anywhere else, characters are codes which translate to shapes (at least that's one way to put it; you masters of the matrix should have a deeper and more accurate understanding of this issue than me, a lowly carbon-based unit who has only dealt with computers for the past 20 years). However, to you, the user, they're all shapes on the screen. That's what I meant when I said they're all images.

But I understand you're trying to say that characters are those things that can be selected, copied from a web page and pasted inside a "text" document, where you can add more of those by punching the keys on your keyboard.

Can you select characters in Flash? Yes.
Can you copy selected characters in Flash? Yes.
Can you paste those characters in another document? You sure can.
Can you change their color? Of course.
Can you switch their font? Yep.
Can you change their typographic attributes? That's right.

You don't agree with the above statements? Then you should check out this example I slapped up yesterday in a couple of minutes.
If characters in Flash can behave in a very similar way (similar to what people are used to in other applications), then why are you saying characters in Flash should be considered images?
The main issue with Flash is that it gives you more power over content and presentation and as such it demands more responsibility.

By and large, it can be as user-friendly as "text" pages. In many cases it's better, in some it's worse.
What ticks me off is that a lot of people tend to take on a distorted view of reality.
You think Flash sucks? That's OK by me. I don't give a damn about how many people like or dislike Flash or any other technology.
But I do nurture an appreciation for the truth. Please treat her gently.

[simonm]

For a really excellent example of flash used well and approriately see:

http://www.desaln8.com/how.php and one of my sites

http://www.midkentwater.co.uk/images/flash/washer.swf
But I agree, for mainstream use and seo its a dead end. At least those awful 'flash intros' plus 'skip intro' are dying a death!

Simon

[Steven1976a]

Flash is nice but if i want to watch a movie Ill download from bitcomet.

If they can load as quick as an image then Im sure there is a future but no slow boring websites please. My brain can only think for 2 seconds

[loki]

in defense of flash, i've seen some great tutorials made in flash that make the process very easy to follow. ever tried to tie your own bow tie? ever tried following the 4 *easy* steps on the back of the box? if so, you'll know what i mean.

a decent flash tutorial and there'd be a lot more 007-ish types in the world.

:)

that said... sites made entirely of flash are for the likes of madonna (who have very deep pockets), or people that sell playstations to 15 year olds.

until the SEs start ranking entire flash sites well, (and if they haven't done it yet they probably never will), it sucks.