What is Digg?61 Comments
- remiprev, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23http://alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay
- remiprev, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Because not all browsers are compliant to web standards. When all browsers will support them, there will be no need for hacks anymore.
- ElectricGrandpa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Read this post: http://blog.deconcept.com/2006/08/16/embedding-flash-content-using-web-standards-yes-again/
That(swfobject) is the ONLY method you should use to use to embed your Flash. Period. Read it, and learn how to use it. - dchest, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14This is just stupid that in order to comply with standards (to make a valid XHTML page) you should do hacks :( What's the purpose of standards then?
P.S. I'm not attacking the author, thanks for finding out a way to make it validate. - MikeSD34, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11A List Apart is an excellent resource for anyone wishing to do anything in a standards correct manner, or even if you just want to know how to go about something. They have innumerable articles about anything and everything related to working on the web.
When I saw this article, I only looked into the comments to make sure someone linked A List Apart :) - bmson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9this will work in all browsers.
Mozilla, IE, Safari, IE mac and so on...
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="file.swf" width="200" height="100">
<param name="movie" value="file.swf" />
<param name="quality" value="high" />
<param name="Menu" value="false" />
</object> - actionscripted, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I fully agree with SWFObject usage. Don't use anything else. If your Flash is a critical piece of your website, you're doing something wrong.
Flash is not fully accessible to those that might need text resizing or those using screen readers. It can be a nice addition, but should never ever, ever be used a core component of a site.
I love Flash (look at my name), but it's getting over-used and is NOT accessible to everyone in the same way plain ol' (X)HTML is. - canon66, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9He means usability as in accessibility, which is a big part of why web standards are important. For a disabled person, a site designed to follow the standards can be much easier to navigate and use. It might be a minority of the visitors but why turn away potential business just because you wanted to do it the easy way. I guess the phrasing can be confusing to someone that isn't an IT/comp sci type basically usable = accessible.
- mturn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6from wikipedia:
H. W. Fowler later wrote, in his 1926 Dictionary of Modern English Usage, that writers who avoid split infinitives are "bogy-haunted creatures". Curme's Grammar of the English Language (1931) says that, not only is the split infinitive correct, but it "should be furthered rather than censured, for it makes for clearer expression". The Columbia Guide to Standard American English (1993) notes that the split infinitive "eliminates all possibility of ambiguity", in contrast to the "potential for confusion" in an unsplit construction. - eargang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The cleanest way that's also been adopted by pretty much everyone except for the author of the linked article is swfobject. link: http://blog.deconcept.com/swfobject/
"it must not rely on javascript" – kind of a weird requirement considering you'd be catering to people that have javascript disabled but allow for use of the Flash plugin. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Only on MySpace would you see that kind of idiocy...
- squeevey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Don't forget that IE now requires a click to activate a flash object cause of the damn activeX.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eolas
Had to fix a flash file today, basically you write out the object tags with javascript from an external JS file. - illicium, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I've seen people do "< flash src="movie.swf" >"
- actionscripted, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Here's a better way: http://blog.deconcept.com/swfobject/
Don't use anything else. Ever. - flyingcow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Did anyone notice the blog uses a logo from the parody Web 2.0 logo generator on the front page a couple weeks ago??
- actionscripted, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Personally, I have no respect for standards whores who refuse to use SWFObject. If you're going to embed Flash AND force standards-compliance, then it is your absolute BEST option.
Take it from a fellow standards whore. Use SWFObject. Ignore these hacks, workarounds, tom-foolery, and magic.
It's bullet-proof. And if your audience has Javascript disabled, odds are good they don't want to see your ***** MP3 player. So leave 'em alone. - CySurflex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was going to post the same thing as the parent. The only way to embed flash these days is with SWFObject (Formerly known as FlashObject). It is very clean, cross browser, and is W3C validator friendly.
It is also the only method that bypasses the EOLAS "fix" to IE.
When using SWFObject, this is what your code will look like:
<div id="divFlashMovie">alternate content</div>
<script type="text/javascript">
var so = new SWFObject("flash.swf", "FlashID", "200", "200", 8, "");
so.addParam("wmode", "transparent");
so.write("divFlashMovie");
</script> - actionscripted, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Twatwaffle I must say, your comments are never very insightful (read: asinine), but thank you for breaking the comment monotany abound.
- alevel27mage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I also checked to see if someone posted the link to the "Flash Satay". It is a MUCH better method than this article has, as it cuts down on code and uses no hacks... in the code ;) It's a little bit harder (having to create a "loader" SWF), but is still better!
- TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4yes, web 3.0 will be flash with tabular layouts
- stoffe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually SWFObject fails on many cases at least on Linux, easily demostrated by the fact that are using it says to download a player, while in fact the player can display the media just fine, if bypassing the checks.
This looks like a much cleaner solution than javascript black magic that doesn't work. Actually, this is only not perfectly clean because of stupid IE. - Dotnetsky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Standards. Just because the standard says there's a cliff next to you, doesn't mean you must jump off it.
- shemnon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmmm... the article doesn't look right. Isn't it more like
<flash>1337 H4X0R S3KR3TZ R3V341DZZ!</flash> - revmitcz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You beat me to it ;)
That's the preferable way to do XHTML-compliant Flash. The code linked in this Digg is way too long and convoluted for a simple flash movie.
Though, I should add that putting a .gif file in there is good practice. And, as someone else mentioned above, use "document.write" in an external javascript file to have it pull in without freaking IE out over that whole EOLAS thing.
So here's the code with "wmode=transparent" added in, and the .gif. Also, using "quality=best" will allow for smooth anti-aliased resizing of jpeg, gif, and png images used in the movie (for those that go in for that kinda thing) :
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="filename.swf" width="251" height="248">
<param name="movie" value="filename.swf" />
<param name="wmode" value="transparent" />
<param name="quality" value="best" />
<param name="menu" value="false" />
<img src="filename.gif" width="251" height="248" alt="flashmovie" />
</object> - stoffe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Still, I wouldn't be surprised if that worked in or soon is added to IE, because it is "enabling to developers" (really meaning "locking users to our product").
- timho123, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Interested topic, I got to read all your feedback, yep, I hate to IE that need to click to activate the activeX
- Imprint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How does using conditional comments comply with standards I get the feeling the author doesn't see the irony.
The easiest way to insert flash while bypassing the ealos patent and keeping it standards compliant is to insert using an external JS file. Its that simple.
I think the author should have actually visited the MSDN website and taken a look at the several methods used to bypas the embedded content activation. - actionscripted, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@TenebrousX
Can we also bring back repeating, eye-searing backgrounds? If we're already going tabular with Flash... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3hell yeah... you know, flash is still the s**t no matter what.
- stockjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Heh I agree with you actionscripted SWFobject is the best and bypasses all this ridculous trying to abide by WC3 foolishness.
- dgx1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Read carefully - http://www.dgx.cz/trine/item/how-to-correctly-insert-a-flash-into-xhtml#satay
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3so will this bypass that annoying click to activate crap???
- DoodleFlash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I was having xhtml problems when making my image host, but i worked out the correct way :)
- Leftyshields, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Here's a no-brainer way to bypass the IE Active X "Click to activate" message: http://www.leveltendesign.com/tools/click-to-activate.php
- Resilient, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great find, though I'd personally follow the link mentioned by remiprev, by a list apart
- WeeklyGeek, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5no that requires you not using IE anymore like the rest of intelligent society.
- ElectricGrandpa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Again, read this: http://blog.deconcept.com/2006/08/16/embedding-flash-content-using-web-standards-yes-again/
It will explain why you should be using SWFObject and NOT Satay or the originally posted technique. - SpookyET, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is a ripoff of the A List Apart article published a few years ago on this subject. BOO!
- tobyjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"It would be nice if SWFObject was bundled with Flash and used when a movie is published"
I've helped Geoff out with SWFObject in the past, and have created a set of templates for Flash publishing that we (The Barbarian Group) use. I'll see if Geoff would consider bundling the templates with SWFObject. They're currently a little skewed towards our most typical app structure (Rails + Flash), but that stuff can be modded pretty easily. It's just XHTML, after all ;) - xboxdesign, on 07/29/2008, -0/+0I like it it's too good
http://xboxdesign.com
http://www.zeniltuo.com/
http://www.iconlook.com/
http://www.pixellogo.com/
lokendra
(web designer) - dgx1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Simple Eolas workaround trick is here http://www.dgx.cz/trine/item/how-to-avoid-activation-of-active-x-in-ie
- cavicster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I also agree that SWFObject is the best solution. This also helps you to bypass the "click to active" issue in IE resulting from the Eolas dispute. It would be nice if SWFObject was bundled with Flash and used when a movie is published
- johnie1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1it don't *****' work
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is nothing new. I have used valid Flash tags for 3 years. For instance: http://bonardi.com.br/
- rumba0000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good design is possible with any flash at all. Just see http://www.mytrench.com
- yogastore, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0http://astore.amazon.com/flowtron.mosquito-20
http://astore.amazon.com/flowtron.insect.killer-20
http://astore.amazon.com/evaporative.air.cooler-20
http://astore.amazon.com/air.swamp.cooler-20
http://astore.amazon.com/braun.electric.kettle-20
http://astore.amazon.com/cordless.electric.kettle- ...
http://astore.amazon.com/canon.battery.charger-20
http://astore.amazon.com/12.volt.battery.charger-2 ...
http://astore.amazon.com/furniture.chaise.lounge-2 ...
http://astore.amazon.com/outdoor.chaise.lounge-20 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7"The standard concept, advertised by Macromedia is absolutely unusable."
Hmmm. Really? So the fact that I see it used this "absolutely unusable" way on ... oh... 99% of the useable website I visit with flash means what? No one is really seeing flash on websites?
Can the smarty web designers please stop bothering us with your over dramatic cries. How about just say, "I know this is how most people do it, and that works, but here's a better way that will work AND comply with web standards." You're just making it more confusing. - gmillerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Simple things like the target parameter not being in the anchor tag are annoying for xhtml validation. Some of the hoops these guys are jumping through are evil. They could almost write their own DTD for the pages and be done with it to get past a client's need for a strict xhtml page.
- ltmon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The author of the dugg article does mention this method around his site, but was unhappy with it.
I think the main reason is that it doesn't work with the Eolas workaround hack. - MushuMax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I prefer Bobby van der Sluis's Unobtrusive Flash Object (UFO) over SWFObject found here: http://www.bobbyvandersluis.com/ufo/
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is