What is Digg?Sponsored by The Fourth Kind
What does 3:33 AM mean to you? view!
facebook.com - People have reported alien encounters taking place at 3:33AM. Do you believe? The Fourth Kind - Now Playing.
486 Comments
- owaters, on 10/10/2007, -19/+310Partially agree... Flash sites are great for creative expression, but seems to bring with it bad navigation and long loading times. Flash sites are flash sites, not websites. If flash is gong to be used it should be in small elements around a framework of web standards such as XHTML & CSS. Fast, clean, simple and effective.
- DelSolMan, on 10/10/2007, -17/+286No Flash? Can you imagine Youtube using Real Audio?
- K3ITHK, on 10/10/2007, -8/+192Actually, myspace is the bane of the internet, not flash.
- flyswat, on 10/10/2007, -31/+189Wow, all of the idiots posting on your blog totally don't get it.
Flash is not accessible at all by screen readers or other disabilities compliant devices. Thats why its not accessible. Great article. - wedderburn, on 10/10/2007, -13/+123flash might be bad, but for things like youtube etc if it wasn't for flash we would properly all be streaming using Quicktime or WMV, just food for thought for anyone not on windows.
- aguynamedben, on 10/10/2007, -10/+118Flash doesn't flat out suck. You just have to be sure you use the right technology for the right task.
- arpitmathur, on 10/10/2007, -23/+120I cant believe there is another blog post on this and there are people digging it. Saying something that will undoubtedly provoke responses from the annoyed flash developers and then counter responses from the html camp is the cheapest way to get traffic on your blog. Provoking a response is different from saying something significant (taken from Calvin and Hobbes). However I will add a couple of comments here anyway (cos I have nothing better to do). Flash and HTML seem to address different needs of the web, Nothing is easier to use than HTML for getting info and if BBC news ever went Flash I would go nuts (or Digg for that matter). But for visualization and for design, html has limits. Take the movie pre-release sites. They are fun, and once I see it I am done. But it was different. Put the same in html and it wont be half as entertaining. And would web video be as pervasive without Flash ? Dont marry into technologies. Pick what you want to do and then pick the tech that best suits it.
Buried for being a topic that has been beaten to death on the web! - mmalone, on 10/10/2007, -4/+82The problem is that Flash doesn't degrade well, and developers rarely build Flash components that degrade gracefully. It sucks when people websites with Flash navigation with no alternative navigation for people who don't have / can't use Flash.
- addictist, on 10/10/2007, -10/+80No Desktop Tower Defense? Are you ***** kidding?
- topgigmedia, on 10/10/2007, -5/+55blame the developer, not the technology. It is like saying HTML is bad becasue the web dev used nested tables for markup instead of following standards. It is almost like blaming alcohol instead of the alcoholic for being a dick at your party.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+46Flash is perfect for online video sites. Otherwise I would have to install quicktime, windows media and (urgh) real media.
Flashblock is one of my favourite Firefox extensions. - HigherLogic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+41Flash only sucks when people build entire websites with it, or use it for logos, navigation elements, to display content, form elements, scrollbars, etc.
Flash is great for charts/graphs (Google Analytics), for rich media (YouTube, Google Video), presentations/walk-thrus, advertisements, games, etc. That's what Flash is good at because there is no way to do these things with HTML and CSS. That's how all technology works, you use what's appropriate.
You don't open a can of beans with a sledge hammer, you open it with a can opener :) - pezholio, on 10/10/2007, -3/+39Couldn't agree more with the owaters's comment. Flash is great when it's used sparingly (hell, look at what Flash video has done for You Tube et al), but when people who call themselves 'web designers' put whole sites together in Flash, that's when the problem starts.
- LowRentDiggs, on 10/10/2007, -5/+41That's a problem with the site developers, not Flash itself. The same thing goes for Javascript or any other UI enhancement.
- mmalone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33Hah. Yea, I didn't even really acknowledge that comment... Not sure how "runs well with IE, Firefox, opera, Safari on Windows, Linux, OS X" makes something accessible.
I'm also kind of frustrated with everyone equating "open spec" with "open source." They're not the same thing. You can have a closed source product that generates/plays/whatevers a file format that has an open specification. Haven't any of these people heard of Java? How bout Microsoft Word? WTF? - andypatil, on 10/10/2007, -8/+39Yes, I would generally agree that Flash for a general website is not that great. But Flash does kill every other technology in terms of developing Rich Internet Applications. Better penetration on the Internet, faster start up times, You cannot achieve that using Java applet and trying to develop everything using AJAX and DHTML might not work especially if you are trying to create complex applications which require rich user interactions. E.g AJAX is used nicely in Google Maps and Google Mail, but I find the new AJAX Yahoo Mail slow to load. I myself have been in the development of a Flash based RIA for last 3 years. I went through my bag of troubles. Flash was never ready for enterprise level application development with multiple people working on the same project. The fact that it maintains compiled artifacts in a binary format (FLA) was a big PIA. But overall I am happy with Flash provided one does proper OOPS developer (aka Action Script 3.0).
- buddhistMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -5/+35((( "Flash is not accessible at all by screen readers..." )))
Flash can be made accessible to screen readers in MX or higher (CS3) versions. True, you don't get that ability for "free" like you do with HTML — you'd have to specifically design a Flash site with accessibility in mind — but it's not difficult to do. Of course, animation doesn't really lend itself to screen reading the way static text does, but that's the price you pay for motion and interactivity. - OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -10/+36What about Flex and Apollo? No, not two 70s blacksploitation movie heroes, I mean the post-Flash stuff Adobe is working on now.
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page - Verdanic, on 10/10/2007, -4/+29Ah, who cares about the 20-30% of your users that might not be using an up-to-date browser with all of the latest plugins.
Clearly you don't develop for the web. - sirdaz, on 10/10/2007, -12/+36Some people just don't flash AT ALL. Sure if the website is just a blog, HTML would be the better choice. Flash is excellent for RIA's, games, media. It has a whole GUI widget set that is common on all major OS's, running from the same code base, WITHOUT a re-compile.
People see flash used in a bad way, and automatically assume that flash is the worst thing out there. Blame the developer, not the tool.
Buried as inaccurate. - geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26No, but I could imagine YouTube running an MPEG-2/MPEG-4 stream which practically every platform in existence has some kind of playback for (including mobile devices). Oh, and the video quality would be better than "Is that square there supposed to be a lollypop or a hammer?"
- HautePie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25Bad designers make bad Flash. 5 years ago wants its arguments back.
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23The sad fact of the matter is, Flash Video isn't special at all; it's basically a plugin running another plugin, but because the second plugin is guaranteed to use the same software, the video works exactly the same everywhere.
This problem could have been more gracefully solved by making a better media player object inside of the browser itself, and by making an open/standard, cross platform video codec the preferred choice, but instead was solved by a company veiling it behind their layer of abstraction.
And in reality, that's all Flash is; it's an embedded window within web browsers that runs proprietary content. Hell, even Adobe/Macromedia understands this, which is why they're trying their best to hold on to what they've got, pushing the less relevant parts out into the community (like the Javascript engine within a browser that's already got a Javascript engine), and retaining the more relevant parts (like their proprietary format decoder). Flash sucks because it's obsolete; when it was first envisioned, there was nothing like it, browsers didn't do anything but parse and display HTML files. Now, browsers are content engines, complete with their own language and virtual machine, and are more than capable of doing everything Flash does, and then some. - LibertyVista, on 10/10/2007, -3/+23People make bad websites with HTML, should we stop using it ?
- jambarama, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21The only reason (IMHO) flash is used everywhere is because it just works & it works the same everywhere. No matter what browser, what OS (as long as flash player exists on that OS), if you the developer can see it, so can others. To get the same result with html/svg/xml/javascript takes enormous amounts of effort and coding. Developing flash sucks generally, but not as much as developing other web stuff with the same level of compatibility.
Now that I think about it, Adobe did the same thing with PDF format. PDF doesn't do anything that PS didn't really, and it can be clunky do make (certainly to edit) PDFs, and they are slow in opening (sound like flash yet?), but what you made you knew was going to look the same everywhere. That is pretty terrific. - miquael, on 10/10/2007, -7/+24Flash is awesome. Like most any technology, our web tools and methods are to be used with respect to the situation, and applied with good design and implementation skills. There is not sucky Flash, there are sucky designers or developers who make sucky Flash content just as they make sucky HTML sites or sucky blog and sucky digg posts. They also probably make sucky sucky.
Here are several most EXCELLENT uses of Flash--right here in DIGG LABS (see link in the footer at the bottom of this page).
How in the hell else could anyone make such innovative and compelling web applications such as these without Flash? And only recently have Flex and AIR emerged to bring Flash to an even higher level of coherence and functionality.
We have gone from stone tablets to books to television to HTML to Flash ... and I'm sure the evolution of information design will continue to go far beyond the imaginations of most of us here today. We are just now beginning to witness the emergence of a type of "ecology" of the internet where the quality and diversity of development components are meeting standardizations of interoperability that imply the emergence of an even higher-order dimension of the information environment. Flash is clearly an integral, significant, and continuously evolving element within the interdependently growing information "ecology". - PRlME, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22flash is not made for using it the way that they describe. Its like saying my Ford Minivan Sux cause when you take it on the track it rolls over all the time...DUH!!!!
I really don't like people bashing an app on a topic its not intended for. - mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21They might have, but in the real world it isn't. Web browsers provide mechanisms to provide accessibility, flash does everything its own way.
Most all-flash sites don't even provide keyboard navigation or cut and paste and browser text-size zooming and screen readers are rendered useless.
Flash might be useful for decorative animations and games but it should not be used for content. - mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21No, it is fine for games. This is more about idiots that think they can make entire websites in flash.
- javabase, on 10/10/2007, -6/+21Flash is just as inaccessible as the 'IMG' tag. If you don't provide alternative content then some disabled users won't see it. So what? Images are the bane of the internet?!
- rayishu, on 10/10/2007, -17/+31the creative expression offered by flash is unmatched, flash is really great for marketing and really dazziling your viewers, most sites that are flash like for example a movie website dont need to be accesible to the blind because chances are that blind person might not see the movie
- Fidodo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18Don't blame the tool because stupid designers don't know how to use it properly. It can be argued that the implementation of flash sucks but that isn't the fault of flash.
- p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15eww.... don't even bring me bad memories of using that program.
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -7/+21Too bad linux users got the "you need to upgrade to version 8" message for years while 8 was never released for linux (they did finally release 9 for linux though)
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14You should degrade for print copy, yes, because in spite of people hammering on about "the paperless office" for the last 30 years, it won't happen for quite some time yet -- paper still has a wide variety of uses (and works everywhere).
You should also degrade for a large number of different platforms. Mobility is coming on strong, which means that we need to go back and consider that *really* high tech users will actually have lower resolutions, less bandwidth, slower processors, and less-featured browsers (yes, even the iPhone's Safari is less-featured) to play with than the supposedly "low-tech users."
And, once again, there is the accessability angle: unless your content "degrades" to where it is usable by everyone, in spite of their physical (rather than technological) handicaps, you will miss out on visitors and, eventually, you'll miss out on the really big contracts, since web accessability is slowly making its way into mandatory policy and law...
Basically, with the web being everywhere and for everyone, at any time through any mean, you can no longer make *any* assumptions about how your audience is going to get your content. This means you must plan for degradation to fit all the possible access devices out there, or you'll be left behind. - mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17Flash is not the platform independent solution it is generally percieved to be.
Flash 8 was never released for linux, linux users got all those "you need to update" messages without an ability to update. All adobe had to say on the matter was that they were "working on it" It never came.
They did release 9 for linux, but for years a lot of sites were inaccessible.
SVG could be a better faster alternative for many applications but it is being held back. - LLLSecretChimp, on 10/20/2007, -4/+16Good point. I'd also boycott music companies who neglect the deaf.
- Terc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15You don't do web design do you?
That's like saying, well, "if they run IE 5.5, they can't view our website", or "If their monitor doesn't support 1024x768, they're going to have a tough time navigating our website"
A good web developer develops to be viewable on the largest amount of configurations possible. Ignoring people without flash is a sign of a poor web designer. - fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Flash loads progressively, but it depends entirely on the developer how you're going to see the site. They might stick you in front of a loading screen till everything's done or they might lazy load or (best) load in the background while you're looking at other stuff.
- mmalone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13"Microsoft Silverlight might provide a viable alternative once it’s released. But chances are it will suck at least as much as Flash."
Did you read the article? - GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Yeah Flash is an instant close tab for me in most cases.
- pezholio, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16How about ***** you? The web is a great resource and when coded properly is a great resource for the disabled, especially blind people.
- nayr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11ok, YOU write desktop tower defense on ajax!
- mrswirl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Well, now that you menti......buffering.......
- ripple123, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Flash lead to youtube.. It provided the first streaming video protocol on the net that didn't suck. I mean what was there before flash, realplayer? windows media player? quicktime? Ok, quicktime wasn't so bad, but it lacked the reach of flash. And the other 2 dont provide the level of control one really needs for watching streaming video. I wanna open a youtube page, hit the play key twice to start it loading, go browse another page for a bit, and come back and watch video that doesn't randomly freeze cause its buffering... buffering...
- WhiteIce89, on 10/10/2007, -18/+27I don't know about site navigation using Flash, but I found that to make basic animation in Flash, you have to "trick" the program into doing what you want it to do. A lot of effects in Flash end up being smoke and mirrors in a sense.
- waynehoggett, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13100% true, flash is good. Designers just need to know when to use it.
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10AS3.0 is the first implementation of ECMAscript 4, which is among the most comprehensive languages available right now. If you have to use "hacks" to get things done in AS3.0, it's because you're doing things the wrong way.
Also, see http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/02/next-big-language.html for a discussion about why it matters. - thailand1972, on 10/10/2007, -11/+19The article is inaccurate when it states that search engines don't index Flash files. I know for a fact that Google does (I've had some of my Flash files indexed). As for flash "sucking", it sucks when it's used the wrong way - like building an entire e-commerce website in Flash for example (definitely not recommended, yet web developers still do things like this). Flash is great for streaming video and sound (some great Flash mp3 players), and for demonstrating something in a "kiosk" style. You don't NEED to make a whole site, including all the navigation, in Flash. This is what gets people pissed off (including myself). These kinds of websites break a lot of usability rules and ARE inaccessible (you can't use a screenreader, and you need a mouse to navigate for example), and often have intro animations etc - just slowing me down. It's how you use it folks.
- willcoll, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11you have no idea what you are talking about. and I have no idea why you were dugg. Unless there are really that many stupid people in this thread
-
Show 51 - 100 of 488 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is