digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Why Flash Sucks

immike.net — The Adobe Flash Player is a multimedia application created by Macromedia (now a division of Adobe Systems). If you ’re reading this website, you probably know all of this. What you might not know is that Flash sucks. It is the bane of the Internet, and it needs to go away.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • owaters, on 10/10/2007, -17/+309Partially 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.
    • 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.
      • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -67/+16You know what the odds are of someone not having / can't using Flash? 2 or 3 people in 100. Cry me a river.
        • cbuddha42, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Not really. Maybe the chance someone can't run flash period is that low, but everyone using a 64bit browser has to switch just for your site, and the number of people using 64bit is only going up.
        • LoudNoise, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5All the millions of people with iPhones?
        • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5If you're running Linux on a PowerPC machine, then you can't use flash.
          • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Sure you can. It's just a pain in the ass to get it working.
          • stmiller, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Gnash 0.8.0 is Flash 7 compatible, and works in PowerPC Linux (and other archs). Plays youtube, revision3, and other flash video.
        • 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.
        • FelixdaaHack, on 10/10/2007, -17/+2The people complaining about Flash either don't know how to use it themselves or are CSS Nazis who live and die by W3C
          • boot20, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or are tired of long load times for a site that should be simple and fast.
        • dogstar0125, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I won't install Flash because I ***** hate how it is used for advertising banners, and I won't use a site that is Flash-only.
        • aaronm67, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2...2 or 3 in a hundred? You're willing to turn away 2-3% of your visitors just because you want to use a "prettier" interface, or spend a few hours and design a non flash interface?

          Also, flash isn't installed on anywhere near 97% of computers. I would try closer to 75%, though that is just a guess.
      • 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.
        • lostangelonline, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0agree. flash is the only true UI that really brings a lot of new features to the web...even youtube.com and video.google.com (our most beloved websites) are using it...not mentioning that flash is the only one that works the same on all browsers. ask any web-programmer and they will tell you now many hard times they had with differences in html ,javascript, activeX objects (like media player) between InternetExplorer and FireFox. Flash is excellent, only programmers are not implementing it like it should (high load times and all other annoying stuff)....just keep in mind that there are verry few Action Script programmers....and most of the sites put a designer si make the flash and a php/.net programmer to write the 'object' code for it...no optimization is done
      • CosmicJustice, on 10/10/2007, -27/+15Screw that. Why should a site "degrade" at all? Do you print out copies for people without computers?
        • 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.
        • 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.
        • cfelde, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5If you mind degrading for users with old and non-updated computers, or blind people etc, maybe you should let the site degrade for SEO, bookmarking and other such purposes. The same goes for AJAX sites.
      • alamandrax, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1I've been trying my hand at web design using Javascript and Flash using Aptana (www.aptana.com). Does anyone actually use the AFLAX toolkit? Or is it just Aptana? It seems pretty useful so far.
    • WhiteIce89, on 10/10/2007, -17/+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.
      • FizixMan, on 10/10/2007, -17/+3That's a bad thing? Most special effects, in any industry, are smoke and mirrors. Unless you think they actually nuked Toronto in Resident Evil Apocalypse.


        I wish they had. :(
      • willcoll, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10you 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
      • 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.
        • DoMifer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3For the most part, you're right - but this isn't always the case.

          I was working on a Flash project in Flash 8 (Windows) for one of my Web Development classes. I finished the project and it worked flawlessly. When I went to present it, I was using a Mac in the classroom to do so. Little did I know that Flash 8 for Mac wasn't able to render ANY of my content.

          Needless to say, my site looked like garbage. I ended up hooking my laptop up to the projector to present the site. This assumption bit me in the ass.
        • willcoll, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I havent had that problem before, and I transfered files between my P/C and Mac laptop all the time
        • 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The sad thing is that Firefox pretty much renders the same on every platform, but because the standards it supports are open instead of closed, other people implement them differently and make web developers' lives that much harder. If everyone would just use Firefox (or browser makers could get their damn acts together and all render pages the same way) then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
          • aaronm67, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2...you've never developed a website I take it? Firefox doesn't render the same on all platforms.
            Also, Safari, Opera, Konqueror, etc, are all as standards compliant as Firefox, though they all render sites slightly differently.
      • DvS01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6My issue with Flash is learning it. After using After Effects and nonlinear editing systems that act very similar to each other, using Flash is cumbersome. The way it handles graphic objects and animation is completely retarded. It takes several illogical steps to achieve something the other systems can do in one.
        • championchap, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I found that same problem moving from using Flash heavily for the past 3 years to attempting After Effects.
          It's just what you're used to.
    • 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
      • somerandomnerd, on 10/10/2007, -16/+8I can see (almost) perfectly, and if any movie studio took that attitude, I'd boycott them immediately.

        The casual, lazy discrimination that I keep seeing against the blind or partially sighted in terms of accessibility sickens me.
        • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2I think you need to find a better cause to get all up in arms about. There are many to choose from.

          Just please, on behalf of all Digg readers, don't make it impeaching anybody or Ron Paul. We have more than enough people up in arms about those things as it is.
        • LLLSecretChimp, on 10/20/2007, -4/+16Good point. I'd also boycott music companies who neglect the deaf.
        • cbuddha42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I think hes being sarcastic there kids. At least I hope he's being sarcastic...
          • sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Why do you think he is being sarcastic? Are you just that much of a jerk that you don't think blind people have the right to enjoy movies? They have audio captioning of movies for blind people. It describes the major elements that they need visually to follow along. Many times, most of the information for a movie is in the audio track. Begin sighted doesn't give you an exclusive right to view or care about movies. Try looking up Descriptive TheaterVision or The Motion Picture Access Project.
        • 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I hope he wasn't being sarcastic, because he's right. Think about Youtube. How many "videos" are actually just audio with a stupid filler picture? I mean really now, why would blind people want to listen to audio?
      • bowlich, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I hate movie sites. All I want is to see the trailer, a short synopsis, and the credits--instead I'm greeted by bloated piece of crap that takes forever to navigate to the simple data I wanted.
    • pezholio, on 10/10/2007, -2/+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.
      • 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.
        • rpgmaker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Flash may need to be rewrite but that doesn't mean that is 'obsolete'...
        • nayr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10ok, YOU write desktop tower defense on ajax!
    • topgigmedia, on 10/10/2007, -5/+54blame 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.
      • BumRush, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This guy is right on. I have done data centric flash applications with minimal load times. It all comes down to the dev and to be more specific, the dev must predict usage and cache data while the user is staring at the pretty lights.
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11You know that little button that says "Skip Flash Intro"? Guess what: Everyone clicks it.

      The only proper use of Flash on the web is to show something that is not easily described with words, like how to screw in a light bulb.
    • LibertyVista, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22People make bad websites with HTML, should we stop using it ?
      • scottschiller, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Bad HTML can still be parsed, read and indexed by search engines, thus having "value" and meaning on the web. Can't say that so much for compiled binary formats, no matter the "quality" of the content.
    • FutureGuy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Don't worry there is light at the end of the tunnel its looks silver ;)
    • that1jewishguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Flash is also poor for search engine's not being able to properly optimize a site for SEO purposes seeing as all the text is loaded into the Flash file. Although flash is necessary for some site's capabilities being much easier to make it flash as opposed to AJAX or something similar, but sites that are entirely in Flash are annoying and unnecessary in my opinion. You just have to learn where Flash can and should be used.
    • dijital, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's an interesting perspective but a bit remedial. It's like saying 'hammers suck cuz the birdhouses people build suck' - Ok, maybe that was a terrible analogy, but still. Flash, though still used by "Web Designers" (hahah) in a crappy way, is also used by actual developers to create entire online applications. Mature uses of Flash include full database applications and tighter xml integration. Wanna see a great example? Google Analytics. So for the kiddies just now getting around to the "Flash Sucks" mentality - we've moved beyond it - we'll expect you to catch up in the next couple of years.
  • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -46/+15I don't think the loading times for flash sites are any different than other sites. I think they might seem longer because Flash (by default) won't progressively load it's page elements, and instead waits untill everything is downloaded then displays the page.
    • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Flash 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.
    • HautePie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It is perfectly possible to develop a flash site to load in either in the background or on demand while it is running.
    • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I never said it isn't possible. I said by deafault. If you just export your movie in it's default state, it's going to start loading all the classes before it even looks at a single sprite. I'm sure you guys have all experienced the pre-loader wich doesn't even appear until getBytesLoaded is at 80+%.
  • flyswat, on 10/10/2007, -31/+186Wow, 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.
    • 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?
      • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7Flash can be accessible. Macromedia and then Adobe pumped lots of time and money into making it so.
        • mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+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.
          • DoMifer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2But you said "most" Flash sites. This implies that the problem doesn't exist with ALL Flash sites. So obviously, you can't be blaming the program for the shortcomings of the site designers, can you?
        • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@cgt2099: Nonsense! It's perfectly reasonable to expect people to spend most of their time hitting the tab key! :P
      • cfelde, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Last time I checked, Java is GPL.
      • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Who equated open spec and open source. Java is both in any case. Flash is neither so sucks. Not sustainable in the long term in the same way as binary black hole datatypes aren't.
    • TheKorn2, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6Suggesting that a closed spec (flash) be replaced by one from a company that's INSANELY closed (microsoft - silverlight) is like suggesting you replace explosive gasoline with TNT. Sorry, but this is a moronic article.
      • 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?
        • Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Even intimating that Silverlight might not be the biggest load of manure since J++ is a sin against FOSS. Pray to RMS for deliverance from your ignorance.
      • TheKorn2, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1Of course I read the article; silverlight isn't mentioned anywhere except IN the article. The point is that you suggested Silverlight as an alternative. Suggesting WORSE alternatives is something a MORON does.

        You don't suggest that the something better than chopping off your hand is chopping off your arm, you suggest that it might be a good idea NOT TO CHOP OFF YOUR HAND.

        Even mentioning silverlight which is from a CRAZY and MALICIOUSLY closed company vs. Flash is incomprehensible.
        • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1JavaFX FTW. Completely open and very different from Java (before anyone starts down that path, it's a completely different language that can access the Java API).

          If we are going to consider Silverlight which needs a .Net runtime then the normal arguments against Java don't hold water anymore.
    • buddhistMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -5/+34((( "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.
      • kevincannon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Also, one important question you've got to ask is how accessible is multimedia content itself. A visual computer game for example, will generally be fundamentally in accessible to a blind person. So, with multimedia content that is inherently inaccessible, adding accessibility features will just be like showing the user what they can't have.
        • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6The key there is MULTI-media. A truly great Web site offers the best experience to people with all their senses, obviously, but still offers good experiences to people who have a handicap. Like blindness, or deafness, or Internet Explorer.
      • Daniel591992, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Here's a good example:
        http://www.jkrowling.com/
    • DCUK, on 10/10/2007, -29/+16Who cares about disabled people?

      They don't make up enough traffic to care about most of the time.
      • 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.
        • sagien, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5You mean you don't kill your inferior birth specimen?
          • MrSunshine, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You mean you are resistant against future accidents?
        • DCUK, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Sorry that the truth hurts, but in most cases disabled people aren't worth catering for.
    • topgigmedia, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6those who slam Flash obviously never learned how to properly code it. Ignorance breeds hatred. Go on - have fun coding your sqare boxes w/ CSS & HTML - so exciting! - look mama another box with a gradient!
      • mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6The problem is the flash "authors" that never learned to properly code it.
      • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4No, the problem is that Flash developers who are used to a capable vector based language would never consider the various 'hacks' used to make HTML sites look good as 'proper coding'.
      • dshPls, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Guys, with only 30 lines of code I have made rounded off corners in CSS! Go me!

        You can slam flash all day, but the tool who wrote this blog will always be a nothing, because he has no design skill and no useful critique.

        Design companies producing flash content are the ones rising up, if not at the top right now. Look at any major website, your favorite band to your cellphone to your car, and it contains flash.
        • SteveMax, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Yeah, because everything that is successful cannot suck. Music artists, for example: only the good ones sell, the bad ones don't last more than one album. Or TV: everything on it is good, because bad stuff like Jerry Springer make no success at all and are kicked out of the screen.
          • dshPls, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It doesn't matter if you think the design sucks. It matters if the collective interweb enjoys the material in question. If it does, companies buy more of the said product. We're talking about the capability of flash here, not its "suckage." You're trying to bash flash over its designers, not over it's ability to render video, audio, text, graphics and vectors. Flash is the ultimate media solution, sorry if Style sheets can't achieve half of what flash does, maybe you should upgrade.
        • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Containing flash, and being 100% dependent on flash are 2 different things!
    • inim, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5by default it isnt ...
    • 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?!
      • topgigmedia, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2if so - there go all of those lovely gradients ;)
    • makis, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9van gogh paintings neither, you can't touch them, you can't smell them, and no one gives you alternative content...
      what a shame!!
      flash is about animation and something ajax is trying to do with much more effort.
      you can make flash accessible.as HTML is not accessible by design
      you can make it readable by machines... but it's not by default
      • scottschiller, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4No, you can't, as far as readability. "The web is not a movie."
        Here's an example of "Flash-like", yet indexable/accessible and standards-based HTML:
        http://www.scottschiller.com/
        (Rather old, mind you.)
        • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I see a blank page. (Opera 9.22)
          The CSS is invalid. (a:focus instead of a:hover?)
          There are javascript null-object errors.

          But at least it's valid XHTML strict.
        • SniperX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Pretty much if you use Opera you have no reason to complain when a site doesn't work. That's a simple fact of life you must cope with as an Opera (or Safari, or lynx, etc.) user. - Also add to that the fact that this site was done in 2003 and supports IE 5.0+ and Firefox 1.x and Safari 1.2 and it's worth its praise. He even comments on the fact that Opera is a missing link currently.
      • mumblyjoe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So, developers are left to re-invent the wheel. That my friend is called a design flaw.

        BTW, ever tried to use the search function (control-f) in a Flash app? She no workee! Guess there's another wheel that has to be re-invented?
    • CosmicJustice, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Movies, art, the Grand Canyon, the moon in the sky: not accessible to a lot of people. Go harp on George Lucas because the special effects in Star Wars aren't "accessible."
    • tennisOK, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Um, Flash i accessible to many screen readers, including JAWS. The author of the page does have to know what he's doing in order to make it work correctly, but utlimatley the problem here lies with the authors, not the technology.
    • dremiliolizardo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1uh, screen readers do, in fact, access the flash player, and the things in a flash movie. How do I know? A fairly popular flash application I made a few years ago (and which is still making a bit of a splash with a certain web 2.0 startup) is fully accessible.
    • acidbass, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Im in ur swf, scraping ur audio, video, graphics and text: http://www.sothink.com/product/flashdecompiler/

      if it compiles and runs on hardware, then it can be debugged and disassembled - computer science fundamentals
  • arpitmathur, on 10/10/2007, -22/+119I 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!
    • etandrib, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5I agree completely. We design in html, with flash elements, and we're now moving into using RoR (which I love btw). Flash has its place and it won't replace html not will html replace flash. They are different tools like a nail and a screw. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
    • Chongo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Flash is like any tool in the toolkit. When you need it, you use it.
      • mumblyjoe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"When all you have is a hammer, all the world starts looking like a nail."

        It's never been so true as now.
    • TexasScott, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yup. Depends on the intent of the site. Flash has a great communications platform with Flash Media Server. Video would suck without Flash. Just take a look at WIndows Media Player.
  • 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
    • brocej, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Exactly. Pownce uses Apollo. eBay is experimenting with a Flex desktop application.
      • Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Oh great, let's all target our apps on a layer on a layer on a layer....can we get a VM in Flex, because I want to run a different browser.
      • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4It's one layer. I don't really think that's to much to ask for the ability to port the exact same code from a web site/web app to a desktop app. The apps in question are so light to begin with it would be ridiculous to ask someone to write a web version, a desktop version for windows, a desktop version for OSX and soon a desktop version for Linux.
    • Yarnage, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6What about Flex and Apollo? Flex is a way to develop Flash applications and if you would notice, all Flex applications compile into Flash movies. Apollo (which is now called Adobe AIR) is a completely different idea and is a half-assed port of Flash, AXAJ/JavaScript, HTML and CSS for desktop applications that can't even access all of your system's APIs.

      Flex doesn't bring anything new to the table other than making it easier for developers to work in Flash and I honestly can't see Adobe AIR being used in production _at all_ until it's far more polished (give it 5 years or so) unless the company has a hard on for Adobe.
      • soapko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3>> Flex doesn't bring anything new to the table other than making it easier for developers to work in Flash

        You make that sound trivial. The fact is that by providing a more developer-friendly environment, Adobe is setting the stage for more traditional UI and application development for future Flash apps, thus overturning pre-conceived notions of what a Flash-based web experience is.
    • javabase, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2I fear Apollo is going to get squashed by Silverlight. I can't see any way JavaFX is going to make it. And does google have a stealth ria tool we don't know about yet?!
      • exoinverts, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Apollo > Silverlight. I have high doubts Silverlight will get anywhere, since right now it really only supports HD videos.
  • 10goto10, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6Dude, think of all the awesoming rolling letters!
  • identifiedlogo, on 10/10/2007, -37/+23Mike is out of his mind. Flash is the best thing that ever happened to the "internets"
  • moviscop, on 10/10/2007, -19/+9necessary evil
  • wedderburn, on 10/10/2007, -12/+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.
    • 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)
      • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4And?
        Obviously, they figured not to bother.
      • tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -20/+9Solution: Don't pick an operating system that has miniscule backing.
    • static_13, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11flash for video/audio is one of the best options on the web IMO.
      • davidhildreth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1it's a good way to fill the downfalls of current streaming options, but i don't see it having much of a future.
    • profOblivion, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3And we wouldn't have places like Newgrounds. Flash is the reason that community exists.
      • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Because they so couldn't do exactly the same thing with Java applets.
        • makis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4no.they needed almost 15 MB of JVM... just for the runtime
          flash is a 700k plugin
          and does vector, resolution independence, animation, sound and video by design
          • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Java's just more general solution (and arguably more powerful) than flash. Yes, most of that power is kept under check by the sandbox when run as an unsigned applet, but when was the last time someone did, say, a multicast file transfer app in flash?
          • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Vector graphics and resolution independence are the same thing. It's like saying a language does closures and wraps variables in a function.

            Vector graphics solutions for Java already exist.
      • davidhildreth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i think the article is attacking those who use flash for their whole site, navigation and all. flash animations and games are awesome.
        • profOblivion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But it doesn't mean that Flash, in itself, sucks.
  • DelSolMan, on 10/10/2007, -16/+286No Flash? Can you imagine Youtube using Real Audio?
    • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15eww.... don't even bring me bad memories of using that program.
    • Ademan, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5I don't think the idea was "get rid of flash" it was more like "replace flash". Action script is *****, doing anything in flash requires hack after hack, and it's proprietary to boot. What you're supposed to get from the article is "someone plz maek new flash!11"
      • smedrick, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13"Action script is *****, doing anything in flash requires hack after hack"

        You're obviously doing it wrong. Don't blame a technology because for your ***** programming skills.
      • 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.
        • emehrkay, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I havent finished reading this, but is he talking about AS3 or some implementation of ECMAscript 4?
        • emehrkay, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2btw, i'm starting out with as3 and i hate it.

          A lot of the early comments on that article suggest javascript, but current js doesnt support standard oo. you need packages (mootools etc) to get that.

          Tell me what NBL is!!!!
        • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I thought it was pretty obvious when he started talking about the new VM. The stuff he was saying pretty much mirrored all the info Adobe was giving regarding their new AVM.
      • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Face it, you suck at coding.
    • waynehoggett, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13100% true, flash is good. Designers just need to know when to use it.
      • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Exactly. It's good for movie and games sites and various banners and video, but don't use it for a "normal" site and especially navigation.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25No, 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?"
      • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2YouTube is migrating from the Flash codec (the name of which escapes me right now) to H.264 for broadband and H.263 for mobile devices. I can only imagine how long it'll take to reencode a zillion videos, though.
        • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1VP6 is the name of the codec inside of Flash, and they've not yet said publicly that they're moving the web-based player to h.264, even though they really, really should.
      • bobartig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1YouTube for the iPhone and AppleTV is already H.264 encoded. The quality increase is tremendous, and the ability to navigate through the files is greatly improved. This probably comes at a bitrate increase, but I don't see why man should suffer with .flv any longer... or why man every used .flv to begin with. A widespread migration to H.264 would give youtube a huge quality advantage over other video sites.
      • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Do you guys realize how processor intensive H.264 is? The majority of people who have no hardware based H.264 decoding would see a huge surge in cpu usage while watching highly compressed H.264 streams.
        • davidhildreth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1coreAVC is fast as ***** man, this really isn't the problem people make it out to be. Not to mention that main profile is much, much easier to decode than than high.
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Uh, Yes. Yes, I can.
    • mrswirl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Well, now that you menti......buffering.......
    • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Not any worse than Quicktime. *ducks*
      • davidhildreth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1quicktime is just so poorly implemented because no one seems to know how to run a DSS
    • pHr34kY, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I like flash because I run Linux, and I can watch videos without any issues. When sites don't use Flash, they use qt, wmv, rm or some other whacked proprietary codec which I always have trouble playing.

      However, I want to strangle someone over the lack of 64-bit support. I've installed Ubuntu x64 on two machines now, and there's no way I'm installing a 32bit browser on it. It would defeat the purpose.

      Oh, and java is in the same boat. Port the damn plugin to x64 already!
  • 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).
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4the only way flash could be defeated is if something came up that does what flash does better but open so it can improve even more
      with companies adopting it
      • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Silverlight
        • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3no one will use that!
        • jhaks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Too bad you don't have any idea what silverlight can do. The fact that you can code with a bunch of popular languages already kicks ass.
        • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And because I'm a minor Java fanboy, don't forget:
          http://www.sun.com/software/javafx/
        • Niten, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The last thing we need is for a proprietary Microsoft web technology to replace a proprietary Adobe web technology.
      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I know exactly how we'd make it; we'd make it render a very common markup language, then make it look better with some kind of "style", let's call them Style Sheets, and then we'd move it all around using some kind of scripting language... hmm, let's name it after that Java thing that never caught on, JavaScript. Lastly, we'd pipe it all over HTTP and we'll call it "the Web Browser".

        We can already do anything Flash can do with our current technologies. The biggest barrier to entry is that nobody's doing it, that some older browsers with incomplete implementations of core utilities make things not work great, and that there isn't a cute GUI to help people put it all together and push it out over the net. The grandparent is simply ignoring the fact that Flash is the exact same technology on the inside as our web browsers, with some funky compatibility layers for older versions of Flash objects.
        • makis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3like having all the dismounted parts that make a car and pretend it's a car...
          to be honest, flash is resolution independent from it's first releases.was made to animate the web
          html was not
          and you can't make 60 fps animation wirh dhtml and javascript
          you can with flash
          it's just another thing
          better for some purposes, not for everything
    • mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7"AJAX is used nicely in Google Maps and Google Mail, but I find the new AJAX Yahoo Mail slow to load."

      That says something about Yahoo's development team, not about AJAX since google did get it right.
      • lsalih, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I couldn't agree more.
      • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I don't think it says anything about Yahoo's development team. It's just an example of how far you can go with AJAX before it starts over-extending itself. The only reason Google 'got it right' is because they didn't attempt to implement half the features that Yahoo did.
        • andypatil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You are right. I am not saying AJAX is not good. All web developers have been using some form of AJAX via hidden IFRAME's in Internet Explorer in pre-AJAX world. But the issue is that Yahoo decided to built a RIA using DHTML . Another good example of Yahoo gone wrong is Yahoo Maps. The new Yahoo Maps is flash based and takes insane amount of time to load. I loved the old Yahoo Maps. In fact I am still sticking to old Yahoo Mail and Yahoo Maps. Somewhere Yahoo Development team lost track of what web applications should be like :(
    • Hammy2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Haha. You said penetration.
  • addictist, on 10/10/2007, -10/+80No Desktop Tower Defense? Are you ***** kidding?
    • 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.
      • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What is really terrible is when the entire site is coded in HTML EXCEPT for the menu bar. That super ***** me off because I can't open any of those links in tabs!

        Though it is a rarity to find a crap site like that, thankfully.
    • richardPM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0i'm with you on that one! long live DTD
  • TheKorn2, on 10/10/2007, -33/+22Flash sucks, wahhhh... No, I don't have any answers, wahhh... I just want to bitch, wahh wahhh wahhh.

    F*cking loser. Either suggest a workable solution or quit your bellyaching.
    • mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8SVG is the answer, it is being held back because SVG support on IE is already provided for by adobe and it is intentionally crappy support.
      • tdous, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Hahahahaahaha
      • kevincannon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6#1 SVG isn't a workable solution today, no even if you're giving out about Flash, you need to suggest an alternative

        #2 SVG really isn't a direct competitor to Flash. It's mainly design for having vector graphics online, like logos, charts and maps than providing the experience Flash can. Even if SVG was fully implemented in all browsers, it would only have a small overlap with Flash, but would by no means take away the benefits of Flash.
        • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Actually, a fully supported SVG DOM + JavaScript (especially in the upcoming version 2), would have almost exactly the same capabilities as Flash... the problem, of course, is the "fully supported" part, which just won't happen in a looong time, if at all.
  • BladeMelbourne, on 10/10/2007, -3/+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.
    • heavyd14, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3qucktime and real alternative ftw
      • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ya, they are nice...

        But I haven't yet been able to get them to work for browser content. :(
    • waynehoggett, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6True, where would you tube be without flash, would it be quicktime? Kill me now!
      • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Yeah, because trailers.apple.com is so incredibly bad.
        • Jonsey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It is if your not on a Mac.. hah. I don't mind quicktime on OS X but on a PC it's poorly done.
  • aguynamedben, on 10/10/2007, -9/+118Flash doesn't flat out suck. You just have to be sure you use the right technology for the right task.
    • Ademan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Using the right technology for the right task is something every programmer really needs to understand, but i don't think the author was saying "don't use flash, use html instead", i think he was saying that someone needs to make an alternative
      • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1The problem is not with programmers usually; they do what they are told.
  • sirdaz, on 10/10/2007, -11/+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.
    • trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Maybe you didn't actually RTFA but he says not to use flash unless you know you need it because it's over used ( and he admits that is the site developers fault ) and because it is closed doesn't support 64 bit and probably has a horrible code base. What of that was addressed in your 'rebuttal'?
    • static_13, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2FLASH sites are like TABLES sites, using great tools for the wrong job :(
    • NerdyNinja, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I never bothered to learn more than the extreme basics of Flash, simply because I dislike that sort of effect for my websites. I think Flash is something that is very hard to use well, and really easy to screw up. That doesn't mean it's bad, though.
  • K3ITHK, on 10/10/2007, -7/+190Actually, myspace is the bane of the internet, not flash.
    • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5You can ignore myspace. You can't ignore Flash.
  • 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 ***** 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.
    • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Why can't you use you're keyboard? The site I'm making right now is all Flash (AS3). If I hit the tab key, I will start scrolling through the buttons in my nav bar (which I can then activate by pressing enter). I can even take this a step further and actively maintain the list of elements which recieve focus when tab is pressed, and arrange the elements in this list however I want. I'm not sure about previous versions of AS, but it seems in AS3 as soon as you say button[i].buttonMode = true; button[i] gets automatically added to the tab list. This tab list is mantained even if the buttons are nested inside other MC's
    • Richman777, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1While you're right that the article did say they can't be indexed, I think that was just phrased incorrectly in the article. They can be indexed but web crawlers can't (feasibly) crawl the flash binaries for the content contained in them. I think the real issue here is people who decide to make a site that is one giant flash file instead of correctly designing it in smaller components, but that's already been covered.
      • thailand1972, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Google can interrogate a Flash file and extract the text within it (not external text, but text within a .swf file). Still I don't recommend Flash if you want to rank well.
  • 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, -2/+6It is widely being used as such and that sucks.
    • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1"I really don't like people bashing an app on a topic its not intended for."
      He's not doing that -- he's basing people for using an app in a way it is not intended (and trust me, they do). The difference is subtle but cruical. In fact, that difference is what makes you agree with him...
      • caban, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Try reading the name of the article again, it's two words and does explain fairly well his position...but like PRIME explained he fails to separate the drawbacks of bad craftsmanship from bad tools.
        • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Now read the content of the article, which explains *why* flash sucks: because it's being used for the wrong things. It's about the concept, not the tool or the craftmanship.
    • trunk8, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Please tell me you don't really own a Ford Minivan.
  • blaze03, on 10/10/2007, -14/+18People who hate on flash for the sake of hating it have no idea what they're talking about.

    As of March 07, flash player 7 has a penetration of 98.1% of users worldwide. Not that the other 2% of visitors don't matter; it's entirely possible and even common to have a non-flash version of your site for those people and it can be completely transparent to the user through a little javascript detection. Flash and accessibility are far from mutually exclusive, when used in the right hands of course - but that goes for almost every other aspect of web development.

    Therefore, there is no reason to put down flash. Nothing else comes close in creative potential. If we wanted everything to be static simply to cater to the lowest common denominator, we have this thing called paper. It doesn't need to "go away", it just needs to be used correctly. The author is an idiot.
    • topgigmedia, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9HTML CSS = each browser displays it differently. Flash/Flex = Browser agnostic. Looks the same everywhere. I echo the notion that in the right hands and coded properly, Flash is an amazing asset to the Web dev world. Let's not be narrow minded and exclusive - it limits the creative process and hurts the big picture.
    • Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Still Adobe are ***** flash up.

      There should be a proper 64 bit Linux version. Now I have to use a 32 bit browser, which means I can't use my 64 bit media players. The ***** have made me choose between integrated video in my browser and flash in my browser. I WANT TO THUMP THOSE *****
      • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Why does your Web browser need to address more than 2 GB of virtual memory? Do you get allocation errors out of your browser that often?
      • mikemx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1who cares about linux 64 bits, why should adobes developers have to work overtime getting it to work for half a dozen greasy haired loser nerds that refuse to use a sensible os for desktop .
        btw pimply nerd boy you won't be thumping anything (except your moms ass)
    • somerandomnerd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'm one of those 98.1% of users. Although at work, I don't (and can't) have the Flash plugin installed. I use a PDA to access the web almost daily, and there's no Flash plugin available for it. Statistics like that don't tell the whole story.
      • topgigmedia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1back to the alternate content thing...
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's not about penetration %. That's like saying Microsoft is great because 99% of the world uses Windows. Flash has been consistently forced upon users for about a decade now and grossly overused all over the web.
  • ripple123, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14Flash 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...
    • Diaruemnus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Does everyone realize that there is an HTML tag for video files?
  • vhold, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12Basically he is saying that you should always use the lowest common denominator technology at all times.

    That is true in many big cases, but really things never move forward unless somebody is on the vanguard trying new things. Those things may not be the most universally accessible, but they certainly are the the most experimental and progressive.
  • nubnub, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10See this can be looked at in 2 ways. Yes its annoying when sites use flash for there whole damn site, BUT flash does provide fun with all the games, movies, etc.
  • vince401, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9All complaining and no solution doesn't really make me want to shout "ban flash" from the rooftops.
  • darenotask, on 10/10/2007, -18/+10Adobe sucks - they have gone downhill since this CS crap - try installing any of their software it will ***** UP YOUR COMPUTER

    go try it! I dare you...
    • Psych77, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7I have a few Adobe products installed, and my computer is fine. Your dares don't scare me, neither do your CAPS
    • Fidodo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Let me guess, your mad because your pirated software didn't work?
    • topgigmedia, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5user error my friend. let's try not to be angry at our own personal shortcomings and try to pawn them off on others.
    • mtheoryx83, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I have both the CS 2.3 Premium and CS 3 Design Premium on this computer, and it's just fine. What's your malfunction?
    • confusednazgul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Their software would probably work just fine for you if you actually obtained it legally.
  • migvel, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Here are more and better explained reasons: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html
    • e68895f, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Your article is dated October 29, 2000: since then the makers of flash have improved their product, they even asked for nielsens to consult them.
  • zgnoud, on 10/10/2007, -15/+10completely stupid, Flash was a revolution and pretty much one of the best things to ever happen to the Internet.
    People who slanderize it for being unaccessible as well as slow are obviously ignorant. Today more than 98% of the TOTAL internet population is flashed compatable and have a flash player installed whether they realize it or not (face it if you can watch youtube you got flash). and come on, news flash - the 56k era is over. Most people have broadband, so the issue of it being slow is becoming increasingly redudant - as internet speeds will only get faster and faster. Were in the 21st centuary people, The internet is NOT just limited to html
    • mmmiiikkkeee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6flash on linux use to have _lots_ of issues... now it works ok... but still.... if its used on the internet it should have an open spec... at least.. so other platforms can use it...
    • somerandomnerd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Yes, we're in the 21st century, and the internet is NOT just limited to the desktop.

      It's funny how my 21st century PDA tends to works best with older 20th century websites- the ones who don't assume that all their users are on a 20 meg broadband connection running a full array of Internet Explorer plugins and ActiveX.

      In the UK, there are actually more mobile phones with internet capabilities than internet-connected PCs.

      One site I visited used some sort of browser sniffing to detect the screen resolution- instead of the site, I got a message saying "Welcome to 1990", accusing me of being stuck in the past and using outdated technology, as the idea of a pocket sized HTML browser was more advanced than the designer had been able to comprehend when writing his little script.
    • Fasta, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3"one of the best things to ever happen to the Internet" - what complete nonsense. Do you have any idea what you are talking about - or are you just making things up to try and convey a sense of superiority?
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"more than 98% of the TOTAL internet population is flashed compatable "

      You sir, are an idiot.

      I bet your Flash sites have all kinds of "cool" things like pictures fading in and out and little sounds when "flashed" users mouse over them and other unnecessary stuff.

      Guess what: You know that little button that says "Skip Flash Intro"? Well Everyone clicks it.
    • MariusVW, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Flash is ("[KOOL]")... but otherwise it sucks.

      unaccessible? What about people with vision impairment who use assistive devices?

      You don't sound too bright when it comes to web design and accessibility...

      Not even to mention how it breaks web browsers and do not run on some devices, browsers.

      Yes, one can do neat tricks with it, and that's where it should stay... entire web sites in Flash is a pain.

      I do not want sound coming from my browser... unless I as for it... Flash sound comes unbidden.

      I've resorted to install the firefox addin: Flashblock (works wonderfully)
      • theblt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Is it Flash's fault that the sound is there? Or the designer's? Bring some logical arguments to the table and we'll go from there.
      • mikemx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2***** accessability. Should the mona lisa be overlaid with braille?
  • aleksandar, on 10/10/2007, -13/+14I can understand if someone doesn't like flash, especially if that person is web developer or animator. But when you say that something from MICROSOFT should be an alternative you don't have any credibility for this mater.
  • Myztry, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3I think Flash is okay from a viewers perspective. Mainly it's just used for ads, but at least they are contained to their little box, unlike some HTML ads. Not quite so happy about Flash apps sucking bandwidth at will over a connection I pay for though. Flash apps are capable of FLASHy things that native current generation browser rendering just can't touch on. And most importantly if there's no Flash Viewer install, it's rarely even noticeable. What's the deal. The more serious stuff uses Java anyway.
    Site wise it's mainly just the Studio's and such with padded content related to an actual product (SEE: Film). Accessibility may not be ideal but then I've had to try to make the 'net' usable for several elderly people with failing eyesight and hearing, and Flash is the least of the problems. I understand the frustration. But the Internet is free for the masses, which by large have their senses intact. If people want a custom experience, then somebody needs to be paying someone else for it. Software/Computers just can't describe a visual scene to a blind person, or show audio in a perceivable way to a deaf person. Some minorities just miss out. I mean there's more non english speaking people in the world than English Speaking or sensory deprived people, yet that's hardly a priority for people. This is all politically incorrect but real life tends to be that way.
  • TheKorn2, on 10/10/2007, -17/+9This guy's blog should be renamed "I'm a moron"
    • javabase, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I agree - he's posting all this...then claims he doesn't even know what JavaFX is!!!??
  • rajanKazhman, on 10/10/2007, -10/+15This is hot headed BS. Flash is a powerful tool. Although it can be used to annoy, it can also be used to make kick ass art. Take it down a notch and learn to draw.
  • 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.
    • javabase, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2"Flash is not the platform independent solution it is generally percieved to be." - er.....FP 9 for windows, linux, mac, what other platforms you want!?
      • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Until it runs on my PDP-11, it can ***** the ***** off.
      • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3PowerPC Linux
      • bernerbits, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Any Linux running a browser on the 64bit libs on the 64bit kernel on a 64bit CPU
      • thephosphorbox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Aww and here I was thinking that Linux was ready for prime time and had all the vendor support it needed!

        Glad you guys are pushing Joe Schmoe user to go out and buy a pre-built Linux PC knowing all of this stuff doesn't work *eyeroll*
        • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As long as you don't run a 64 bit version or run it on a PowerPC machine, it is ready for prime time. These issues, while big issues, are fringe parts of the marketplace. Running on a regular x86 is gravy all the way.
    • Woofcat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I agree ever so much. I am using openBSD. If i want flash, i have to run Opera with the Linux Flash 9 under emulation. It would be great if there was a kickass openbsd port of flash, but sadly not.
    • mikemx, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1How about you pay adobes developers to create runtimes for all these obscure platforms that only a scattering of pimple faced nerds use. Its YOUR choice to use some dumb ass os for the desktop, why should everybody else suffer your bleating. And btw svg is an absolute joke its pathetic, it can't do a tenth of what flash can.
  • 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.
  • ricpaton, on 10/10/2007, -8/+0Dugg if only because he uses the word "schpeel". Other than that, the article is pretty much spot on, although it's clear he doesn't like Flash (and truth be told I don't either) and he let's that bias get in the way of a subjective argument.
    • DOGPARTY, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Objective argument,
      learn words before you use them
  • flink405, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4Flash is great....I just wish the software was easier to use to set up a website.
    • HautePie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2It's exceptionally easy to make a website in Flash, just not if you downloaded your copy and you have next to no idea how to use it
  • jobless, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Apart from the usability issue, Flash tends to eat up a lot of memory. When I watch something on youtube and leave the window open, the memory consumption keeps on increasing. I would love to see an alternative!
    • javabase, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Microsoft will be the alternative...do you really want that?
    • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's called a memory leak, and if you use Firefox, it's notorious for that.



      /not bashing FF; I use it.
  • WaltDismal, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6I frikkn hate Flash sites. 1) they're too often gratuitously artsy and a pain to navigate, way too many corporate sites like that 2) I HATE blinky, jumpy, jittery, flashing Flash animations all over sites. It's like trying concentrate on the road while driving through the middle of a fireworks display. It gets in the way, it's bothersome to the max. if I ever meet one of the Flash developers of a bad site, I plan to kick them in the nuts and laugh, and then kick them again, for fun. Flash may be a good tool, but it's used by total morons usually.
  • HigherLogic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+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 :)
    • ShagratOfMordor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2If you do open a can of beans with a sledge hammer make a flash video of it and put it on YouTube
    • HautePie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Wholly flash sites are ideal in certain contexts, eg artist/designer portfolios/showcases, promotionial microsites etc. But, granted, they are not always appropriate or made well (and they need to be).
    • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What are the inherent disadvantages of Flash based navigation?
      • caban, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If you use progressive enhancement to make sure that users, robots and screen readers that doesn't use the Flash plugin can access the content it can in some cases be used in a way that makes the navigation more user friendly.
        Many times the reality is that developers provide no such fall back or make navigation systems that is cumbersome to use, but that's a problem with those developers and not Flash itself.
      • floatingpoints, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Here's one: It's ***** annoying.
      • crashie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You can't open links in a new tab with Flash. That can be very annoying, especially for large web sites.
      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21) You need a mouse.
        2) Screen readers can't read them.
        3) Printing? What's that?

        I could go on, but the point's been made.
        • caban, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11) Flash accepts keyboard commands just fine...you can implement them as you like or duplicate browser behaviour.
          2) For example JAWS can read Flash, and for screen readers who can't you have to make sure that you serve alternate content for them...it's really easy to do.
          3) With Flash you can as a developer have full control over the layout of a page when printed.

    • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Pandora's music player is flash. And I don't know what I'd do without Pandora.
    • IEatHamburgers, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Oh great, now he tells me. *wipes beans off shirt*
    • p0wn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0goto thefwa.com and click some links. and tell me flash sites suck. These people who write this stuff are uneducated.
  • HautePie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25Bad designers make bad Flash. 5 years ago wants its arguments back.
    • trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3We didn't have 64 bit support 5 years ago and we still don't now, but that is obviously caused by designers and not Adobe / Macromedia's incompetence...
  • TripcodeMel, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3I'm sorry? I was busy playing Defend Your Castle. Could you say that again, closer to my asshole this time?
  • saynotocensors, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Apart from the things already mentioned - Flash also breaks a lot of browser functionality, all the things you do regularly like finding content, command clicks to open links in tabs right clicks to open images in new tabs etc....

    The net result of all this is that users get frustrated. It's no coincidence that the people who advocate using flash for web content are also the people who think they know best how users should interact with their content rather than the other way round.

    Thats not to say there aren't legitimate uses as many other comments have pointed out, it should be noted though that just because Flash is the best use for video at the moment it's not really the best long term solution, imagine how useful it would be if the format was open and programmable, we could do things like target certain frames of a video, even tag or bookmark individual frames or groups of frames and have more advanced browser controls to make the whole experience of viewing video much more user friendly. All of these things and many more we can't yet think of would be possible if flash-esque content was accessible in the same way as the DOM.
    • javabase, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2it will be in Apollo
    • freedomhater, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1"...imagine how useful it would be if the format was open and programmable, we could do things like target certain frames of a video, even tag or bookmark individual frames or groups of frames and have more advanced browser controls to make the whole experience of viewing video much more user friendly."

      You can control all these things and then some in Flash. Even more so in the CS3 version.
  • javabase, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2if Flash is so bad, why are *huge* companies like bbc and amazon using it on their homepages? Because they are stupid or something?
    • qishi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes?
    • somerandomnerd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because they use it properly- ie. in a way that doesn't break the site if you don't happen to have the plugin.

      There's no valid alternative to Flash for providing compressed video. There are plenty of superior alternatives to Flash for providing a basic navigation menu.
  • Dimascus, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5But what about the people who use flash for art, like newgrounds? flash must live!
  • micromause, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1AMEN!
  • kahrn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I think flash is good, although if you make an entire site with it you should offer a non-flash version. Not every browser can run flash, and not every browser can run it WELL. Firefox is one of those examples, as using flash with it is one of the reasons memory can go through the roof. Thankfully we have flashblock/NoScript.

    Personally I think adobe needs to make sure it is available for all platforms (or at least *nix, windows and apple*) and not half ass it like they did with the linux version. If they want everyone to use it, then they should make it available for everyone at the SAME time and release all the versions at the same time.
    • EagleVision, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0Well...I agree.

      " then they should make it available for everyone at the SAME time and release all the versions at the same time."
      That, though, has a problem, if they already have the Windows version ready, then they should publish it.
      Do you get my idea? Sorry if I am not explaining well. (^_^)
  • Calcularius, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8Opinion posted as Fact. Dugg Down as LAME.
    • floatingpoints, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Nah, it's fact. What YOU said was an opinion. Know and understand the difference.
  • 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".
    • badnewsblair, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So perfect.

      I wish this was higher on the replies page.
    • combustion8, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You hit the nail on the head, bravo.
    • NerdyNinja, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1hah, I think your timeline of stone tablets to flash is a bit... dramatic, and I hope you didn't mean to imply that flash should be a replacement for html, because it really shouldn't. And those last two sentences could have easily been said much less verbosely. For instance, instead that pontification, you could have just said "Flash is joining the set of useful tools available to designers, but like all other tools it must be used with care."

      Otherwise, I agree that there are plenty of useful, tasteful, and adequately implemented instances of flash.
    • scottschiller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yes, it's pretty and Flashy, and yet informationally meaningless to search engines. Unfortunate. I agree that you can make nifty UI experiences, artistic creations and so on. However: The web is informational, the money is in search and search engines, and Flash does not contribute value to it by itself in that regard. I wish it did.
    • stmiller, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, Flash does a lot of nifty stuff. But I don't think the entire internet should rely on ONE company (Adobe) and their product. HTML/CSS etc is, well, open and free to use, code, etc. and every web browser on any platform can use it. BUT Adobe Flash is a proprietary application- not an open standard.
  • stoem, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3lame. buried.
  • miyamotofreak, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Flash just sucks for the fact that it isn't 64 bit, the no ppc linux, late linux support, and its proprietary.
    • grumpyrain, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Yeah, totally. I can't count the number of times I have needed to write a flash app that consumed more than 3GB RAM.
    • akhomerun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4dear customer,
      we're sorry we haven't brought out our 64 bit open source version of flash for linux to the market yet. we understand that this is a growing segment, by 50% last year, with the install base jumping from one to two. It was our mistake to not place a 10 person development team on this task, and again we offer our sincerest apologies to both of you.

      - Adobe
    • Snarfy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Huh? It takes a 10 person development team to copy the source over to a 64 bit box and type make? Not having 64 bit linux support really really blows. We need open standards, not the proprietary craptastic flash player we are stuck with today.
    • mikemx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0go ***** yourself with your proprietary *****. You drive to work in a proprietary car, watch tv on a proprietary tv etc
      Its your choice to use linsux as a desktop, dont mewl when you cant use the great software available for popular os e.g osx/xp
  • mccake, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Are you saying youtube sucks too? :)
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 217 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.