Macromedia Pushes Flash For All Things Web 751
nakhla writes: "This article at News.com details how Macromedia is expanding its Flash product to be more of an all-in-one web solution. Rather than relying on HTML codes to design web pages and embedding Flash as one component, Macromedia wants Flash to be used to design the entirety of a site. Pre-built components, such as scrollbars and buttons, are included to allow designers to write everything using the new Flash product. With websites becoming more and more complex, and the trend to move towards providing web services rather than application software, could something like this be the answer? The article also mentions how Macromedia is on a campaign to have its Flash plugin included in all Internet-compatible devices. How long before we see a Qt based plugin for the Qtopia handheld project?"
"Flash" is a good name for the product (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never seen Flash add any value whatsoever to a site. This is an awful move, yet one that's sure to succeed because salespeople and the great unwashed ignorant masses like shiny things.
Not gonna happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Flash" is a good name for the product (Score:4, Insightful)
Flash versus open standards (Score:4, Insightful)
-Sean
MS ? (Score:4, Insightful)
anyway as tons previous and future posts will tell, flash makes things complicated rather than practical. Most flash sites drown in goodies. Except for joecartoon (www.joecartoon.com) I have yet to see a truly original flash use.
The biggest problem is that flash wants to be a general system for making all things online That's exact the idea of HTML. Only HTML add the keywords indexeable, shareable and ease If macromedia can add those to flash, then perhaps we'll be getting somewhere.
Flash Based Sites vs Search Engines, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing I did not like was that some of the ones I liked were entirely unlinkable. I could not even bookmark a page for my own referance. Great for designers wanting to keep absolute control over their content.
Bottom line, I never went back.
never mind that I wonder how a search engine will index a flash site. Heck, they usually do static pages only. Even java script calls to offsite get bypassed, nevet mind Flash.
So you have a great page that can only be ignored by search engines. Not that this is the way most sites get known, but it is a real issue.
Blind users (Score:2, Insightful)
Stay away from flash: It burns bandwidth, it locks out people who use text browsers (lots of blind folk use Lynx!), it locks out anybody who does not have the newest version of flash, and it is prone to error. HTML may not be that spiffy, but it works. Today, it takes a lot to mess up an HTML page. With flash, this is too easy.
Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Is HTML perfectly well thought out? Not really. But it's there, it's open, it's getting more standardized all the time. It works reliably on a lot of different platforms.
And through extensions like Flash, it can produce whatever monstrosity of a web site that evil designers can imagine.
That said, Flash only sites are annoying to use in a regular browser. Linking to certain parts of a site doesn't work (at least not usually), and back/forward are unreliable. But the solution should come from the Flash developer. When you click a link, the browser should move to a new page, one that initializes the same Flash data with the parameters to show the new page. Unfortunately, most Flash sites don't work that way. The browser stays on the same Flash data and the poor user is forced to use the Flash navigation.
Nothing better than right clicking and getting Pause, Play, and Stop...
/.
Flash will always be Eye Candy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Face facts about Flash:
1) It's hard to keep up to date. Until you can make Flash that updates itself from SQL, it's worthless for any real data.
2) It's not backwards-compatible with older browsers, nor is it friendly to text-only browsers such as Lynx. The flash content doesn't have an alternate of plain HTML & text for those without the plugin (although you can do an elaborate detection scheme which only works 50% of the time)
3) It breaks the standard web paradigm; once you in a flash movie, the back button on your browser doesn't take you back a page, it starts the movie over again! ARGH!
To top this off, recently a lot of ad designers have started using Flash in their ads. Which means animation, sound, a lot of stuff that makes me IGNORE the advertisement and want to DISABLE Flash in the first place.
Also, the only real benefit of Flash, vector graphics, are completely lost in the mix of horrible effects, processor-killing animation, and canned sounds. If you want good vector graphics, use Adobe SVG [adobe.com] instead.
On a semi-related rant, I personally am tired of companies trying to treat the web like Television. Even in this article, they mention how they can make web pages like TV. It's a completely wrong approach; the WWW is supposed to be interactive! I don't want animations forced on me, I don't want excessive loading times so I can have glowing scrollbars, I want the information I'm looking for! The web is not meant to mindlessly entertain you for 30 minutes at a time with ads snuck in, it's meant to exchange information. No one can force us to look at ads online, and the more they try, the more we are going to block those tools. If I see one more ad with Flash on it, I'm going to completely remove it from my system.
Flash, like nukes, should be used judiciously. (Score:2, Insightful)
"There's no such thing as good Flash. There's no such thing as bad Flash. Flash in the hands of a bad designer is a very dangerous thing. Flash in the hands of a good designer is no danger to anyone, except the blind guys."
Accessibility arguments aside (as I assume that eventually the folks at Macromedia will start to deal with methods for making Flash accessible to screen readers), the major arguments against using Flash really have more to do with the page designers than with the technology.
The problem as I see it is that there are hundreds of ITI-like schools that teach "web design" by doing little else than going over the basics of HTML, then jumping into how to combine JavaScript, DHTML and Flash into the ULTIMATE WEB PAGE!!! which will get you noticed and earn you millions. No attention is paid to the more important aspects of web design, such as: usability, accessibility, size restrictions(remember the "no page over 50k!" design guideline of olden days?), proper layout of information and function, etc, etc. On top of this, the art of code optimization is lost on a lot of these developers, so they do little in the way of making judicious use of Flash -- they basically use it everywhere, for things which HTML could easily do for them.
In the hands of a good designer, Flash can be used to create really innovative navigation methods that reduce the time required for users to accomplish their tasks. The example reservation form linked from the article is a pretty nice way of dealing with online hotel reservations (there are a few things that I found wierd - like how it selected a range of dates).
Overall, however, I see no need for Flash to replace HTML entirely. The design should always be:
Basic function in HTML,
Extended function in Flash,
Ridiculous function left out.
Re:"Flash" is a good name for the product (Score:2, Insightful)
If Macromedia wants to push off a complete Flash web solution, I would want this problem resolved before I would ever think of using it.
Just how flexible is flash? (Score:3, Insightful)
With HTML I can make do with just about anything you can call an editor.
Do I have that flexability AS A DEVELOPER/CONTENT PROVIDER?
Re:The good news ... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is really a key point. If your site can't be linked to and can't be indexed by search engines, are you really "on the web"? This is both a theorectical question (Is hypertext that can't be linked to an oxymoron?) and a practical one (Are you on the web if no one knows your site exists?).
A lot of the same issues apply to DHTML sites where a page consists solely of a huge mass of Javascript.
Speaking from personal experience, if Google can't see your site, odds are I won't either.
Re:Flash Based Sites vs Search Engines, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if that's true. I just spent the weekend closely analyzing the logs for site where a bunch of jazz critics have articles posted [jazzhouse.org], and at this point about 4/5's of the traffic enters the site from Google searches. So when I look at another jazz site [jazzcorner.com] that's gone all to Flash (I tried to talk her out of it), I can only guess that all the folks searching for info on their favorite musicians (most of the Google searches are that) are totally missing the musicians' pages on that other site - which the musicians are paying for - so it's pretty totally a disservice unless the business goal is just to have something that looks cool when the musicians show their friends.
I was really surprised at how much Google has become the approach-of-choice to the Web. Thought it was just /. types who realized how good it was. Turns out it's most of the world, if the logs I've just been reading through are any indication - and a couple years ago they looked entirely different, people entering from bookmarks or links at sister sites. This has prompted some adjustments to the site, so people coming in sideways will still find the other resources easily.
Flash consists in removing yourself from the Internet, and only makes sense if you have a captive audience, at least until the search engines can all digest it and drop people in precisely.
____
Raises the barrier to entry for web page creators (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have to shell out $499 for the tools to create web content this equality is gone. The division between those who can and those who cannot is back (no doubt protected by some archaic law such as the DMCA) and once again information is controlled by those who can afford to disseminate it.
Any new "standard" for web applications should be an open standard. I know Macromedia published the specifications for swf but they are hardly obliged to continue to do this with Flash MX. If the net needs a revolution in web application interfaces we should be looking to open standards such as SVG [w3.org] (for presentation) and XForms [w3.org], not closed standards that are controlled by a single commercial entity.
Re:flash is too big for 56k (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, Flash cartoons and movies are pretty big because they are full of sound and bitmap images and the like. But when you're just talking about content and some ActionScript, the file sizes aren't irredeemable.
And a GOOD Flash developer knows to loadMovie() whenever possible so the user is only seeing the content they need to.
I like Flash, I always have. I've used it to develop some interactive CD-ROMs for some budget-conscious client. What I hate are stupid, uneducated Flash developers. Just like I hate stupid, uneducated HTML developers. Or otherwise good Open Source software with a terrible UI.
When a porch collapses and kills a dozen people, is the problem the hammer and nails? Sometimes, but more often than not, it's the idiot who built the porch. Don't blame the tool when the problem is the people using it.
Why's everybody so negative? (Score:5, Insightful)
The page can scale to fit the screen, smoothly. That's another thing I like about Flash is that I no longer need to develop for multi-resolution displays. If you haven't developed a website for a corporation, or somebody who's just really picky, then you have no idea what a headache it is to try to please everybody with HTML in the state that it's in. HTML gives you tables you can scale, so there are a few tricks you can do there. You can even scale images in HTML, but the browsers don't do any kind of filtering, so it looks like a crummy Playstation texture. Flash beats HTML there. It'll anti-alias re-scaled iamges. Plus it has vector drawing capabilities which can be quite useful in nice, simple design without being hard on bandwidth.
Adding little animation and stuff to a page is nice, but I agree that it's obnoxious on some sites. I remember in the early days of the web, people had some really strange taste in colors and dizzying backgrounds. I think eventually people settled into what's tasteful, and that will happen with Flash too. Animation can be a useful interface tool. Remember that when you you are designing a site, you're expressing message to your customer. I'll give you an example, there's a forum I go to where people have artwork that they want put into a permanent gallery. He used Flash to do a bar-chart of the number of votes. To do that with HTML, you'd have to have a program on the server creating the charts for you.
Flash is yet another tool in your toolset, not a cockroach. Yes, people abuse it. I think once the gimmick features of it wear away, the more interesting uses of Flash will surface. It's a broad tool that is cross-platform. If HTML had even some of the capabilites that Flash has, I probably would have stayed as a web developer.
As for you people shouting "Flash sucks! It's just a gimmick!", then I suggest you actually go download the trial version at Macromedia's site and learn what all you can do with it. That way you can develop an intelligent opinion of it, instead of sounding like an idiot.
Re:Flash & Accessibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't just blame the clients for designing websites accessible to only the "majority" of web users. Underexperienced developers. One (pen-and-paper) gaming company whose products I like recently "upgraded" their website. To some horrible thing with IE-only Javscript menus. When asked why, their representative claimed that:
Its mainly the last point that's the problem. "Web designers" often have no skills or training whatsoever. They just throw together some "hot technology", a photoshop-generated image or fifty, and hand in a huge bill. When asked to design a simpler site that presents the information better and which more people can access, they present a larger bill. Why? It means they actually have to do the job they were hired for.
Flash is excellent for GUIs (Score:5, Insightful)
Flash normally get's used for awful brochureware (as lampooned in the excellent Skipintro.com [skipintro.nl]) but I think it's best use is as a lightweight GUI for web applications and projects like elearning.
It provides a highly controlable lightweight enviroment that never breaks (providing your users have the plugin). I mainly use it on intranets/extranets as here you know your target audience & this is where more serious apps are hosted anyway.
If authored correctly Flash can be much more effective on a low bandwidth connection than HTML. On an elearning project the flash developer knocked up 30 minute modules that weighed less than 200k! The users on 56K can be interacting with the content as the rest streams down. The trouble is so much flash on the web is bloated gunk produced by graphic artists (with no usability knowledge) rather than GUI developers.
Macromedia is bang on track to make Flash a GUI standard with these changes, particularly as it seems one of the few things that works on different set top boxes, Mobiles, PDAs & Desktop OS's. They just need to make it more accessible for disabled users, what about a version of the player that interoperated with a speech browser?
Accessibility (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always been against Flash, DHTML, Frames, and other 'technologies' that serve only to push out those who are fully sighted, have powerful computers, and money from accessing information. Once sites take these routes, it's very difficult to read content without having these factors in place.
Look at _Lynx_! It's so simple to get data using it -- Imagine trying to download a software package who's link was only available somewhere deep inside of flash source?
Keep the web accessible to all, and if you must offer a flash-only site, at least do a browser check, and offer a text-only site for the unprivledged few.
Re:Flash & Accessibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree: they need to create versions which display anywhere. This was what HTML was meant to do. This is why it is, even now, mostly structural markup. A website should not be about Flash or flash; it should be about content, information and data: things which matter. Not fluff.
In many ways, I think that the inclusion of the img tag began the downfall of HTML. I would much rather a web 1/100th the size but with 100 times the information than what we have now.
Abundant Resistance to Change (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem: Flash is a step back (Score:2, Insightful)
We're moving towards an XML future, where anything can be dissected and interpreted as the client wills it. This is a leap forward, in that data exists to serve the reader, not itself or anyone else. If it isn't serving the reader, it may as well not exist.
Flash, while cute and exciting and beautiful, is a toy. You can't dynamically create Flash. You can't re-interpret Flash across other platforms to deal with inconsistencies. It's like making your site out of a Freehand document with animation controls. I thought the web was about accessibility of data, with pretty magic artistic danciness being perhaps a distant fifth after instant communication, low publishing costs, and persistence of data.
I love dearly what some people have been doing with Flash, but I don't see much of a future in it- it's not friendly with a world that's increasingly focused on interoperability and interpretation.
Drop down menus (Score:2, Insightful)
For example try to make a drop down menu in Flash.
CSS, JavaScript and HTML / PHP, ASP is the way to go if you want to make something good looking and usefull.
Flash is very cool for presentations and don't want to say anything bad about it but its business strategy usefullness is low.
Flash are just bending over for businesses (Score:3, Insightful)
I have seen some amazing things done with flash, like this [preystation.com]. But flash is NOT an alternative for 99% of sites. Sure... I can be use inside sites, for fast, and small animated diagrames etc (a good use of flash). Maybe even to adda bit of life to a site (as long as people can turn it off). But not for the main site. It has FAR too many usablity issues that macromedia don't give a fuck about.
I have e-mailed macromedia several times--nicly--and ask them if they ever plan to add normal browser features, and add the abiliy to stop animation, mute options etc....No reply. Can't say I really expect one though.
This is worse than when the CEO of coke said his dream was to have a coke tap in every household. Why? Because this is more likly to become true.
What can you do?
BOYCOTT FLASH!!!!
And my that, I mean e-mailing every commercial site that uses an annoying instance of flash that you come across. Drive it into the company's skulls that this flash is loosing them customers, not gaining them any. Explain how you friend wanted to buy something from their site. but spent there $$ elsewhere cause the flash was annoying or they didn't have the plug-in. This is /., I'm sure you can think up better ones.
Let me say again: I like flash. I'm a web designer, and also like animation and other muiltimedia, flash is a very powerfull tool. I have seen soome really amazing things done with flash. But it's just not ideal for most sites, and never will be unless macromedia change there mindset.