Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Graphics Software

Adobe Makes Flash Crawlable 232

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the what-about-cut-and-paste dept.
nickull wrote in his journal that "Today Adobe systems made an announcement that it has provided technology and information to Google and Yahoo! to help the two search engine rivals index Shockwave Flash (SWF) file formats. According to the company, this will provide more relevant search rankings of the millions pieces of Flash content. Until now, developers had to implement workarounds for exposing text content used in Flash to search-engine spiders and other bots such as using XHTML data providers. While the Flash content is exposed, it is not yet clear how it will be utilized by the search engines, as they have not revealed their algorithms. The SWF specification is openly published."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Makes Flash Crawlable

Comments Filter:
  • Silverlight (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @07:40AM (#24014267)
    Amazing what a little competition will bring...
    • by eggstasy (458692)

      Now all we need is for MS to promote their alternatives to PDF a bit more. God, I hate those horrible PDFs full of scanned page images. They should be OCR'ed by Google. I have like two gigs of them, and they're not *searchable* in any way, therefore they're not useful. (many years of old magazine archives...)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bberens (965711)
        PDFs are an open format, and as of version 1.0 Google Desktop indexes PDFs. I think all the trouble you have with them is by design.. Businesses love PDFs because they're harder to manipulate.
    • Re:Silverlight (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The Crooked Elf (1042996) <peppe@@@cs...usm...maine...edu> on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @09:59AM (#24016003) Homepage
      Frankly, though, I'm hoping that, rather than little feature additions like this, they do one of the following: * Make it NOT an absolutely ridiculous memory hog. * Invest some time in making it work with Firefox better (i.e., without the crashes). * Make it work under 64-bit because, frankly, it's really, really stupid that it doesn't. They've had half a decade now; I don't care how poorly written their code-base is.
  • GREAT! (Score:5, Funny)

    by the4thdimension (1151939) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @07:41AM (#24014275) Homepage
    ...now I can search directly for those great flash games I use to pass the time at work! What'll they think of next?
  • For me... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dotancohen (1015143) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @07:42AM (#24014279) Homepage

    ...Flash always crawls. That's life on dialup.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @07:53AM (#24014351)

    Instead of (or in addition to) giving search engines information on Flash, Adobe should tell Flash users when not to use it. Avoid putting large texts in a Flash application and not offering the same in HTML. This is pretty obvious to everyone with half a brain, but "web developers" often seem to "forget".

    • by RangerRick98 (817838) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @08:00AM (#24014423) Journal

      Agreed. I don't see why Flash content needs to be indexed by search engines, because no content worth indexing should be exclusively in Flash.

      The only good things Flash has done are games and embedded video. Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @08:25AM (#24014681)

        "Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible."

        Not true (anymore). As of Flash 9, Adobe got some good accessibility implemented. You can have full keyboard accessibility within a Flash movie by enabling tabbing and setting tab indexes, as well as Section 508 support for screen readers. This was present in Flash 8 as well, but you had to jump through hoops just to enable it so it would work properly. Any flash files that aren't made accessible is due to programmer negligence and/or laziness. I still agree that web sites should be at most a mixture of Flash and regular HTML, but it's not as bad as you say.

        • by raddan (519638)
          Flash does not work on my cellphone or BSD laptop. So it's still not very accessible, even for the sighted folks. HTML, XHTML, and CSS work great.
      • by Peeteriz (821290) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @09:01AM (#24015183)

        You don't index the web as it should be, you index the web as it is.
        "Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible." - probably yes, but there are such websites in noticeable amounts, so indexing them properly is a good thing. And maybe that will make them more accessible - via a deep link to the content you want, bypassing their flash menus.

        • by Thaelon (250687)

          Except when the site is 98% flash and the remaining 2% is just setup to point the browser at the flash objects. If at all possible, I stop going there at that point.

      • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

        because no content worth indexing should be exclusively in Flash.

        Great point.

        Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible.

        I'm not sure it has to be, though. Maybe websites can be more than just blocks of text with decoration or blocks of text with video or blocks of text with audio, or blocks of text with dynamic data or just plain blocks of text.

        I'm not a professional web developer, but it seems to me that the notion of what a website is supposed to be has been pretty much static.

      • by lena_10326 (1100441) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @04:54PM (#24022693) Homepage

        Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible.

        My philosophy is flash should be a page element, in other words used as rich media content--not as a page rendering engine, because that's what the browser is for (as well as xhtml/css/xml/xslt/javascript).

        I agree with your sentiment but I'll word it in a different way. If one is using flash to structure the document, one is doing it wrong. If one is using flash to deliver elements to implement animation effects, streaming video, logic, or server connectivity that's not feasible (or efficient) with xhtml/css/xml/xslt/javascript, then it's a valid use.

        There is one exception to the flash as a full page model. If the site contains a "desktop" application (for example a game, a document editor, a help desk program, or possibly a graphical travel planner, etc), then it's OK, but that application should be placed within a secondary page, clearly separate from general site content. It should not be forced upon the user to view all the remaining documents under the website. The same rules of thumb for when to use Java applets ought to apply for Flash web applications.

        When you say inaccessible, I interpret that to mean it's difficult to access the data within flash, as opposed to interface accessibility. I think that's true. You can't "Save As" the document if you pull up a report or tabular data, but you could if the site rendered that data as xhtml. In theory, the flash developer could implement a Print or view as a link feature, but that's no guarantee they will. Whereas Save As works on all xhtml pages regardless of whether the programmer paid attention to it or not. Being forced to screenshot the data, is a crappy inflexible alternative.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cheater512 (783349)

      Web developers dont use flash, thats what Web designers do.

      Their heads are up in the clouds and the web developers are left to clean up the mess.

    • by game kid (805301)

      You may as well tell Microsoft to stop using the "Vista Capable" logo.

    • by rumith (983060)
      That's kind of self-defeating, no? Microsoft wants Silverlight to replace HTML altogether; why are you sure that Adobe wouldn't like to do the same with Flash? I'm pretty sure that Adobe would perfectly be OK with the situation when lion's share of web sites would only be implemented in Flash.
  • Oh great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zerth (26112) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @07:54AM (#24014361)

    Now we'll get black hat SEOs keyword stuffing flash files and adding flash widgets all over the place. /me never enabled flashblock before, but he might soon.

  • That's unfortunate (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @07:55AM (#24014371)

    I'd be much happier if the search engines quit linking to flash-only websites completely. Then maybe those horrible things would go away.

    I can't think of any case where I've seen a Flash-only site where Flash added anything of substance (cuteness doesn't count), and they tend to be hard and non-standard to navigate, break key bindings (like CTRL-T to open a new tab doesn't work if mouse is over Flash), etc.

    Here is an example: A business association's website was redesigned in Flash. Instead of their staff page having a simple list of photos, names, job titles and phone numbers that you could search by hitting CTRL-F, the flash version just shows a photo of all of the staff members and you can only find the job titles and contact info by holding the mouse over the appropriate person's photo. So, if you want to find the contact info for the newsletter producer and you don't already know what he/she looks like, you have to move your mouse over each of 15 different photos until you find the right one. Stupid. There is just too much dumb stuff going on with Flash.

    • by Blakey Rat (99501) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @09:21AM (#24015491)

      Here is an example: A business association's website was redesigned in Flash. Instead of their staff page having a simple list of photos, names, job titles and phone numbers that you could search by hitting CTRL-F, the flash version just shows a photo of all of the staff members and you can only find the job titles and contact info by holding the mouse over the appropriate person's photo. So, if you want to find the contact info for the newsletter producer and you don't already know what he/she looks like, you have to move your mouse over each of 15 different photos until you find the right one. Stupid. There is just too much dumb stuff going on with Flash.

      What does that have to do with Flash?

      I hate to break this to you, but I could implement the same thing in Javascript really easily. Or even a Windows app, if I wanted.

      You're blaming the tool for something that is the fault of the developer who sold this crappy site. (Well, and your associate who apparently contracted the developer without checking out the quality of his work before.)

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @09:48AM (#24015875)

        I hate to break this to you, but I could implement the same thing in Javascript really easily. Or even a Windows app, if I wanted.

        Yes, you can do dumb things with other tools if you try to. But, my point is that such dumb things are common and somewhat encouraged by Flash. Plain old HTML provides a basic user interface that works reasonably well. It's not fancy, but it works. If you try hard enough with JavaScript you can muck things up, but things work reasonably well by default; things only go horribly wrong when developers try to move beyond the basics and make bad decisions in the process. Flash gives you a lot more control over the user interface, but without a basic standard starting point for page structure and navigation (as far as I know). So every Flash developer builds his/her own little custom method of navigation, and many lack sensible functionality, worrying more about cuteness instead. Basic things like hitting CTRL-F to search within a page, or being able to bookmark after navigating around get broken.

        You're blaming the tool for something that is the fault of the developer who sold this crappy site.

        Is it possible to create a decent website in pure Flash? Perhaps. Is it possible to put a screw into a wall with a hammer? Yes, but it's not the best approach. In practice, pure-Flash websites rarely work well, and that's because Flash isn't a good tool for that particular job. Adobe's website isn't pure Flash. That should tell you something.

        • by Blakey Rat (99501)

          Yes, you can do dumb things with other tools if you try to. But, my point is that such dumb things are common and somewhat encouraged by Flash. Plain old HTML provides a basic user interface that works reasonably well. It's not fancy, but it works. If you try hard enough with JavaScript you can muck things up, but things work reasonably well by default; things only go horribly wrong when developers try to move beyond the basics and make bad decisions in the process. Flash gives you a lot more control over t

          • Some developers don't do that because their customers don't ask for it. Follow the money. If payment for the site was based on how usable it was, you'd see usable sites.

            Having been in the trenches with this stuff....

            First of all, usability is a very specialized skillset, which the average designer maybe understands about 10% of. And it is actually kinda hard to make a HTML site with really terrible usability. You almost have to fight the browser every step (turn off back button, use iframes, and so on).

            I really think that Flash gives one too much freedom and is simply too powerful of a tool for the average designer. Certainly, I've met some really good Flash guys, but tha

      • by doom (14564)

        You're blaming the tool for something that is the fault of the developer who sold this crappy site.

        Myself, I tend to blame tools that encourage people to do stupid things.

        Because you see, technology is not "neutral", and different tools have different biases built into them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by superflippy (442879)

      One example I've come across in the last few months where Flash is actually useful is for photographers' web sites. They're often paranoid about people copying the photos off their sites, yet they need to show their work so they'll get hired.

      Putting their portfolios into a Flash slideshow is a good compromise. Of course, anyone who can make screenshots can still copy their photos, but it adds a little extra security.

      Though, too many (IMO) go too far and have whiz-bang all-Flash sites with unnecessary bells

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Dachannien (617929)

        Flash for DRM is (as you've sort of noted) about as silly as Javascript for DRM. After all, "anyone who can make screenshots" would be anyone who knows where the magic PrtSc key is on their keyboard and also knows what it does. Javascript used to be popular to suppress the right-click context menu, so that web developers could "prevent" people from ripping off their uber kewl web programming leetness. Now, Firefox still pops up the message box that the web developer put in to tell you that you can't use

    • by dave420 (699308)
      That's just dumb web design. I've seen plenty of (X)HTML sites that are equally, if not more, retarded. Don't shoot the messenger. Flash, even full-page flash apps (RIA, rich web apps aka Flex), have their uses. Try using a full-page Google Maps Flex application and tell me you don't think it has uses :)
    • That's not a problem with Flash... that was a dumb move on the company to let someone hide their employees contact info that way.... if I had done it, I would have tied it to a database/CMS and provided an autosuggest search box at the bottom, then highlighted the photo/person when an individual was selected from the search and showed their contact info in a selectable text box below.... with a button to download their vCard.

      The only problem with Flash is that the lowest common denominator is much less acce

    • by mad.frog (525085)

      I can't think of any case where I've seen a Flash-only site where Flash added anything of substance

      Fail. [homestarrunner.com]

  • by Tomfrh (719891) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @07:55AM (#24014375)

    Hopefully it'll crawl under a rock and die.

  • by Dogtanian (588974) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @07:59AM (#24014405) Homepage
    ...matter of fact, it makes my Flash crawl!
  • Great! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @08:00AM (#24014425) Homepage

    Now all they have to do is make it so, when you make a web site in Flash, you can link directly to the "page" you want. And make the Flash plugin fast. And make it not crash so often. Oh and then, finally, come up with a real reason as to why we should use Flash instead of something else.

    Once they do that, it'll be a great little format.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bogtha (906264)

      Now all they have to do is make it so, when you make a web site in Flash, you can link directly to the "page" you want.

      That has been possible for years. Possibly ever since the first version, I'm not sure. You use a fragment identifier in the link and check it to find out which "page" to display.

      There's enough wrong with Flash that misrepresenting it is unnecessary and only serves to discredit you in the eyes of people who know better.

      • You need to build this into the flash when creating as far as I know. With html based sites no special work is required to make a page bookmarkable (aside from some ajax stuff, or in-page anchors).

        I would welcome this if it is clear that it's flash content (like PDFs) in the search results, so I can make a judgment accordingly.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Bogtha (906264)

          You need to build this into the flash when creating as far as I know.

          Yes, that's true. Emphasis added to the comment I was replying to:

          Now all they have to do is make it so, when you make a web site in Flash, you can link directly to the "page" you want.

          nine-times was specifically talking about options available to developers.

          With html based sites no special work is required to make a page bookmarkable (aside from some ajax stuff, or in-page anchors).

          That's usually true, but like you say, there

          • nine-times was specifically talking about options available to developers.

            Actually, what I had in mind when I wrote it was this: Even if Google (or some other search engine) can index the Flash file, what do they link to? Does it just link to the Flash file, and then I have to go clicking around to navigate the Flash file looking for the text relevant to my search? Or will Google be able to link straight to the portion that I was searching for?

            AFAIK, it's not so simple to link into the Flash file, but correct me if I'm wrong.

            And yes, I'm sure I could have stated it better, bu

          • Frames, for example, cause similar problems, and JavaScript too (not just Ajax).

            I'm sorry, I know I already replied to this, but I think there's a somewhat important point that I was implying by talking about "sensible" use of Javascript/Ajax, and it might warrant being spelled out.

            First of all, you should just be careful about how you're using javascript, so as not to obscure any important data. If you're making an Ajax web application, then you probably provide your own search function, and provide perma-links so search engines can link directly to content (if that's appropriate).

            • Yup, nearly every AJAX tutorial I've seen says (1) Write the static version first, then (2) Integrate AJAX.

              Flash is the just the opposite, where someone has to go back and add the accessibility bits after the fact.

        • Uh... you have to do this in HTML as well... it's just that people have already incorporated it into their workflow, whereas for Flash there are still a lot of developers who don't know how to do it.

          Think about what HTML sites would be like if everything was in one page. AKA MySpace pages....

          This is how most current Flash sites are. They don't architect them, they 'Design' them.... so you end up with one big page and no bookmarks or other ways to programmatically access the content.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by heinzkunz (1002570)

      > Now all they have to do is make it so, when you make a web site in Flash, you can link directly to the "page" you want.

      Flex Builder 3 has support for deep links (they were possible before, but now it's in the framework), so a link from a search result directly to the searched item should be possible.

      You may want to take a closer look at why Flash is slow for you. The player is really fast. It's a decent virtual machine and graphics engine. If you have a flash 9 plugin, take a look at this page: http:// [papervision3d.org]

    • by dave420 (699308)
      I don't know what OS you use, or what flash version you use, or how old your computer is, but all of those "issues" ceased being issues years ago. Flash, especially AS3, is fast. It most definitely has uses, such as rich web applications. Seeing as many companies are offering traditional software served over the net, a technology that allows fast 100% OO cross-platform applications seems like a great idea.
  • by Micah (278) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @08:02AM (#24014449) Homepage Journal

    The fact that search engines couldn't index Flash was a strong argument against its use for textual content. With that excuse gone, more webmasters might consider using it.

    Only problem is, Flash for textual content is HORRIBLE. Totally ruins the consistent experience I want with my web browser. Flash text does not behave like HTML text in several ways.

    I really hope this doesn't encourage more Flash content from point-n-drool webmasters ...

    • I suspect that with the rise of Javascript libraries for interactive content and animation, the ubiquity of Canvas and SVG, the lack of Flash on the mobile Safari platform, and the general annoyance of animated ads and intro pages, Flash is on its way out. Silverlight's prospects for competing in a shrinking market are also dim.

      There was a time you could do things with Flash you couldn't otherwise do. I have trouble coming up with anything that fits that description now, however. All we're really missing, i

      • I use both Flash and Javascript/DOM scripting for sites I build. I pick the right tool for the job.

        When a site just needs a little extra punch I go with JQuery (personal favorite for all things Javascript). When it needs to be a front end to an application I use ExtJS (awesome UI controls and great support for JSON data structures and templating)

        When a site needs to be truly animated though, with characters moving around and video integration with content... Flash is the only way to go. I can stream audio a

    • by Uzuri (906298) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @08:25AM (#24014691)

      If they make it "crawlable", though, wouldn't that mean that the text is available to be read somewhere? And that means it's only a matter of time before someone designs a Flash translator that pulls the content (and say, LINKS?! #$%&@ flash developers) and turns it into straight XHTML.

      I'd pay for that.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @08:42AM (#24014909)

      Webmasters? The desire to barf Flash all over a page comes from "online marketing managers" (which I am), executives, people near the top of the pyramid and, by and large, people who just don't get it. These individuals will preface every decision with "when I browse I do", or "people don't want to do X, they want to do Y", often without a shred of evidence and, even more infuriatingly, in direct contradiction of someone who took the time to analyze the data in the first place.

      Flash has its place, but it's a very narrow place and this announcement has removed one of my biggest trump cards (re: "no you can't have your retarded dancing monkey on the homepage, it wont bring in visitors and thus we'll lose revenue")

    • by Mike89 (1006497)
      I hate it too. Seriously, it's either too big, too small, an absurd font or something worse. Furthermore, I usually can't select text, which is important for two reasons - one, I need to do it to read long chunks of text (yes, need to. If I can't, I usually can't read it). Two - copy and paste! I don't want to send my friend to your shitty Flash website to tell him 4 sentences they need to know.
    • by patro (104336)

      "Flash for textual content is HORRIBLE. Totally ruins the consistent experience I want with my web browser."

      Very true. Which brings the question: anyone knows a tool which extracts text from flash pages?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by poot_rootbeer (188613)

      Flash text does not behave like HTML text in several ways.

      And furthermore, the rules of cricket differ and several ways from the rules of baseball!

      The World Wide Web is a medium for many content types, of which text/html is only one. Complaining that Flash doesn't work the same as HTML is like complaining that pears don't taste like apples. They're not SUPPOSED to be the same.

  • Flash (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ledow (319597) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @08:03AM (#24014451) Homepage

    For a start, "crawlable" does not mean it WILL be crawled. More likely, most flash will contain nothing but junk and internals that were never meant to be seen anyway. I wonder when the first "we recovered a password that was stored inside a flash file" / "we googled for vulnerable flash apps and found these" hits will come about. And, as someone's already pointed out, if you *can* extract the text from them, you can't do much useful with it besides say "it's in this Flash somewhere". You can't even do "find in page" once you've clicked on such a link. And if it's at the end of an hour-long Flash animation, you're not going to sit through it.

    Then you'll have some people who have actually used bitmaps instead of text inside the Flash for various reasons, etc. The only useful thing to come out of this may well be a "View as HTML" version of Flash-only pages. But they will still be second-class pages because the designer didn't want to do it theirselves.

    Given that people who use Flash aren't exactly the most popular people in the world (e.g. if you want it to appear in Google, be read by people, to be bookmarked, to be quoted/cited/linked etc.), this won't affect much - Finding content in a Flash file is like looking for a needle in a haystack. That's the problem solved by this announcement. However, finding *useful* content in that file is going to be even worse, and actually getting users TO that data will be almost impossible.

    I imagine that the same thing will happen as it did with images, PDF's, etc. Those who design their Flash well will get something indexed and it'll actually get a hit or two from "View HTML Version" on Google. Those who don't (i.e. 99% of the people who make them) won't see any difference at all.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Zekasu (1059298)

      If you store a password in a Java applet in a string, you can download that applet and open it in Notepad to find it. I'm assuming this is the same in SWF documents.

      Also considering you can pretty much disassemble SWF files, well, that's your fault.

      Although I do agree that being able to search Google for vulnerable Flash applications is a major concern, I'm to go out on a limb and say that Adobe, coupled with Google, are going to do something like only make text-containing boxes into crawl-able material.

      Tha

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      For a start, "crawlable" does not mean it WILL be crawled.

      http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/06/improved-flash-indexing.html [blogspot.com]

  • by oodaloop (1229816) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @08:10AM (#24014521)
    Why would I want search engines crawling through my thumb-drive?



    OK, before you mod me troll, that was a joke.
  • Hasn't Google already indexed and crawled .SWF files? How would releasing the SWF specification make things any different than before, when there were other widely available free SWF parsing libraries?

  • A Good Thing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by intx13 (808988) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @08:14AM (#24014563) Homepage
    I'll deride slow-loading, unintuitive Flash apps as much as the next guy, but this is a big step towards Flash a viable alternative to the HTML/XHTML/Javascript/CSS/PHP jumble that makes up the Web today. Other things that still need addressing (IMO) to make a true Flash web:
    • Flash-to-Flash linking
    • More natural and useful text objects
    • Standardized framework for GUI elements
    • Real accessibility

    If these things could get cleared up, I wouldn't mind seeing a Flash Web... where Flash isn't a box in the center of an HTML page, but the basic protocol itself (like what Curl claims to be).

    Of course given the cludginess of most Flash apps, maybe I'm just being a masochist here!

    • by jrumney (197329)
      For any app for which Flash gives real benefits over plain HTML, the textual content is going to be dynamically loaded from the server anyway, so this change buys nothing. For annoying little Flash ads and annoying big animated full page Flash "sites" that break the browser's back button, it might make a difference.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by biovoid (785377)
        RTFA - Adobe has provided a version of the Flash Player that allows search engines to crawl dynamically loaded content. That's the whole point of the article. Google has been indexing static SWF content for years - this is all about dynamic content.
    • What will be essential for a flash-web is an off button that lets me turn off any flashy repeating flickering and flashing adverts or other pieces of flashing content on a page.
      I am not a small kitten that wants to look at the bright flashy thing. if I'm at your website, I'm likely looking for information, so stop flashing at me.
      there is a good reason amazon and google don't have flashing animations anywhere.

    • HTML, etc. is a jumble. But it's an Open jumble.

      Nuff said.

      • Absolutely. The web would not be where it is today if it required that you purchase expensive proprietary software to make a page. The fact that HTML is viewable in any text editor, and can be edited (and even made compliant) by anyone with half a brain is responsible for the massive amount of content that we have available.

        And ultimately, HTML+CSS is a pretty good solution for static text/image representation. Some of the shortcomings (e.g. limited a font selection, image borders) are already being add

    • by Raenex (947668)

      HTML/XHTML/Javascript/CSS/PHP

      One of these things is not like the others.

  • by Mistshadow2k4 (748958) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @08:17AM (#24014579) Journal
    ... who read the title as "Adobe Makes Flesh Crawl"? My first thought was, yeah, so what else is new?
  • Flash doesn't suck, it's a great tool when properly used. The thing is that HTML was so hard to learn for the common "web designer" that they've used Flash to solve all their needs. Even Adobe doesn't use Flash for the entire site, they never did, including Maromedia. It's great for videos and when you need some rich media experience INDISE a web site, but making a WHOLE site using Flash is like using glass to build an entire house, including the pipes.

    Back to the point, I guess there's nothing wrong to ind

    • I agree and disagree... I would love to see this rocket the Flash sites industry AND bump up the game.... with serious developers taking active notice of the platform.

      Flash can do whatever you want it to do. It can be rock solid or it can be a house of cards. Either depends on the developers and architects who build it. I love Flash but I hate having to develop 2 sites (1 for the engines and 1 for people). Even if I make the Flash version meet 508 compliance with transcripts, tab indexes, control key suppor

  • by slashmojo (818930) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @08:55AM (#24015103)

    So only Google & Yahoo were "provided technology and information" - Microsoft must be feeling left out.. lucky for adobe they dont live in sweden [forumeter.com] I suppose.

    I wonder why adobe didn't invite msft/live.com to the party? Sour grapes over silverlight [mashable.com] perhaps?

  • by Paul Carver (4555) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @09:08AM (#24015303)

    This would be great if it can be implemented directly into web browsers. For example, a Firefox plugin that allows me to specify "view text only" for Flash content.

    Or is this "proprietary" information that will only be given to Google and Yahoo and not shared with the us commoners?

    I don't know what brain damage causes people to think that they should present text a half a dozen words at a time in a slideshow, but it would be great if my browser would default to showing me all the text from a flash slideshow and then let me choose if I really want to see it pieced out a few words at a time.

  • That's sad news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Hasler (414242) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @09:48AM (#24015871) Homepage

    Lack of indexing may have been one of the only things holding back the total Flashification of the Web.

  • When did this happen?

    Seriously, I'm looking at the spec, and at a first glance, I don't see any kind of clause that I thought was there before -- the clause which says that this spec may not be used to implement a player.

    If it really is entirely open, that's great news for Gnash and friends!

  • That's one small step for Adobe, but one giant leap for the march of videocy.

    Ah well. The internet was kind of cool for a while.

The more cordial the buyer's secretary, the greater the odds that the competition already has the order.

Working...