Flash in General - Got Flash!?

Learn to live with the technology?

What is this classid and codebase stuff?

Can I EMBED from another server accross the net? HTML here and .swf over there...

And what is PLUGINSPAGE doing here?

By the way, if you have to ask, then your not going to do me any good. It's a simple Flash only HTML source code.

ClassID & Codebase: dunno
EMBED: never tried it, but must be possible I guess.
Pluginspage: When your visitor does not have the Shockwave plugin, he/she can get it there.

I think the main reason why they're separate is basically because of file sizes. If you compare the size of a fla to it's swf you'll notice that the swf is quite a bit smaller in size. I'm not sure exactly how this works, but there is a lot of information in there that you need on the developing end (fla) but not in the viewing (swf).

I was thinking. I'm being unfair about this complaint. Just as you must do an tag in HTML to include a gif or jpg, you have to do an tag to include the swf. So I tried this:

I have a Flash page at capitalwebstudio.com/fengshui that has the in it's HTML for the swf. Now, I typed in the browser the path to the file itself, like you would do to view an image alone off of its page. capitalwebstudio.com/fengshui/index.swf

Guess what? It shows the Flash like it would for an image. And, as a bonus, the thing shrinks and enlarges with the browser! We learn something new everyday don't we.

So, could I in fact, submit a swf as an image as long as the submitee puts it in a table to keep it's size(W x H) in check? For example - TWF accepts a swf for my avatar and places a around it. Tada, my avatar is a Flash avatar.

if you have domainname.ext/program.exe it will display (run) as well, but use a .zip and it will ask to be downloaded, its just what the browser is set to do. Like a .pdf file, if you have the plugin it will display, if not then it will ask if you want to download it.

this is flash relatd but more from your critqic thread.

IMO I think flash has had its day, was great when it came out, can still have it usefullness (same as Java applets) but flash like animated gifs, dHTML (floating/ flying images etc), marquee, blink, music ... have all been done to death, flash is just all of the above combined.

Javascript was close to being abused (is in some cases) but luckily it can be turned off in most browsers, now with Opera allowing people to turn of plugins I feel other browsers will follow this lead (hopefully) and the abuse of such things will stop.

just my 3cents

The pieces that are required by Flash (class, codeid) talk to the plugin. That way the browser and the user's computer can collaborate. As Jack noted, the plugins page helps the user by allowing him/her to download the plugin to watch it if they don't happen to have it.

That's generally refered to as GOOD USABILITY.

You can, of course, run the .swf alone, but unless you are doing a whole site like that (absolutely no html) and you do not, ever, have to worry about people without the correct plug in (remember that there are different versions of the plugin and not all .swf files work with all versions), it's a tremendously crappy plan.

I have to admit that I'm quite put off by your attitude. I would think you would be a little more humble when learning a new technology and not quite so dismissive of things you don't understand. Not that you shouldn't question, but it seems like you are assuming that the reasoning behind is poor without understanding it at all.

Yes you can embed from any source. Obviously only with permission, (I would hope that would be obvious), unless it's your own work.

Embed and Object are required for cross-browser compliance as well.

IMO I think flash has had its day, was great when it came out,

Flash has come a long way since the days of 'flying text'. For a start, Flash MX/Sorenson encoded video will be showing up all over the place. I've seen the quality, and the file sizes, it's pretty amazing. Combine that with the object oriented power of actionscript, and you're looking at a new breed of web development.

TonyMontana
http://www.electricmountain.com/home.htm

I'm beginning to understand why I'm running into so many put off by Flash among other plug-ins and scripting languages.

First off, perfection would be the ability for your web sites to display correctly and without hinderence in everyones browser. That being one of the goals of a webmaster is what is expected and I agree and understand completely. But, lets face it. To be perfect you would be limited to just a couple of options, and still you'd have to be picky at how tou use those. i.e. Netscape doesn't work well with Javascript like IE. And then your left with bland static pages like the early days. Browsers will catch up, just give it some time and keep up with technology, is what I always say.

Second. Flash is getting done to death to an extent. Kids and overly enthusiastic others are flexing there abilities, maybe in the wrong way, but still. I beleive it would be in the hands of us few others to balance this with real uses. Allowing Flash and other techs to blend in, almost without notice. People get turned off naturally with stuff that is useless, in our way, or slows us down. They will use a plugin if it is for good, they won't use it if it is stupid.

Summary: Flash programmers, put away your art brushes and stand with your professional business pens and lets show others that Flash isn't just for kids anymore. Play time is over, let's get to work!

Overall, I think this thread has highlighted non-issues. A couple of points: The Flash player is the most widespread browser plugin and unlike Javascript, it displays basically the same in all browsers and platforms. As far as misuses, there are tons of examples of awesome Flash work so I think it more than balances out.

TonyMontana
aka MethodAir
http://www.electricmountain.com/home.htm

Quote: Originally posted by Busy
IMO I think flash has had its day, was great when it came out, can still have it usefullness (same as Java applets) but flash like animated gifs, dHTML (floating/ flying images etc), marquee, blink, music ... have all been done to death, flash is just all of the above combined.

I would say that gratuitous flash has had it's day. There are still a lot of good uses for it though, more along the lines of interactive applications and such. I work for a university and we use it a lot for learnware development. It's becoming more and more like a serious application development tool such as Authorware, only easier to use and more versatile.

I also think that there's a place for the fun stuff - you know, like those little games were were having so much fun with in General Chat awhile back

I agree with Megan, I think that Flash will be used for certain types of sites, games and applications rather than general sites. The other point is that most people have generally very slow connections and the likely hood of everyone getting fast/free/cheap access is almost none, especially here, so these people will just not wait for big flash sites to load.

Truth is, processor speed is more of a consideration than file size with a well designed Flash site. You can squeeze a lot into a little with optimization and scripting.

TonyMontana
akaMethodAir
ElectricMountain

When I have images on a page along with Flash, I notice that Flash displays first a while other images are still loading. And what's more is the fact that the Flash image is of higher quality, more dynamic, and just plain cooler. Why someone would turn Flash off in their browser in the first place is beyond me.

I don't even have Flash installed on one of my machines because I hate it with a passion. In my opinion there are very few practical applications of Flash. Using it just for the sake of using it seems ludicrous to me. Having the ability to turn it off in Opera is a blessing. Flash animation seems to be looking more and more like TV commercials.......sigh.......just what we need!

I think Flash is a good concept. For some things. Like any other plug in or technology (music, video, java, flash), there are very good applications and there are really bad ones.

It doesn't matter that you can't understand why someone doesn't like it, or would turn it off -- well okay, it does matter, as it makes you a poor designer if you can't understand the audience.

I love Flash for interactive kids' games. I think it is the best thing on the planet for tutorials that illustrate how to do things. I think it's a great medium for little independent cartoon movies. It's fabdab for gaming sites. It rocks my world for those situations. Especially if it's done well!

It can be used nicely to augment a more conventional design as well. If done right, there is no reason why anyone needs to know they don't have flash (replace flash with a static image if the plugin isn't there, or with alternative content). Instances like that would be interactive maps that help people find a store or exhibit, or zooming into schematics or blueprints for more detail without having to reload the page or load a bazillion gifs.

But the fact remains that it's only as good as the person creating it, and if you don't understand your audience and insist that your arrogant self-centered perspective is the right one, you'll create crap.

Flash is a quiver.

For instance I use flash to embed sound only on pages. Its great for that because of the .mp3 encoding. Tiny sound files and they work cross platform.

Also since Illustrator will now output .swf files I'm experimenting with flash as graphic files. They look a lot better than some bimapped files and are resolution independent.

So keep an open mind you might find some stuff you hadn't thought about.

It surprises me when I hear people equate Flash singularly with web animations...

BTW, I thought Suzanne was pretty much right on the money. To help bring some up to speed, here is a link to a .pdf from Jeremy Allaire (creator of HomeSite HTML app).

http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flash/whitepapers/richclient.pdf

TonyMontana
akaMethodAir
Electric Mountain

Excellent article. Thanks for the info.

If everyone would read this they'd see the true power and potential for Flash in the future of web development. I have not heard of any other technology claiming these abilities. And if your a smart designer/developer, you'll give this technology your undivided attention.

What impresses me most on the surface is Flash's ability to feed the surfer bread crumbs while your preparing the main dish. Or for the less visual, to play the first loaded scenes like interface, text, and navigation, while the big stuff is still loading in the background. Of course, this is just the tip of the iceburg.

"If everyone would read this they'd see the true power and potential for Flash in the future of web development."

Perhaps...but at the same time, change is threatening to some.

TonyMontana
akaMethodAir
ElectricMountain

As for the article... blah, blah, blah. The fact they try to convince you a move from a thin client to a "rich" (ie; bloated) client is a good thing demonstrates how much sunshine they're trying to blow up your arse.

Just ask users what they think about Flash.

What did that article have Flash offer that isn't covered by virtually every other means of delivering dynamic ocntent? Very little that I could see, except they compress their humongous glitzy fluff to less humongous glitzy fluff. Fat lot of difference that makes to somebody hitting the back button.

All the PDFs in the world won't change the fact that the web is user-centric. Content, quick page loads, and ease of navigation are what users consistently say they are interested in. They are looking for information and they want to find it fast. They don't want download manuals to figure out your "rich featured" navigation scheme.

The web is neither TV nor a computer application... it is its own creature entirely. The same lesson has been taught time and time again -- from Java Applets making the same claims as your article, to dot bombs and their misplaced obsession with coolness & glitz -- users want to get it, get the info, and get out quick. And they don't want to mess with their browser or computer to achieve that goal.

Yes you are right. I'm a total devotee of usability.

However you talk of the user as a monolithic entity. 95% of users may want to get in and get out , 95% of the use of sound is problematic.

However that doesn't mean flash doesn't have it's place. Especially as bandwidth increases.

I went to Jakob Nielson's website to trace the origin of a lot of these generic usability arguments I hear about...his vision of the web seems to be based more on HIS own preference for pure text sites, which indeed are looking more and more like an endangered species.

Quote from Jakob Nielson:

"and since most users have access speeds on the order of 28.8 kbps, Web pages can be no more than 3 KB if they are to download in one second which is the required response time for hypertext navigation...Keeping below these size limits rules out most graphics."

If the download times were that much of an issue, why are porn sites so popular? Maybe his argument has a basis in something else...as he says,

"I am not a visual designer, so my graphics would look crummy anyway...I didn't want to spend money to hire an artist."

I'm all for usability, (there are many examples of back button functionality in Flash btw) but I, like many people, like engaging, interactive content. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

However if I want pure info, I'll take a book anyday.

TonyMontana
akaMethodAir
ElectricMountain

Hear, hear!

Flash does have back button capabilties (Flash MX).
Futhermore - Broadband is on the increase weather you see it our not. I like the point about x-rated sites for one. And then look also at the amount of music downloading/uploading. You can't get stuck in the past if you expect to lead in the future. Sure Java claims might have been simular, but IMO Java was a bit before its time and missed the boat. Gambling that Flash is the new wave is a gamble, but hopefully it has come in time to catch the boat.
Times change, browsers change, software changes, and so do people. Yes, when I had low bandwidth (14.4 and 28. I couldn't stand rich sites. I wanted information. I am still an information based person and don't have much use for glitz, but if a site can present me the info in an entertaining manner, I will stick. The hardest thing people have about Flash, other than it's a "plugin" (it is coming standard with browsers now), is the initial download to view the information. Flash MX and Flash 5, if you know what your doing, can give the client content right off the bat and load the rest in the background. A site in Flash done right is seemless, unobtrusive, faster, easier to navigate (no waiting for the next page to load), eyecatching, rememberable, keeps the customers attention and makes them come back for more. Plus, a client who wants a website for his company is easily convinced that Flash content done right is extremely more professional looking than run of the mill HTML. And Flash may someday be run of the mill, but that's later.
In conclusion. If your afraid of missing the lowbandwidth surfers, by all means, creat an HTML version with it. But put it to the side and let the Flash stand out. It will become defacto my friends. People flock to the net for entertainment, I plan on giving it along with content. The news for instance, went from a boring geezer behind a desk with a painted backdrop to digitized imagery and blazing information. Which would you trust today.

Quote: The news for instance, went from a boring geezer behind a desk with a painted backdrop to digitized imagery and blazing information. Which would you trust today.

I regularly watch the "boring geezers" on the Lehrer News Hour, and NEVER watch the "blaze" on, e.g., Fox - to mme, it's the difference between information and rhetoric - I'm confident mmy trust is well-placed

I'd say the problem with Flash isn't the software, it's the misapplication of the software

mmi wrote: I'd say the problem with Flash isn't the software, it's the misapplication of the software

The underlying problem is that the Nielson 'usability' camp have a predominantly text based vision of where the net *is* and should go in the future. The usability argument is now wearing a little thin, as technologies mature (see the above .pdf) and people come to expect more dynamic, interactive content.

TonyMontana
akaMethodAir
ElectricMountain

The biggest problem with blaming Nielsen is a) he isn't talking about the web in general, he's talking about ecommerce, corporate and large data/information sites, and b) the concept of user "expectation" is misguided unless you have actually done user testing with representatives of your target audience.

What did I say?

AUDIENCE! AUDIENCE! AUDIENCE!

The only "dynamic" bits I want when researching are things that make my life easier, reduce my clicking and get me the information I need in a better way. Fill in my forms for me. Indicate where I am on a site, make it so I don't have to search 5 pages to find out what the hell "CONSOLIDATED ITEM(S)" means on my bank statement. That can be with Flash, but I haven't seen it yet, barring tutorials.

But my kid wants to learn how to read, to develop his fine motor skills and his spatial reasoning. At three, the only things he plays with, outside of pictures on my site of him and his brothers, are Flash games and Java games. Period.

AUDIENCE!

Dammit. So stop comparing apples and oranges and making such bloody ridiculous sweeping generalizations about the technologies and people involved.

Yours in Serious Grumpiness...

Quote: Originally posted by Suzanne
Dammit. So stop comparing apples and oranges and making such bloody ridiculous sweeping generalizations about the technologies and people involved.

Yours in Serious Grumpiness...

LOL! I was feeling exactly the same way when I decided not to reply to this thread earlier today (my boss is really getting on my nerves!)

I also want to say that there's a fine line between dazzling and annoying. When I think about the sites I visit on a daily basis there are very few (okay, none) that I think would benefit from heavy use of Flash. It's got it's place, but that place isn't everywhere, that's all I'm trying to say. If you look at the most popular sites on the 'net none of them use flash much, if at all.

Oh, and Jacob Nielsen's idea of usability isn't the only one out there. I think most would disagree with his statements on the issue to some extent.

"The biggest problem with blaming Nielsen is a) he isn't talking about the web in general, he's talking about ecommerce, corporate and large data/information sites,

For a start, nobody is blaming Nielson. The comments he made regarding no graphics were in relation to his own website, which is not a 'large ecommerce site' by any means.

He went on record and said, "99% of Flash is bad", so if anyone is making generalizations, it is him.

As far as expectation, how many static web pages do you think we will be looking at in 10 or 15 years? What ever happened to silent movies?? Things change.

What we are saying is, Flash usability has increased dramatically, and more and more people come to the web to be entertained, and they are expecting more than a static web experience.

TonyMontana
akaMethodAir
ElectricMountain

Tony, you miss my point. 99% of flash is bad. So are 99% of the home pages out there, corporate intranets, et cetera. The web is still very young, though it is maturing.

As for text disappearing, don't be daft. The Internet has been text based at it's core for 50 years, you think some vector images are going to replace it?! Our society, SOCIETY, is text based. What do you save your Flash files as? The actionscript?

Text is not going to vanish from the web as a fast method of communicating (email! instant messaging! what the heck are we doing now?!) until it vanishes from society.

I think Nielsen is essentially right, however he's a bit to extremist. A nice design and a fast site are not mutually exclusive. Smart designers can preload images. Ironically his site is not so easy to navigate.

The net is the definition of unexpected. One thing that has been unexpected on the net has been the glut of bandwidth from city to city coupled with inadequate means of corner to curb service. In other words there's plenty of glass fiber out there but no cheap easy way to get it into every home.

I think most of us thought bandwidth would keep up with Moore's law in a way that CPU speed kept up. Of course that hasn't been the case.

So we still think of the net in terms of "information" or "buying" rather than the way the net will be eventually, information, entertainment, services, communication, health care, or in the case of internet cards "communication entertainment" and a lot of things we have yet to imagine. Bit by bit the net will evolve into something totally unexpected.

Flash will just be one tiny bit of it.

Flash has other uses though. I'm doing a software Demo CD. The company suggested that I make it totally Flash as in Flash Projector. Previously we were using Flash, QT, HTML and JavaScript. It actually makes sense here as the users are very basic computer users. Installing a plug in is beyond a lot of them.

Quote: Bit by bit the net will evolve into something totally unexpected.

This is what it boils down to isn't it? We don't really know how the Internet will evolve, nor how web sites will be served and viewed in the far future. Will my position as a web developer evolve to that of a TV show creator or movie director? Will web site hosting companies become the ABC's, FOX's, and CBS's of tomorrow?
Well, in the mean time, I guess I'll try my best to pave the path to how I would like to see it turn out. So if I'm not there when the future unfolds, at least I can be apart of it now.

My opinions will be told and heard and my websites designed and served.
I will touch a million lives and a little history on the side.
Weather I'm right or wrong does not matter, it's changing your view with my chatter.
So heed this opinion it is true; mine don't matter, does it to you?

Quote: Will my position as a web developer evolve to that of a TV show creator or movie director?

Not to pick on theprofessional, but the above quote illustrates what I'm trying to drive at. You'll never evolve into a TV or Movie director because the web is not TV or the movies, nor is it ever going to be them. IT IS THE WEB. It serves an entirely different purpose.

No artist would buy 300 tubes of oil paint and try to make a sculpture out of them. They would understand you operate within the constraints of the medium they're using. Form follows function and all that jazz...

However, set a designer loose on a website and Lord only knows what you're going to get. Yes, you can make pretty little designs that look like magazine layouts, but do they work in the context of what the web is? Sure, you can create cheap little commercial-like videos, but do they work within the context of what the web is?

Rail against the usability folks all you want, but they sure do manage a more convincing argument then ... "yeh, well sure users hate it, but it is our job as designers to awe the dumb masses with our super-dooper compelling designs."

Form follows function. Understand the media, use the media, and don't bother fighting its constraints.

It's a problem when people generalize about technologies they know nothing about, or are exposed to limited examples of what can be done with it. Then they try to define 'what the web is' based on that limited experience...

The designers I come into contact with are not only Flash experts, they also often know C++, Java, XML, PHP, mySQL etc, and they know how to integrate them. If anyone understands media, they do. And they're pushing the envelope of what is possible. One NY Flash web firm had revenues of over $12 million in a year from three Flash websites alone.

As far as static text based HTML pages, (not backend server message boards, email etc), it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out interactive video, and communication will play a big part in the web in the future.

TonyMontana
akaMethodAir
ElectricMountain

Flash development (good flash development) is more costly. That's evident in the complexity of the sites, as well as in the time it takes to produce them and the training involved.

I have never met a "designer" with that much programming knowledge, quite frankly.

Oh, and as for "static" html pages, you are totally dismissing the value of libraries of information for research, development, et cetera. Those "static" html pages (regardless of how they are produced, I assume you mean the content rarely changes, not that they are hard coded) are vital components of our ENTIRE HISTORY and the knowledge of the human race.

You honestly think those are going to go away?!

No.

But will they be augmented with the equally "static" video documentation of historic events? Illustrated with working diagrams created by Flash or SVG? Quite possibly. I think that would be excellent. As long as it's ACCESSIBLE to everyone.

Which is where high bandwidth rich media currently breaks down, in its American-centric Have Thinking, v. the rest of the planet Have-Not.

In fact, there are many places IN THE US without the ability to attain high bandwidth. For these places, low bandwidth text solutions cannot be "phased out".

I don't claim to know what the future holds for the web or the Internet, but don't burn your bridges, folks. I didn't say that rich media has no place, or even just a minor one. What I said is that dividing into rich media or no media is foolish.

WE NEED BOTH. Neither one is going to "win". So quit making out like it's black and white, good and evil. Rich media has it's uses. Most newbies just getting their hands on the capability misuse it. That's a fact, not a platform.

I wouldn't look at it in terms of good and evil , to me it just seems logical that once the infrastructure can handle and deliver exponentially larger amounts of data, people will take advantage of that in a much bigger way.

And I think ultimately, that's a good thing. Most websites will probably have a component/ text database search area, where they can get any info they need, but it will just be one component in the total picture, and will cross all language barriers. Integrating with other more visual technologies is a good thing because not everyone is literate, and not everyone speaks english, which the web is certainly biased towards.

TonyMontana
akaMethodAir
ElectricMountain

I agree there is a huge Western/English speaking bias on the web -- can Flash do language translations? I would imagine with the database capabilities, it wouldn't be an issue at all to simply serve the correct language, assuming that the information is properly encoded in the first place.

Integration of rich media options is an excellent goal, however. There is a lot of information best conveyed via the visual. Thinking back to the 911 WTC -- the videos were spread through the web faster than the text explaining what was happening, but we all needed both the context and the imagery.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&q=WTC&btnG=Google+Search v. http://www.google.com/search?q=WTC&svnum=10&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&tab=iw for instance.

I use the image search in google frequently. While I input text, I get back images and for some things (herb identification, species identification), this is a really big help

I'm all for expanding the bounds of the technologies and the medium, really. It's the attitude of the extremists on either "side" that bugs me. I think we should be working together, not trying to assimilate each other.

Quote: It's a problem when people generalize about technologies they know nothing about, or are exposed to limited examples of what can be done with it. Then they try to define 'what the web is' based on that limited experience...

Hmmm... even more dangerous to genralize about what other people do and don't know.

Actually, I'm responding to comments like these that you've made, "As far as expectation, how many static web pages do you think we will be looking at in 10 years? What ever happened to silent movies?? Things change. What we are saying is, Flash usability has increased dramatically, and more and more people come to the web to be entertained, and they are expecting more than a static web experience."

You.'ve been proselytizing the future of the web as Flash, and turning around a criticizing anyone who disagrees as making misplaced sweeping genralizations. Interesting gymnastics. Indeed, acccording to the above quote, static pages will soon be on display in museums next to stuffed dodo birds.

Again, yes there is a place on the web for Flash, but I doubt very much it will ever have the impact its prophets claim.

BTW, part of my limited experience is being exposed to the web in pre-browser days. There was a technology just coming out called Mosaic at the time. There were no forums like these around at the time, but had there been this type of a debate would have never occured over Mosaic. It WAS a revolutionary step that was embraced from the get go by virtually everyone. Fact is, flash is not a new technology -- it has been around for several years, and it is not getting the type of traction its adherents are always promising.

Mosaic was a jaw-drpper, Flash aint. It is part of the toolkit, but far from being the sweeping web revolution some claim. Of course that's only my humble opinion stated from my limited perspective.

Visuals -----

Wouldn't you have to agree, with all the proven research, that humans in general are a visual species. We can learn better and faster with illustrations, videos, and hands-on. The information sticks easier and longer. Which is the same when it comes to branding and communication. A picture says a thousand words, a moving picture says a thousand words a second. Sure, you can't say everything with a picture, but it sure does grab your attention faster to read the rest. Thus the marriage of content and imagery. We are all working at this together and I must say, we're doing a damn fine job of it, good work everybody.

they manage to sell a lot of text at bookstores and, better yet, share it at libraries

I was thinking earlier about newspapers vs. TV news. Newspaper is a very limited medium as far as visuals go; it is a medium that has changed very little over a very long period of time. Television came along and allowed people to visualize what they read in a much more meaningful way and yet millions of people still read the newspaper every day. There is value in text.

It's all a matter of using the right tool for the job, or better yet, bringing them together. This is where the internet exceeds the possibilities of other media - you can link up plain text and images with animation, video, sound etc. in a way that's just not possible with other media. You can provide a lot of options at the same time.

The web is a media based on linkages between documents. With Flash you're just expanding the types of documents available. Sort of throwing another ingredient into the pot. Mix it up.

Here's a good example from my work:

I develop online courses for a prominent Canadian university. We use (simplistic) flash with text and images along with audio taped from the on-campus lecture. It takes about 3 months of full-time work to develop a whole course like this. Sometimes we can augment this with more in depth, complicated flash applications with full interactivity, animations etc. It takes 4+ months to develop something like this, which would only cover a small part of the course (maybe one lecture's worth of content). Both options require both a content expert (the Professor or a grad student) and a development expert (me). By looking at the difference in development time vs. content covered you can see that fully interactive flash is very expensive. The university can't afford to do very much of it.

This kind of interactive multimedia content is valuable to the student. However, they still have print materials - course notes, textboooks etc. It's simple, effective and (relatively) cheap. You don't even need a development expert! In this case you can purchase it from another source for much less than it would cost you to develop it yourself.

I think this can be applied more broadly on the internet as well - give people options and, above all, use the most appropriate medium for the job. Oh, and don't forget that cost effectiveness is an is an important factor.

I've read this entire thread with interest and I'd like to give my 2 pence worth (or cents or whatever )

Flash, like ANY web technology, has a time and a place. IMHO 90% of the sites that I have visited that employ Flash have uncessarily abused the technology. I very rarely come across a site that uses Flash for anything other than interactive games or tutorials helpful or increase my surfing experience through usability.

Flash is quickly becoming a major part of the web but as Suzzane elequently put it:

Quote: Originally posted by Suzanne
But the fact remains that it's only as good as the person creating it, and if you don't understand your audience and insist that your arrogant self-centered perspective is the right one, you'll create crap.

there are too many designers fresh out of University/high school with their Flash/Design/Marketing/Whatever diplomas stuck behind their, still slightly soggy, ears who think that Flash is the only way to create a feature rich environment.

I've been using the Web for around seven years and its only in the last 3 months that I've jumped up to broadband. Prior to this the majority of Flash sites were a pain too load, slow and downright annoying. Now they are just annoying in a faster kind of way

If its done well in the right place with the right intentions then Flash has its rightfully claimed place but I feel that too much emphasis is being placed on making objects spin before my eyes without the designer thinking about the poor sap who's gotta use the site!!

K, I'm off my soapbox now and ready for the onslaught of Flash lovers, CAUTION: I have a gun.....

Read this article on Flash and post your comments:

zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-872163.html

Very interesting. Is Macromedia serious? I am an avid Flash fan and user, but to design entire sites in Flash to me is a stifle of imagination and creativity. If this became so, new comers would have to purchase hundreds of dollars in software to begin designing instead of just getting out the notepad and coding.

Thats just one of my observations, got more?

There is nothing wrong with designing whole sites in flash and I would certainly say that by doing so is completely the opposite of stifling imagination and creativity!! You can get a whole lot more interactivity. The drawbacks are that SE's cannot read the flash file and therefore do not index the site and links are also not read.

I don't think that flash will ever take over completely but for certain types of site it may be more suited. The main point for not using it for sites is that unless everyone gets fast internet connections then people will not go to flash sites and wait all day for them to load!

Anyone who's ever developed a flash site before will understand that it is incredibly painstaiking work. At least that's what I find - it's easier to use HTML/CSS/Javascript etc. where you can automate large parts of the site, copy and paste a lot of things, re-use code etc. I guess it also depends on how comfortable you are with ActionScript.

The article points out other problems with flash - inability to bookmark individual pages, not indexed by search engines etc. I also think, as I said above, that HTML/CSS handles text a lot better than Flash does. It's just easier to work with when you have a lot of text.

Yea, the text thing. I found that using anything but the _sans, _sanssarif(whatever), and _typewriter really weighs down the file by several K. I always use the _sans font now. Its the difference between 4,300b and 167b. And Flash is no harder or tedious to me than anyother way, it's just different.

Anyway, to continue...

Setting paragraphs, lists, headings, things like that are more tedious in Flash since you can't use pre-set spacing, sizing etc. as you can in HTML. Although TonyMontana told me that you can import HTML into flash and it will recognize the formatting. Haven't tried this yet though.

I've only ever done one full Flash site before though so I guess my inexperience is showing here

Haven't done that yet either. But as my understanding, you use the dynamic text option with HTML checked and it can read HTML tagging of imported text from flat and database input, don't know about it's ability to use CSS though. Haven't even read anything that pertains to Flash with CSS but, I'm sure I will soon. Anyways, if it can read HTML it should be able to read CSS, or so I would expect.

I have kept out of this until it died down a little, here is one of my favorite sites on the web http://www.davidgarystudios.com/ i found it a couple of years ago and i still like it.
Its an awesome site, very well made, great to play/use but to me isnt very practical. it takes a while to load (each section at a time) but is interactive great for its content but would be useless as a news site or forums ...
like has been said before, flash can have it place but with never replace text.

That didn't take long. As a matter of fact, when the site tried to go full screen across my monitor I shut it down ASAP! Even more than pop-ups, I vigorously hate when a site goes full screen. I've got a 21" monitor here at the office that faces the entire staff just about, and when surfing the web I'm comfortable with the browser minimized to about 600X300 or so. So when the browser goes to 1152X864 and you can see it accross the room, well...

Let that be a lesson to all reading this. Create some stupid full screen crap because you think you have to dazzle my socks off, and I won't come back again, let alone even see it to begin with. What a stupid concept.

I think that fullscreen can be okay in some cricumstances - like for interactive learning applications, for example, when you wouldn't want students to be distracted by other things going on on their computer. It should always be optional though. And always make sure it's possible to exit manually!!!

See, Clint, these so-called "dazzling" tricks often get really annoying, really fast.

Quote: Originally posted by Busy
I have kept out of this until it died down a little, here is one of my favorite sites on the web http://www.davidgarystudios.com/ i found it a couple of years ago and i still like it.
Its an awesome site, very well made, great to play/use but to me isnt very practical. it takes a while to load (each section at a time) but is interactive great for its content but would be useless as a news site or forums ...
like has been said before, flash can have it place but with never replace text.

Aye. As "funky" as the design is, this site is a perfect example of good flash on a bad web site. Navigation is about as far from intuitive as you can get. There are endless hurdles and hoops to endure before you can get anywhere. Bottom line being that I tired of the exercise before I actually got to the meat of the site, assuming there was any.

OK. I took the time to look at the site this time and I was impressed. This shows a lot of whats possible with Flash, that's for sure. The only thing that could make this better is to include examples of some serious business applications.
Anyways, it's great entertainment.

Oooo. I want in on this one. Flash this... Flash that. People were saying how the web is the web and not TV. Just like the difference between newspaper and tv. I think that, looking into the future, the web IS going to be TV. Just look how it has evolved so far.

Started as text
Got some layout with html
Hey, Graphics
Whoa, Animation

A monitor is basicly a TV. You can install a video card to watch TV on it. The only thing holding back the full evolution is bandwidth. Ding Ding (Note to self. Invest in that optical networking stock.) We already have WebTV and some forms of interactive TV. The web is going to be the next generation of interactive TV. We just need a killer app that makes everyone want to get broadband. Similiar to the "browser" that made everyone get internet access. It's all supply and demand. If people demand braodband far and wide, the cable companies will build the infrastructure (I don't talk like this in real life).

So what's gonna be that killer app that everybody has to get? I think I got off topic.

Heaven help us if the web becomes tv. Frickin' marketers.

However, I think there is going to be a split. The Internet spawned the web, and I think the web may spawn another creation using the same base technology that contains what was previously contained by Cable companies.

On the other hand, perhaps this is the time to mention that broadband isn't a matter of choice alone. It's impossible to get it in some locations, and the expansion of the technology seems to be slowing, not growing, in new markets. Infrastructure companies and other hardware companies are losing business.

I would rather hope that wireless access would increase, instead of the wired cable/adsl/t1-t3 blah blah lines.

I agree that any further development of the web as more of a tv medium will depend on access to fast connections and as companies like BT here have no plans to provide it to 'rural' areas, it really will not take off!