JeffCroft.com: ISO: Funny acronym for Flash revival

Comments

001 // Fredrik Ohlin // 12.17.2006 // 6:54 AM

I’m usually a proud rider of the “standards high-horse” but I’ve come to realize that flash actually has legitimate uses. And by the way, that flash doesn’t have to break basic accessibility.

But ensuring accessibility isn’t really the hard part. To convince coworkers and other standards nuts to use flash, now thats a challenge. ;)
002 // Peter Bowyer // 12.17.2006 // 8:03 AM

Agree, though I’d need to see some examples of where it’d be better than JS/HTML? Actually I can think of some but I’d like to see the proof ;)

My problem with Flash is the CPU usage in anything other than IE. I’ve got it disabled for that reason alone.
003 // Maura // 12.17.2006 // 8:56 AM

I throw up in my mouth a little bit when I come across a full-Flash website.

For situations where I’m just looking for data, having to wait while some designer’s slick but ultimately time-wasting animations play out is really, really frustrating. (A great example of this for me is the Nike+ website, which maybe you don’t use, but ask someone who does.)

On the other hand, the election maps on LJWorld were an excellent use of Flash. So, I’m cool with thoughtful, judicious Flash use, but I’m guessing a “revival” is likely to produce plenty of the opposite.
004 // Brent O'Connor // 12.17.2006 // 9:01 AM

Ditto what Maura said.
005 // Jeff L // 12.17.2006 // 11:50 AM

Jeff, I agree with your basic thoughts. I’d like to see some web apps take more advantage of the stuff that Adobe Flex and OpenLazlo can do can do with Flash.
006 // Bryan Murley // 12.17.2006 // 12:28 PM

This probably sounds really stupid, but I’d like to see a way that Flash would work well for designers who come from a traditional print environment - i.e., those who grew up using Quark and InDesign.

If the environment could be “shifted” in such a way that these designers would feel comfortable, I think you’d see a lot of new stuff coming from a different field. I know that’s probably not what programmers/web designers like to hear, but it’s something that I think is needed as newspapers shift to paper/web products.

I also think the new “Apollo” platform looks like something that might help with this sort of transition.
007 // Jeff Croft // 12.17.2006 // 12:30 PM

I basically agree with Maura, too.

I think it’s over-zealous to throw up in your mouth a little bit when you come across a Flash website — but there are definitely times where I want throw up in my mouth a little after five minutes of trying to use said website.

But this isn’t limited to Flash. Sometimes I want to throw up in my mouth a little when I’m trying to use Flickr’s Organizr, which is entirely Javascript-driven (it’s like an all-Flash site done in Javascript, basically). The point is, any technology can be abused. We can’t stop designers and developers who have no sense of subtlety. But, I don’t want to simply not use something that could be useful simply because some people insist on abusing it.
008 // Jeff Croft // 12.17.2006 // 12:34 PM

Bryan-

I get where you’re coming from, but that has to work both ways. Yes, Adobe and other companies who have specialized in traditional graphic design should work to make their web products as accessible as possible to those traditional designers. But, at the same time, those designers need to understand that the web is an entirely different medium and must be designed for in a much different matter than print. They need to learn about the web and understand it as well as they understand the mediums they’re used to working in, or they’ll never be able to make useful websites — no matter how good their tools are.

Design isn’t really about tools — it’s about problem solving. If they don’t understand the problems they need to solve on the web, it won’t matter how nice a GUI Adobe puts on GoLive.
009 // Brian Ford // 12.17.2006 // 1:09 PM

I guess the question is:

Is the bloat you see in a lot of high-end Flash sites due to “…designers and developers who have no sense of subtlety…” or is it because Flash pumps out that sort of bloat whether we like it or not?

I think people tend to ignore the obvious which is that Flash can be used judiciously on top of other development tools in order to provide a balance.

I think the reason people strive to use “all flash” is because they don’t want to learn Flash -and- CSS/XHTML -and- etc. Unfortunately, I also think that diving into Flash seems like the better bet because it’s got a GUI and schools (for whatever reason) see that as a better option when teaching web development. So, at best — you’re going to get an emphasis on Flash (and if you want to go with HTML — we’ll do a two week primer on Dreamweaver.)

This may be because a lot of web development classes are being taught by Graphic Design guys and it’s far easier to do so with Flash, which (at least) has a familiar layout. This means that Flash is a huge buzzword for companies who hire and they are under the impression that “a Flash guy” is the be-all and end-all of web development. (A graphic-designer/web-developer/animator.)

What they need is a graphic design guy, a standards guy and a Flash guy who know how to work together. Sadly, that’s a lot more payroll than just paying a Flash guy and making him do all three.

Still, even the most expensive Flash sites developed by (presumably) the most-versed Flash virtuosos tend to have the “crawling load bar” syndrome. Businesses need to realize that people will lose interest if they see “please wait” and a load bar every time they navigate to a new section of a web page. I’ve just never seen an “all-Flash” site that didn’t have this problem.

I guess one of the reasons I found “web 2.0” (Yes, I know, the term sucks) to be exciting is because (in many cases) it brought a lot of “flash-like” interactivity and slickness to otherwise standards-oriented developers and the experience felt more seamless.
010 // Chris Moritz // 12.17.2006 // 1:12 PM

I’ll stop throwing up in my mouth when seeing all-Flash sites the minute I can open a link in a new tab therein.

Oh, and I’ll also need my contextual menus back.
011 // Ross Johnson // 12.17.2006 // 1:49 PM

I recently had to do a full flash site for a client to my distaste. It didn’t have any loading bars and the animation was pretty minimal… and it did remind me of some of the nice features that Flash has:

nice anti-aliasingkerninggreat cross-browser support

However I think it almost promotes glitzy animation and overloading of “pop” over “content.”

It is getting better, but I wouldn’t want to go to an all flash site for any information. XHTML/CSS simply does it better, and is less obnoxious.
012 // Jeff Croft // 12.17.2006 // 2:29 PM

I’ll stop throwing up in my mouth when seeing all-Flash sites the minute I can open a link in a new tab therein. Oh, and I’ll also need my contextual menus back.

Them are good points. That’s definitely irritating. I’m still not big on the all-Flash site, myself — but I have seen a few that were well-done.

Personally, what I want to see more of is Flash being used for interactive graphs, charts, infographics, visualizations, etc. Granted, that’s probably party because I work in the news industry — but this seems like a great and non-obnoxious use of Flash to me.
013 // Oliver // 12.17.2006 // 3:01 PM

Jeff, I completely agree with you here - not that I would see myself building an entirely flash website, but I can really see where they would be appropriate. For example, Flickr’s organizr was (back in the good old days) entirely flash-driven and it was a hell of a lot more useable than it is now!

Like you, I think Flash has it’s particular uses and scenarios where it should be used OVER other tools like JavaScript just because it is better at some things. Imagine YouTube without flash!
014 // Bryan Murley // 12.17.2006 // 3:08 PM

Jeff, thanks for the response.

But, at the same time, those designers need to understand that the web is an entirely different medium and must be designed for in a much different matter than print. They need to learn about the web and understand it as well as they understand the mediums they’re used to working in, or they’ll never be able to make useful websites — no matter how good their tools are.

I think most designers understand that it’s a different medium. But I also think what makes this particularly confusing and frustrating for print designers is that it’s not the “web” that’s a different medium, but it’s all the programming languages that get thrown on top of it - PHP, Ruby on Rails, Flash, Django, Python, Javascript, etc. Those are not “the web.” Those are add-ons that seem to change flavors with the seasons. In fact, Flash’s scene/stage-based paradigm is emphatically not web-centric, as the web is based on a page paradigm.

I don’t think you give print designers nearly enough credit. And I’m not talking about a GoLive, or even a Dreamweaver, but a Flash interface that works with nearly as much ease as an InDesign or Quark (or Photoshop or Illustrator, for that matter). Funny, but I actually thought Macromedia’s Director was a much easier to use product than Flash.

And I think it can be done if Adobe or whomever decides to devote the time to developing something that bridges those gaps between print designers and web designers.

Of course, that’s also a huge threat for programmers and flash scripters, since their gnostic magick would be reduced much as the graphic designers’ arts were reduced when desktop publishing came along.

Perhaps that is why it will never happen. :-)
015 // Jeff Croft // 12.17.2006 // 3:29 PM

Bryan-

If you’re suggesting a Flash (or other web tools) that allows designers to create sites form the ground up with no programming, then yes, you’re dreaming. It will never happen.

You seem to think that programming is “not the web,” but I’d say you’re wrong. Programming is every bit as much “the web” today as design is. I don’t beleive designers and programmers on the whole will ever be the same (yes, there are some people who good at both, but they are few and far between). Designers need to work with programmers.

Flash’s biggest strength is Actionscript. Without it (or something similar), Flash couldn’t do half of what’s it’s capable of.

You’re right — which programming language is the flavor of the year changes all the time and really isn’t all that important. But programming itself is essential, and I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but the days in which one can make a “real” website with no programming are over. Anything other than the simplest of brochure websites are always going to require programming. That’s just the web we live in today.
016 // Bryan Murley // 12.17.2006 // 3:59 PM

Jeff,

I think we’re talking at cross-purposes here. I agree with about 95 percent of what you’re saying.

Just to be clear, I’m not talking about “building from the ground up.” I’m talking about the things that designers are supposed to be doing - solving problems of presentation. Flash’s big strength - Actionscript - is only a strength because of the things it allows you to do - like make animations behave a certain way, or having buttons do certain things, or access other parts of the site.

That’s all well and good. but it’s possible to make that strength easier for “non-programmers” to use in some settings.

Some of this is the UI, and some of it is the dense documentation.

And I never said that “design” is the web. But presentation is a helluva lot of what people come to the web for (that and information). I want to see both succeed, and I think there are print designers - even those who design the daily newspaper front page - who would be a great boon to the web if they were given tools to do so.
017 // Jeff Croft // 12.17.2006 // 4:35 PM

That’s all well and good. but it’s possible to make that strength easier for “non-programmers” to use in some settings.

Hmm, I’d say Flash already makes these simple things (creating actioanble buttons, animations, etc.) pretty darn easy for designers who aren’t programmers. Between its built-in tools and its support for components, I’m not sure it could get a lot easier. Most of the sort of things you’re talking about don’t require Actionscript at all. Actionscript is generally reserved for much heavier lifting.

But most sites these days require far, far beyond what designers who aren’t programmers will ever be capable of. So — I’m all for making the easy things even easier for designers, but I still maintain that this will only satisfy the needs of the simplest of sites. Sites of any significant level of complexity will always require programmers.

I think there are print designers - even those who design the daily newspaper front page - who would be a great boon to the web if they were given tools to do so.

I agree completely — I just wanted to make the point that no tool is going to turn these folks into web designers. They need tools and education and a sincere desire to learn, understand, and love the web. Tools are great, but they’re only a small portion of the battle.

I agree with about 95 percent of what you’re saying.

I know you do, and I’m sure I agree with 95 percent of what you believe about the web, too. Nothing personal in all of this. Just lively discussion — and I thank you for participating in it! :)
018 // Ray // 12.17.2006 // 5:23 PM

I don’t know what planet some of you people are on, perhaps you are still just stuck in your own little Internet private Idaho, but flash is going no where, it’s popularity never faded (you need to broaden your blog feeds people), the language is evolving, it’s popularity still exponentially grows and flash dev’s like myself were as busy this past year than we have even been.

Apollo, Flex, AS3 to name a few exciting developments - and I challenge you sycophants to name another technology that is as innoviative, ubiquitous, consistent and so much damm fun to work with.

And if you feel a ‘little sick in the mouth please keep that bile to yourself, stop spitting antiquated notions of what the web should be all over this immature medium, I doubt it can take much more of it!

Props to you Jeff for speaking up on this and being a voice of reason, this was the last thing I expected to find on my RSS reader when I checked your feed.
019 // Brian Ford // 12.17.2006 // 6 PM

Ah. The voice of reason. (You might want to tone down your rhetoric just a bit.)

At any rate, my suggestion would be to link to some of the work you’ve participated in (or otherwise) which refutes some of the criticism found here.

Doing so would certainly strengthen your point.
020 // Nathan Borror // 12.17.2006 // 6:37 PM

Bryan — I hope to god Flash doesn’t take on the characteristics of InDesign or Quark. Those programs confuse the hell out of me. Besides, if you’re waiting for better tools you won’t get anywhere. Flash is its own thing, I don’t see it catering to print designers anytime soon. Friends of Ed write some great books on it :)

Designers won’t get anywhere with Flash if they don’t learn the fundamentals of motion graphics and OOP. The best Flash designers in the field today are both amazing programmers and animators.

The sites that we come across that are slow and clunky are due to bad programming and lack of knowledge of the flaws in Flash. Just like everything else, it was created by humans and suffers from the same fallibility.
021 // Jeff Croft // 12.17.2006 // 6:38 PM

I don’t know what planet some of you people are on, perhaps you are still just stuck in your own little Internet private Idaho…

Even when you have a good point to make, calling out those who disagree with you personally probably isn’t the best way to convince them.

but flash is going no where…

I don’t think anyone suggested it was. :)

Apollo, Flex, AS3 to name a few exciting developments - and I challenge you sycophants to name another technology that is as innoviative, ubiquitous, consistent and so much damm fun to work with.

They are exciting developments — but who are you challenging, exactly? I didn’t hear anyone in here arguing with that standpoint. You’re a bit defensive here, my friend. I agree with your perspective, but I just don’t get who you’re trying to argue with.

I appreciate your comments, but maybe you could relax a little next time. We’re just having a friendly discussion here — not a war of the worlds.
022 // Allan White // 12.17.2006 // 7:04 PM

Former Flash dev turned video producer here: one area where Flash is fairly essential is in handling online video. There are great reasons YouTube and Google Video (now merged) along with many others chose to deploy video in the Flash environment - not least of which was a single multi-platform format.

It’s not perfect, of course - try loading a bunch on a page at once, for example - but probably as good as it gets for an environment that gives complete control over the video player UI. Done well, it feels like Future Time’¢.

Yeah, I’m the one at dinner parties that changes the subject when conversations get tense. =) I’d love to hear anyone’s thoughts on this sub-topic.
023 // Jeff Croft // 12.18.2006 // 2:37 AM

Allan-

No doubt, the video capabilities of Flash is going to be a major key to its massive growth (that I believe it’s going to see) over the next couple of years. There isn’t a web standard for video. So, while one can argue that such-and-such animation or actionable button should have been done using Javascript instead of Flash because Javascript is a standard — no one can argue with Flash use for video. It’s as close a thing as we have to a standard. It’s nearly ubiquitous (far moreso than QuickTime, RealMedia, or Windows Media) and it works well.

I think almost all online video will move to Flash in the relatively near future. Once a particular publishing entity (like, say, our newspaper at LJWorld.com) switches to Flash for video, the next obvious question becomes, “well, we’re already requiring our users to have Flash for video — what’s the harm in also using Flash for such-and-such?”

In other words, the fact that Flash is really the only game in town for video is going to drive Flash use by developers for other stuff.

Flash’s ability to run embedded on other devices (cell phones, DVRs, etc.) is another killer feature that will probably drive further adoption.
024 // Ray // 12.18.2006 // 4:16 AM

Flash needs to have a renaissance the way Javascript has over the past year and a half.

Suggesting that flash needs a renaissance (re-birth) implies that it was on the slide, my badly put point simply tried to say thats rubbish, it never died (even a little) in the first instance. I think after I read that comment I seen red (I did read the entire artile and comments)

I sit quite happily on both sides of the fence, the technology we use is simply a tool to get a job done and the selection of the tool is the responsibility of the developer, I guess I’m just sick of reading about the evils of flash from people who don’t understand the power or elegance of the medium from a developers POV.

Apologies if I got your back up Jeff or anyone else I didn’t mean to, I guess Sunday night, eyes half closed and brain on standby is not the best time to express my opinions.
025 // Ross Johnson // 12.18.2006 // 7:52 AM

my badly put point simply tried to say thats rubbish, it never died (even a little) in the first instance.

I dunno, we are making strides from the days where every site had a 3-4 minute flash intro and “skip intro” was the second most clicked item on the web (only topped by the back button).

Flash as a medium has always been very powerful and capable, but then again so was javascript. We need a revolution of the use of Flash.

When I interviewed Patrick Lauke awhile back he talked about flash being a great tool for informational sites and explaining in instances like Howstuffworks.com.

However animated and moving/flying navigation/content/etc is just obnoxious.
026 // Jeff Croft // 12.18.2006 // 9:18 AM

my badly put point simply tried to say thats rubbish, it never died (even a little) in the first instance

Flash has generally been ignored by the web standards movement (and understandably so, since it’s not a web standard). Other segments of the industry (entertainment, advertising, etc.) have continued to use Flash, but there definitely has been resistance to it from standards-aware developers.
027 // Ray // 12.18.2006 // 10:25 AM

I agree, but from my point of view, working 9-5 in this game for over 8 years - freelancing and studio, I have only seen the growth of Flash, the web standards movement made us (me) write better markup and think about it properly, flash went no where the demand was still there and rising.

And don’t get me wrong, I’m happy the days of the 5 minute intro are gone, flying navigation and unnecessary full flash sites, but thats as much the flash developers maturing as the medium it’s self.

Flash has come a long way, deeplinking, back button support (even tho the technique was perfected by Robert Penner years ago) has become standard in any 1/2 decent studio, and with systems like SWFObject or UFO for embedding swf your applet can sit happily with your xhtml, providing transparent alternative content in the process for the few that have it disabled or not installed, these techniques can even be exploited to make flash search engine friendly… like I said before it’s the responsibility of the developer to pick the right tool for the right job, perhaps we are all growing up a little and the flash renaissance really is happening…
028 // Jeff Croft // 12.18.2006 // 10:52 AM

Ray…

You keep writing like we disagree — like you’re trying to convince someone of something. BUt I’m confused as to what it is. We both agree that Flash has come a long way, that Flash can play nice with web standards, and that web standards developers should stop shunning Flash just because it’s Flash and start embracing it when it’s the best tool for the job.

So I ask again — who are you arguing with?
029 // Ray // 12.18.2006 // 10:58 AM

I didn’t think I was arguing with anyone after my initial comment, more like having a conversation… sorry you took it that way, I write better code that english, ahh well.
030 // Jeff Croft // 12.18.2006 // 11:06 AM

No worries, Ray. :)
031 // Allan White // 12.18.2006 // 12:08 PM

In other words, the fact that Flash is really the only game in town for video is going to drive Flash use by developers for other stuff.

That’s a very interesting point. Once the door to Flash use is opened for a site’s users, it’s so much easier to make the case for use in other areas.

Back to your “Time for Flash 2.0 (but call it something else)” thing: one thread that I see in web 2.0 and in current Flash trends are that the mediums are maturing. There seems to be more consensus (in the design community) about what makes for good craftsmanship online. Now that people have tried everything, they’re getting back to fundamentals and focusing on what actually works, looks good, and is pleasant to use.
032 // Ryan Berg // 12.18.2006 // 12:29 PM

We’re certainly starting to see more tasteful use of Flash, but I still cringe when it’s used in any article-based site (news, blog, etc) to direct users toward stories. I’m looking at YOU, ESPN

My browsing habits lean toward visiting a homepage and opening all story links behind the homepage tab and then moving on. (And don’t get me started on auto-changing content pieces that change content right as my finger is moving down to click on what used to be the link I wanted)

My Flash knowledge isn’t very advanced… Is it possible that the next version of the flash plugin could place nice with browser tab support? Is it at all possible for a developer to add such a link to his flash piece?
033 // Kristofer Baxter // 12.18.2006 // 12:56 PM

Re: Ryan Berg

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Flash objects that provide links to content outside itself do not work with tabbed browsing. (Except in browsers like Opera/FF2 which natively open new windows in new tabs when set that way).

Having the ability to look at the data in the way I want from a website is extremely important. I dont want to be forced into a fullscreen flash animation that weighs a hefty 1.5 megs when I can get the same content from a smaller 100k page (Unless of course I’m warned or expecting that 1.5 megs of content).

A perfect example of this is LJWorld’s latest election coverage. When I clicked on the link to see that map, I knew what I was getting into. And as such, was willing to wait.

Lately this discussion has been popping up a lot at work, and I have time and time again pointed to that map and said “this is the way it should be done.”
034 // weixi // 12.18.2006 // 4:41 PM

http://imaginaryforces.com/ - well done flash site that’s fun to navigate and explore.
035 // Jeff Croft // 12.18.2006 // 4:49 PM

wexi-

Not sure I’m in agreement on that one. THat feels like a site that should have been created in (X)HTML, to me. The Flash use isn’t particularly interesting (it’s basically just animation for the sake of animation), it’s a bit on the slow side (but not terrible), and the non-standard scrollbars kind of suck.

It’s a nicely done site, but it could have been done in (X)HTML. There’s not really any innovative or creative use of Flash here for things that web standards technologies couldn’t have done just as well.
036 // ale/pepino // 12.19.2006 // 11:03 PM

I’m happy that a thing like Flash exists, but I think it’s used a bit too much in some places where it isn’t needed. From my point of view, Flash is just too greedy in both the developer and the client side.

The Flash application itself is quite beefy (and you even have to pay for it!). Also, most web developers near me won’t touch any language or platform they can’t program for using their text editor of choice. Not me, either. Leave the mouse for the designers, and leave designers far from the place where “how things work” is decided.

And what can I say of the client side? A perfectly ubiquitous plugin - if Adobe cares enough to develop it for your browser! I can’t rely on such commercial model, at least concerning stuff that is going to be on the internet, maybe for years. It sports high CPU usage, high memory usage, low usability/accesibility, and low SEO usage. I think they really have to change how Flash works from the ground up. Or target it elsewhere than the web.

PS: Sorry for my poor Engrish.
037 // Jeff Croft // 12.19.2006 // 11:28 PM

but I think it’s used a bit too much in some places where it isn’t needed.

Can’t argue with that.

Also, most web developers near me won’t touch any language or platform they can’t program for using their text editor of choice.

True. I definitely miss TextMate when I’m playing in Flash.

Leave the mouse for the designers, and leave designers far from the place where “how things work” is decided.

Ouch. You do realize “deciding how thinks work” is pretty much the definition of design, right?

A perfectly ubiquitous plugin - if Adobe cares enough to develop it for your browser!

Even if it’s not absolutely everywhere, it’s still the most ubiquitous plugin on the planet. If there’s one thing I don’t think you can complain about, it’s Flash’s penetration.

PS: Sorry for my poor Engrish.

I would have never guessed it wasn’t your first language. Your English seemed great to me! :)
038 // Marjorie Johns // 12.20.2006 // 7:25 AM

Here’s the problem: I do 90% of my surfing at work, where you cannot ask the IT boys to add any non-work critical software to your workstation. We also cannot download anything that ends in .exe (or .zip or .dll or pretty much anything except text and images). So, no flash plugins for me.

Every business that uses flash for anything more than displaying, say, an image rotator will automatically not get my custom. And I work for the single largest employer in Europe, so we’re talking big business (think over $200b a year). And we’re not remotely the only employer who does this. There are millions (?hundreds of millions) of people out there - in key purchasing positions - for whom such restrictions are common. Adoption of Flash 9 is not a choice for many people, no matter what delightful things it can do.

Also, I can totally imagine what YouTube looks like without Flash: it’s some text dotted randomly across acres and acres of white space. (Nike.com is a plain maroon page)
039 // Ray // 12.20.2006 // 12:14 PM

Jeff, I recently took a new position and have been forced to use the MAC 9-5 (not a bad thing at all now I’m used to it), I got myself a copy of textmate (lovely, now I know what the hype is about) and dug a little as I was pretty certain MSTAC would work with it because most of the top editors on windows do. (Textpad is my weapon of choice for that)

Anyway, I found lots of examples and tips on google, the links below will point you in the right direction, they helped me out.

http://www.monokai.nl/blog/2006/07/14/using-textmate-mtasc-and-xtrace-to-build-flash-projects-in-mac-osx/

http://www.unfitforprint.com/articles/2006/01/02/howto-develop-flash-on-mac-osx-with-rake-mtasc-swfmill-and-textmate
040 // John Dowdell // 12.20.2006 // 4:08 PM

Thanks for the essay, Jeff. Notes on some of the comments:

Comment #2 (CPU usage): Check the browser… these vary with how they handle background extensions. (Could also be a particular script which is max’d out, but browsers have fixed many similar issues recently.)

Comment #9 (bloat/stream): SWF intrinsically streams and is faster than other deliveries… the reduced HTTP connections can give faster startup time. But it’s also possible to create a piece which cannot take advantage of the default streaming.

Comment #10 (open link in new tab): Valid request. Browsers with tabbed windows need to open an API (and preferably only one API amongst the different browsers ;-).

Comment #23:

“The fact that Flash is really the only game in town for video is going to drive Flash use by developers for other stuff.”

Very, very true. The recent China casting-couch scandal bumped daily installations from the 5-6million/day rate up above 9million/day, and all of these new installations are geting the order-of-magnitude-faster ECMAScript processing engine recently donated to Mozilla Foundation (search term “tamarin”). Audience capability is key.

Comment #26:

“Flash has generally been ignored by the web standards movement (and understandably so, since it’s not a web standard).”

I don’t buy this line, sorry… consider the following:

http://www.google.com/search?q=png+standard http://www.google.com/search?q=gif+proprietary http://www.google.com/search?q=jpeg+proprietary

Comment #33:

“I dont want to be forced into a fullscreen flash animation that weighs a hefty 1.5 megs when I can get the same content from a smaller 100k page.”

Agreed… I like all-text pages to-the-point, as well.

Comment #36:

“The Flash application itself is quite beefy (and you even have to pay for it!).”

The Adobe Flash Professional authoring tool does indeed require compensation for its use, but not all SWF-producing tools do. If you’d like to create application-style SWF via XML, for free, then check into the free Adobe Flex 2 kit, or the other options at OSFlash.org:

http://www.adobe.com/products/flex/sdk/ http://osflash.org/

Comment #36:

“A perfectly ubiquitous plugin - if Adobe cares enough to develop it for your browser!”

No 64-bit anything yet, sorry… Linux and Windows are both in the pipeline. But if you’ve got statistically unusual Linux drivers, then these are opened up already:

http://www.kaourantin.net/2006/10/extending-reach-of-flash-player-on.html

Comment #38 (IT lockdown): Yes, if you don’t admin your own machine, then you have to rely on the group. Adobe Flash Player drives the realtime communication abilities in Adobe Acrobat 8, so eventually even the slowest group will open up.

jd/adobe
041 // Jeff Croft // 12.20.2006 // 4:12 PM

Terrific comments, jd. Thanks so much for participating. Hope you don’t mind me tweaking the formatting of your comment a bit to make it more readable. Thanks again!
042 // Eels // 12.20.2006 // 6:02 PM

Isn’t Flex 2.0 what we're looking for? Is tells it's not Flash, it’s 2.0 (just like yourself, I’m kidding on this one), by making it open source Adobe ensured the community will grow (and how - see all the blog messages about how many messages flexgroups received). Many people can’t already make the difference between Flex and Flash… So I’d say “Flex” (not necessarily 2.0 - but that sounds nice, isn’t it?! :) ) should be good enough. So let’s stick to the default skinning (and even theme colour) and it should be fine.
043 // Rodrigo // 12.21.2006 // 12:30 PM

There are some beautiful, lightweight and powerful Flash sites online. Flash doesn’t need another name or acronym. What Flash needs is to be taken seriously: people must understand that Flash isn’t only an easy and funny animation studio. That it is an incredibly way to offer any kind of content. Period.
044 // Benoit Chesneau // 12.21.2006 // 3:21 PM

buf flash isn’t open. So you can’t use it on any platform like powerpc or sparc. Flash is a problem when you need a site accesibble by all. And for me all website should be accessible. So yes flash is a pretty good tool but I would prefer having an open and if possible libre application that do the same.
045 // Jeff Croft // 12.21.2006 // 3:51 PM

So yes flash is a pretty good tool but I would prefer having an open and if possible libre application that do the same.

Once such a tool exists, I’ll be sure to promote it instead of Flash. Until then…it’s what we’ve got.
046 // Justin Kistner // 12.22.2006 // 2:26 AM

Jeff, thank you for lending a voice of credibility to the coming rich media explosion. I’ve been trying to induce conversation about this for the past month or so. I’m mostly hearing the same tired arguments about why Flash is bad, but many of them are not true anymore. Not to mention that Adobe opened Flash to Mozilla for incorporation into the browser, I think the remaining accessibility issues will be worked out.

People are talking about Web 3.0, but I think that’s the wrong way of thinking about it. I see Flash as part of the rich media layer of the web. I see Web 2.0 principles being the foundation on which the rich web will reside. Web 2.0 was a term that was coined because Web 1.0 was viewed as outdated and wrong. I don’t think the major contributions from Web 2.0 are outdated by Flash or any other rich media. I think the idea of connecting people to people is still valid. Accessibility and device compatibility is still valid. Separation of content and style is still valid. I don’t see Flash as something that exists in opposition of HTML, I see MVC style web applications spitting out XML that is fed into Flash with a style sheet alternative to offer progressive enhancement.

The new MTV.com is a perfect example of a content management system that has layers for multiple viewing modes; Flash site mode, Flash video mode, and HTML mode. The all Flash interface is great because it helps the user. It’s not about silly designers wanting to over complicate a site in the name of art. Animation actually assists a user in orientating themselves during navigation. It is a much more jarring experience to have the page reload and for the site to look suddenly very different. Whereas a nice animated transition from site mode to video mode makes it easy for the user to follow.

I think layered, progressive enhancement experiences are the future. Now that Flash is solving issues like copy and pasteable text, bookmarking, search engine visibility, etc., the only remaining excuse for not offering rich media enhancement is lack of skill and know-how. I’m sure I sound as crazy to some standardistas as the CSS advocates of yesteryear sounded to the table based designers.
047 // Justin Kistner // 12.22.2006 // 2:32 AM

I forgot to mention that Cameron Moll points out that Flash is fast becoming the standard for mobile development because it’s the only thing that works predictably across platforms and devices.
048 // Kilian Valkhof // 12.22.2006 // 1:01 PM

Flash is indeed a great platform, but I do feel the need to make a difference between using small flash applets to add more interactivity to html pages, and the full blown flex (yes, flex) for things like webshops.

Flex as it currently is, is awesome for the developer, just like flash is (albeit in a different way), but it is horrible for the visitor. The examples I’ve seen are quite slow, and do not allow easy linking to pages, or coping text or images.

As for the acronym…. FUSIA (Flash Used Sparingly Is Awesome)? :p
049 // Kyle // 12.23.2006 // 9:48 PM

Flash does indeed seem to be making a comeback, and it’s nice to develop in, but there’s still a few things that drive me nuts about it:

1) To my understanding, it’s not SEO friendly. 2) Overly difficult to open new tabs in Firefox. 3) Loss of the context menu

Also, I just got off a project where we implemented three different versions of the homepage, 1 in flash, 1 in JavaScript in case the user didn’t have Flash, and an HTML version in case the user didn’t have Flash and JavaScript. Crazy. I’d rather just run with JS and HTML with a clean separation between behavior, style, structure, etc.
050 // Amit Patel // 12.25.2006 // 11:59 AM

I think one huge advantage Javascript and HTML have over Flash is that you can View Source. You can see techniques other people used, learn from that, borrow, reuse, remix, etc. Flash closes that all off. If you see some cool technique, you can’t (easily) study it and create your own thing based on what you learned. When it’s easier to learn from, it’s more likely to become popular.

This goes hand in hand with the development tools not being free. Free + View Source makes it very easy for someone to dabble. Once they get started, they can easily experiment, building up knowledge and experience.

The third problem is that you can’t just edit ActionScript and reload the page; you have that pesky build step in between. Compare this to HTML and Javascript, where the iteration time is seconds.

None of these three issues is a major problem for a professional; they’re problems for people just getting started. I would’ve tried out Flash a long time ago if it was easy to create a “Hello World” SWF. Compared to a “Hello World” HTML page or a “Hello World” Javascript alert (either of which can be done by typing a few lines into Notepad, with nothing to download, nothing to buy, nothing to compile, and almost nothing to learn), the SWF is much, much harder.

Not being an “open standard” isn’t what keeps me from using Flash. It’s the ease of doing simple things, compared to HTML + Javascript.
051 // Jeff Croft // 12.25.2006 // 12:51 PM

Not being an “open standard” isn’t what keeps me from using Flash. It’s the ease of doing simple things, compared to HTML + Javascript.

It’s a great point you make, Amit, and I really wouldn’t argue with it at all. But, for the sake of debate, I’d respond to this line like this:

Maybe, then, Flash isn’t for doing those simple things.

I don’t think someone probably should be using Flash to do “Hello, World” type things. It’s all about using the best tool for the job, and there’s n doubt that HTML is the best tool for that job. But there are cases where Flash is the right tool for the job, I think.

Your points about Flash being harder to learn are very well taken — I think you’re spot on that this is a barrier and makes widespread use amongst people used to doing HTML/CSS/JS difficult.

Thanks for the great comments!
052 // Theron Parlin // 12.26.2006 // 1:58 AM

My problem with flash is websites like 2advanced.com.
053 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 12.28.2006 // 6:44 AM

-Hatter’s Finishing Moves- Part 1/3

Brian…the reason people want to use all Flash is because they’ve outgrown the limitations as far as cross compatibility that excessive CSS/XHTML use brings about. Now if you want to talk about using Flash on top of PHP or XML…yeah that’s a good combination.

Chris…you can stop throwing up in your mouth now: http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog/

The entire site front end is completely Flash and is only ~100 Kilobytes. Fact of the matter is you can actually make your sites MUCH more efficient as far as size savings with Flash than you can without it…provided that you actually have an in depth understanding of graphics formats and how to use them (like using 32-bit alpha transparent JPEGs). See that’s what I love about Flash…it really separates the poser class from the elitists like myself. Even those fancy Flash cookie cutter templates don’t work out so good without at least an intermediate level of knowledge and skill.

Oh and Chris…only retards who have their heads stuck back in 2002 think that you can’t have context menus in Flash…fully CUSTOMIZABLE context menus at that. You see, with most things, it’s not so much that they can’t be done so much as the POSER CLASS can’t do them and then they run around trying to claim that it’s “impossible”…which, for them, okay it might be that, but for those of us a lil…higher, on the ‘ol evolutionary ladder of web development…yeah, yer deficiencies are of very little interest to us.

Ross…no, XHTML/CSS does NOT do it “better”…unless you’re under the unfortunate delusion that W3C RECOMMENDATIONS in any way equate to cross browser and cross operating system compatibility…because they don’t. It’s EASIER for people who have limited skills to do it in XHTML/CSS because that kind of form doesn’t exactly require thinking…hell it even creates your context menus and scroll bars for you…LOL…

Bryan…evolve past the Adobe/Macromedia stupidity and learn about the many OTHER options out there for Flash development. Personally I like SwishMax, its design interface beats the holy fcking sht out of Adobe’s.

Nathan…very true, those who can claim the title of “best” have extensive knowledge and experience in programming, graphic design, animation, video editing and dozens of other fields. Those who limit themselves to a single field in this day and age are working obsolescence at best, they do not matter and they are wholly irrelevant.
054 // Onideus Mad Hatter - 2 // 12.28.2006 // 6:49 AM

-Hatter’s Finishing Moves- Part 2/3

Jeff…yes, one of Flash’s best features is its ability to operate as a stand alone application outside of a web environment. Most people are not aware of it, but Flash is EVERYWHERE these days, from your supermarket checkout interfaces to the display setups the cashiers at fast food places use to your bank ATM interface. Flash also offers an unparalleled level of security and when running on top of PHP scripts that are controlled server side to handle data transfers it offers THE HIGHEST level of security that you can get.

Ross…javascript is pure sht compared to ActionScript. I mean even if you want to simply ignore the fact that javascript is FIFTY TIMES SLOWER than ActionScript it still can’t even fcking BREATH next to the level of functionality that you can get out of ActionScript…hell I could I program my own Usenet/e-mail/IRC client in Flash…you sure the hell won’t be doing that in javascript.

Jeff…Flash IS a standard, in that the way that it will look on one machine is EXACTLY the way it will look and function on another. The “standards” you’re referring to aren’t so much “standards” as they are RECOMMENDATIONS…which, btw, are IGNORED for the most part, which is why W3C compliancy in most cases just equates to MASSIVE cross browser and cross operating system incompatibilities…unless you’re “designing” your sites around the “plain black text on a white background” style of deficiency.

Kyle…Flash isn’t making a “comeback” it’s just the retard developers are finally starting to wake the fck up and remember what reality they’re in. Flash has been continually and steadily increasing in it’s ease of use, functionality, cross compatibility, etc, etc. Everyone who wasn’t plainly fcking stupid could see that Flash was/is going to be the be all and end all solution to web development as far as the user interface is concerned…and likewise since Flash could interface nicely with PHP it was obvious that PHP was gonna come along for the ride and now XML has hopped onto that bandwagon.

The current form of web development that I use is LAMP FX (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP back end with a Flash, XML user end).

Amit…you’re wrong. While it’s true that Flash prevents posers from directly stealing techniques, the TRUE developers need only SEE the technique in action to replicate it on their own…and their way of creating that effect will wind up being unique. In other words, Flash development breeds creativity and ingenuity in design, where as HTML, javascript, etc breed stagnation and deficiency of technique and style…because you can simply copy and paste without thinking.

Further, it takes me all of 3 seconds to hit Ctrl+E in SwishMax, hit enter twice, tab to Firefox and hit F5, so I dunno what “third problem” yer having, but it certainly is not a shared deficiency.
055 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 12.28.2006 // 6:51 AM

-Hatter’s Finishing Moves- Part 3/3 (sorry about the triple posting of part 2, maybe it can be fixed by Jeff)

Well now…all that being said I’d like to add a few things…first of all, I didn’t just start out in Flash…I actually started out as a badass HTML/CSS/javascript developer and produced several interesting experiments, like the webs ONLY perfect liquid website prototypes: http://www.backwater-productions.net/testplatform/liquid/

Of course you can do the same in Flash with MUCH less effort and ingenuity. That site is interesting because the javascript is actually writing the CSS/HTML on the fly as needed… http://www.backwater-productions.net/testplatform/liquid/JS_Source.txt

Javascript isn’t capable of resizing images with anything better than nearest neighbor resizing so I relied on PHP to do the image resizing…which means it’s a lil on the slow side, however if I threw in server side image caching I could greatly improve performance…but then, like I said, you can do it in Flash now with almost zero effort.

Here’s another fun site of mine: http://www.backwater-productions.net/wwcc/histology-1/

Passes the W3Cs idiocy and yet it’s very much piss poor when it comes to cross operating system and browser compatibility.

I especially like how the current form I’m using to create that “portal” look for the majority of my sites is rejected up the hoo ha by the W3C and yet it remains as THE most cross compatible solution for that display layout that exists.

I think the best use of Flash is where you can find a balance between design and functionality and where the design COMPLIMENTS the content rather than works against it (my current primary site is a good example of that deficiency). I think the new CB site I’m working on is a good example of how the design should work WITH the content: http://www.backwater-productions.net/care-bears/

Be sure to check out the “songs” link, it’s not complete yet, but it’s a good example of how you can create integrated Flash applications, in this case a music player.

Oh, one other thing to note, although I support actively using Flash to replace HTML/Javascript/CSS I DO think you should strive to include a plain text fall back version for blind users, for deficient search engines that can’t spider Flash files and for plain text browsers like Lynx (best not to forget the “Amish” of the Internet). ^_^
056 // Jeff Croft // 12.28.2006 // 12:37 PM

My problem with flash is websites like 2advanced.com.

Okay, you don’t like 2advanced’s site. But why do you blame it on Flash? I assure you, if they’d make the exact same site using any other technology (QuickTime, HTML/CSS/JS, whatever), you’d still hate it.

You hate the site, not the technology.
057 // Jeff Croft // 12.28.2006 // 12:44 PM

Hatter, you make a lot of good points and I appreciate you taking the time to put together such extensive comments — but please watch your language and don’t resort to personal attacks. Debate is fine, calling people a retard is not.

Thanks for understanding.
058 // Theron Parlin // 12.31.2006 // 11:17 PM

I haven’t returned here to see the comments for a while, but now that I have, I have a few things for Hatter.

First, if you think Flash is where web development is headed, you obviously haven’t yet heard of freakin’ Ruby on Rails. You’ve got to be kidding me that PHP is coming along for any ride whatsoever. PHP is obsolete as a web programming language—time to wake up and smell the django and rails. The web is headed in the direction of REAL programming languages like python and ruby—not crap ass PHP where object oriented thinking was an afterthought. Model-view-controller, you know, the separation of data models, application code and design, is also not present in Flash; which makes it all the more obscene as a web technology.

Second, standard shmandard!! Try looking at a bunch of popular flash sites from Linux using the latest version of firefox—your results may vary. So much for your perfect web standard.

Third, I hate wysiwyg tools for doing web design/development. Yes, you can write actionscript using your favorite text editor but in order to create a flash site you have to boot up Adobe flash or SwishMax. But hey, look at the bright side Hatter, keep writing those flash apps with php back-ends and in 10 years you’ll be a valuable commodity—because you’ll be one of the only ones left writing web applications with php.

Lastly, SwishMax and Adobe Flash aren’t free (which is fine with me) but the future of web development will rest on open source technologies, not proprietary, black-boxed, over-priced applications.

Now, on a more polite note… Jeff, I said sites like 2advanced—because so many flash sites I’ve seen tend to have that ridiculous futuristic look (with a few exceptions of course). Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen some kick-ass flash sites out there but 7 out of 10 are usually crap (this is of course, my opinion and it’s based completely on the site’s design). So you’re right, it’s not the technology in this case that I have a problem with, per se, it’s the culture of design that surrounds the technology. That said, here are some amazing sites done in flash:

http://www.flipmo.co.uk/v2.html http://www.dontclick.it/ http://www.enigmind.com/welcome.php http://www.billyharveymusic.com/

Anyway, Happy new year.
059 // Jeff Croft // 01.01.2007 // 2:11 AM

So you’re right, it’s not the technology in this case that I have a problem with, per se, it’s the culture of design that surrounds the technology.

In that case, we largely agree. But, I’ll bet you also hated the culture of design around the old-school DHTML of the late 1990s and early 2000s, right? I know I did. And look what happened — Javascript has come back to show that it can be used well, and can result in some kick ass work.

So, like I said in the original post — I’m calling for a revival of Flash just the same way we have seen with Javascript. I’m calling for that culture of design to be squashed and people to show new, innovative, useful, accessible, and usable ways the technology can be used — just like they did with Javascript.

On an unrelated sidenote — 2advanced is solely responsible for a lot of people’s interest in web design being sparked. You may not care for their work, but when someone write The History of Web Design, 2advanced will probably get their own chapter.
060 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.01.2007 // 5:50 PM

DEBATE! :) - Part 1 of 4

I haven’t returned here to see the comments for a while, but now that I have, I have a few things for Hatter.

Mmmm…I smell a debate coming on! ^_^

First, if you think Flash is where web development is headed, you obviously haven’t yet heard of freakin’ Ruby on Rails.

Uh…well apparently I haven’t heard what you have because last I checked RoR was nothing more than XML/HTML/PHP/MySQL training wheels. The major problems with RoR as I see them are:
1. It’s server side, which means more wear and tear on your server which means you wind up having to spend more money.
2. Most of the syntax is designed to cater around deficients who never took the bother to ACTUALLY learn how to program.
3. As far as what I’ve read it doesn’t ACTUALLY offer anything that can’t already be done in any number of other environments. I mean it’s not like with Flash where there are SPECIFIC things that ONLY Flash can do (like handle 32 bit JPEGs, alpha transparent video, the On2 VP6 codec, color matrices, etc, etc, etc).
Really though I don’t understand WHY you’re even trying to compare RoR to Flash…because they aren’t really even remotely in the same category. I mean if you wanted to compare RoR to PHP/MySQL/XML…okay, I might buy that…but again, what is it that RoR offers that those other options don’t…besides a more idiot friendly interface? Not to mention the fact I’m almost entirely certain that there is a WHOLE LOT more you can do with PHP than you can with RoR. For example, what sorts of image manipulation techniques does Ruby offer? What sort of image resizing does it offer? PHP last I checked was restricted to bilinear and bicubic resizing (as far as prebuilt functionality) but if RoR offered something like Lanczos resizing that would certainly be a benefit…although I highly doubt that it does…in fact as far as what I’ve read RoR can’t really do much outside of simple database manipulation. If that’s the case you couldn’t even compare it to PHP. shrugs

You’ve got to be kidding me that PHP is coming along for any ride whatsoever. PHP is obsolete as a web programming language—time to wake up and smell the django and rails.

You know at this point I should probably take the time to point out the fact that you haven’t ~actually~ offered ANY sort of real counter argument to anything I’ve said. I mean so far all you’ve done is a lot of random, incoherent name dropping with some pretty pathetic verbal comebacks. Free cl00, don’t offer up insults unless you got the facts to back em up…and so far…you don’t.
061 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.01.2007 // 5:51 PM

DEBATE! :) - Part 2 of 4

The web is headed in the direction of REAL programming languages like python and ruby—not crap ass PHP where object oriented thinking was an afterthought. Model-view-controller, you know, the separation of data models, application code and design, is also not present in Flash; which makes it all the more obscene as a web technology.

Actually one could argue that it makes it superior, although either way it’s a moot point because it doesn’t matter what the language is based upon or even really how it operates so much as WHAT IT OFFERS. And in that respect Flash easily outclasses EVERY other existing technology. At this point you sound like some kind of a Linux nut endlessly yammering on about how Linux is gonna make a comeback, Linux is gonna beat back Microsoft, Linux is gonna do this, Linux is gonna do that, Linux is gonna wipe your ass for you…yeah…it’s not, and that’s the whole point. I mean IF IT WAS, okay…but it’s not. I mean if RoR or Python ever reaches a point where it CAN offer support for things like custom video controls, support for high end video codecs, support of color matrices, support of custom context menus, etc, etc, etc…well okay, then you can run around saying that it’s got a future…but UNTIL IT HAS THAT…it has no future. At best all it has are a bunch of spazzy lil fan boys running around trying to justify all the money they wasted by attending some deficient college who only taught them RoR and Python and never took the bother to teach its students how to adapt to the technologies currently in use, the technologies WHICH OFFER THE MOST OPTIONS AND FLEXIBILITY.

At this point…anything you can do in Python or RoR…I can do better in Flash/PHP/MySQL. Now maybe if you want to compare yourself to some AMATEUR (ie a clone of yourself) working with Flash/PHP/SQL…okay, then you might have a point, because as I said RoR is very much Ruby on Training Wheels and a lesser will do much better WITH training wheels than without…but then yer tryin to compare yerself to someone like me who doesn’t need training wheels…and that’s where ya fall up short, Kiddo.

Second, standard shmandard!! Try looking at a bunch of popular flash sites from Linux using the latest version of firefox—your results may vary. So much for your perfect web standard.

Can you offer up some actual links to prove this? The latest version of Flash for Linux is still beta so I suppose it’s possible that there’s ~some~ Flash 9 functionality that doesn’t work quite the same…although this is the first I’ve ever heard of it. I’m sure you’ll be able to provide us with some links to back up your claim though.
062 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.01.2007 // 5:52 PM

DEBATE! :) - Part 3 of 4

Third, I hate wysiwyg tools for doing web design/development. Yes, you can write actionscript using your favorite text editor but in order to create a flash site you have to boot up Adobe flash or SwishMax.

…uh, that doesn’t even make sense. Flash is in NO WAY a WYSIWYG editor. Maybe for basic object placement…but even then I NEVER rely on the preview pane for manipulation of objects (because everything I deal with has to be UBER precise as far as pixel alignment because I use a lot of split form image encoding techniques. So because of that I always straight code/type the values I want for positioning into the Transform settings box, NEVER relying on the preview pane. And at least with SwishMax most of the higher level ActionScript code won’t even work in its built in preview mode, you HAVE to save it first and then load it up into a web browser. And further, there’s not such thing as a WYSIWYG editor for code anyway…because IT’S CODE…well unless you’re copying and pasting something…but hey, that’s on you man, not me.

But hey, look at the bright side Hatter, keep writing those flash apps with php back-ends and in 10 years you’ll be a valuable commodity—because you’ll be one of the only ones left writing web applications with php.

Only a fool would try and pretend that he knows what’s going to be around 10 years from. There are far too many advancements coming far too quick to make predictions like that. At best you can look to about 5 years down the road and even then only if there aren’t any MAJOR significant advancements made in a particular area. I mean for all you know in 2 years someone could develop an entirely new browser with an entirely new form of web coding that offers up so many incredible options that are so easy to implement that literarily ALL current web design technologies will instantly become obsolete in its presence. Unfortunately for your delusions…RoR and Python don’t even come remotely close.
063 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.01.2007 // 5:53 PM

DEBATE! :) - Part 4 of 4

Lastly, SwishMax and Adobe Flash aren’t free (which is fine with me) but the future of web development will rest on open source technologies, not proprietary, black-boxed, over-priced applications.

Actually THERE ARE free, open source options available for Flash development and there will be more in the future. Really, ANYONE can create a development app that can compile a working SWF file…hell they can even make alterations to the code base as far as the development end is concerned (ie SwishScript compared to ActionScript). And if you REALLY wanted you could even create a pure code based compiler for Flash…although I’m not entirely certain as to WHY you might want to do that…other than maybe for use in the attempt to posture a larger dick size (although with a smaller brain size).

That said, here are some amazing sites done in flash:

http://www.flipmo.co.uk/v2.html http://www.dontclick.it/ http://www.enigmind.com/welcome.php http://www.billyharveymusic.com/

None of those sites is really all that amazing and in fact I would compare them directly to sites like 2advanced as far as how they’re built and how they function. It’s also interesting to note that the sites you gave as being “amazing” actually have FAR LESS user friendly interfaces than 2advanced. Their interfaces are INTERESTING, but not altogether that unique and certainly NOT user friendly and intuitive. You should probably spend some more time learning about web development, then you’ll be able to judge sites on their function, usability, design, etc…rather than on your personal feelings towards them…which seems quite subjective. It seems to me though that your choice in development platforms reflects your choices in “amazing” sites, in that you’re basing your opinions off of personal, subjective likes and dislikes rather than the ACTUAL functionality that the platforms offer, which is also why you spend so much time molesting the point about proprietary vs open source. It REALLY isn’t about proprietary vs open source, it’s about functionality, usability, delivery, etc. Open source is like icing on a cake, it’s nice, it’s sweet and all…but it doesn’t make the cake, it just makes it taste a little better.
064 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.01.2007 // 6:14 PM

Hatter, you make a lot of good points and I appreciate you taking the time to put together such extensive comments — but please watch your language and don’t resort to personal attacks. Debate is fine, calling people a retard is not.

Thanks for understanding.

I’ll try and tone it down a little to suit your culture, but I would ask that you at least try and be tolerant of my culture as I try to be tolerant of yours. In my culture such language is not indicative of personal attacks, but in fact is meant to spice up the language, a sort of invective word art which is primarily designed to get peopled fired up over a topic to invoke a higher level of debate which in turn promotes a higher level of understanding. If you add a lil spice to your posts they make them more fun to read and more fun to respond to. Although it may LOOK like it’s being mean or personal, it’s actually a form of FRIENDLY sparring. Granted I understand that for some people they have psychological deficiencies and abnormalities which prevent them from not taking every last thing they read as some kind of serious, world ending drama…however I am not a psychologist nor am I anyone’s personal online babysitter, so it is not my responsibility to coddle those types of individuals and cater to their failings and personal problems. I can only be me and no matter how much you might like to pretend, I can NEVER be what you see me as nor can I be what you WISH I was…understanding that concept is what I believe to be the true nature of tolerance.
065 // Jeff Croft // 01.01.2007 // 6:34 PM

I’ll try and tone it down a little to suit your culture, but I would ask that you at least try and be tolerant of my culture as I try to be tolerant of yours

Unfortunately for you, this is my website, and not yours. Therefore, I get to set the culture and tone and rules here. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

I don’t have to be more tolerant of your language on my website. When I come to your website, I promise to be tolerant.
066 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.01.2007 // 7:18 PM

I never said it wasn’t your site nor did I ever say you HAD to be tolerant, I ASKED that you TRY to be more tolerant since that is what you were asking of me. But then again maybe you’re the kind of person who expects certain privileges that you don’t feel the need to bestow onto others…in other words you don’t practice what you preach. If that’s the case, feel free to make like other “Bloggers That Lie” and start deleting out all the responses that you don’t think reflect the ideals and opinions you’re attempting to present (I can simply repost my comments to Usenet groups where they’ll get more attention anyway).

However if you do choose to take that course of action I’d like to implore you to stop being so f-ing stupid and simply remove the ability to make comments to your blog posts altogether…or at the very least include a disclaimer saying that you only allow comments if they: A. support your opinions and B. support your culture

…because heaven forbid anyone else have a difference of opinion or culture in regards to whatever it is you’re mouthing off about.

Just remember this…I didn’t make reality, I just verbally beat you with it. ^_^
067 // Jeff Croft // 01.01.2007 // 7:25 PM

Wow, you really misunderstood me, my friend.

Look, I call my friends retards all the time. I say things are gay, when I’m in the company of my friends. And so forth. I know you didn’t mean anything offensive by it. But this is a public forum. And there are probably people reading who will take offense to it. Therefore, I choose to keep the language on this site a bit more politically correct than that.

You’re acting like I’m upset because I disagree with your opinion (which I’ve never even publicly disagreed with you, to begin with). I’m not. You can disagree with me all you want. But unless you can do so in a manner that is professional, respectful, and grown-up, you won’t be allowed to comment here.

You think you are “verbally beating” anyone by calling them names? If you can’t state your opinion and make it convincing without restoring to name calling, then I’m sorry to say that you absolutely suck at verbal beatings.

You’ve managed to sidetrack this great thread. I won’t have that happen anymore. If you wish to discuss this further, e-mail me. Otherwise, talk about Flash, dammit.
068 // Theron Parlin // 01.01.2007 // 10:11 PM

Reply part 1

Uh…well apparently I haven’t heard what you have because last I checked RoR was nothing more than XML/HTML/PHP/MySQL training wheels.

Wow, it’s painfully obvious that you have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m not trying to be rude, but RoR and Django are nothing of the sort. Ruby is a full-fledged programming language, so is Python. Rails and Django are rapid development MVC frameworks for those languages respectively.

Really though I don’t understand WHY you’re even trying to compare RoR to Flash…because they aren’t really even remotely in the same category. I mean if you wanted to compare RoR to PHP/MySQL/XML…okay, I might buy that…but again, what is it that RoR offers that those other options don’t…besides a more idiot friendly interface?

It was your statement somewhere in the comments above about flash being the “end all solution to web development as far as the user interface is concerned…” and your equally ignorant comments about PHP that sparked my attention and why I saw this as a debate about the future of web development and thus why I made the comparison of rails/django and ruby/python to flash and php.

But to answer your question, TONs, and as much as I would LOVE (:) to sit here and type out all the differences and benefits of ruby over php, I’ll let you go buy a book like I did and find out for yourself…. like I did.
069 // Theron Parlin // 01.01.2007 // 10:12 PM

Reply part 2

Actually one could argue that it makes it superior, although either way it’s a moot point because it doesn’t matter what the language is based upon or even really how it operates so much as WHAT IT OFFERS.

Wrong again. Another thing about flash that sucks, which I didn’t mention earlier is that there’s no standard for how one organizes their swfs, movieclips, images, buttons, actionscripts etc. So taking over someone else’s project is always a nice treat.

It DOES matter how the language operates because standards for how one organizes a project are key for legacy development, passing off projects from one dev team to another, etc, etc. But until you’ve worked in an environment where that kind of thing matters, you wouldn’t know what I’m talking about.

At this point…anything you can do in Python or RoR…I can do better in Flash/PHP/MySQL. Now maybe if you want to compare yourself to some AMATEUR (ie a clone of yourself) working with Flash/PHP/SQL…okay, then you might have a point, because as I said RoR is very much Ruby on Training Wheels and a lesser will do much better WITH training wheels than without…but then yer tryin to compare yerself to someone like me who doesn’t need training wheels…and that’s where ya fall up short, Kiddo.

This is me laughing at you. I’ve been hired by Gartner, UConn and Nerac to build flash applications—a fortune 500, a top-100 university and a leading research firm who’s been on Deloitte’s prestigious Technology Fast 50 list for the last 5 years in a row. I might be going out on a limb here, but judging by your ego meshed with your lack of knowledge about simple concepts such as MVC, I’m guessing your playing in the minor leagues. I’ve been using flash since 1999 AND I’ve been programming since 1997. So unlike you, I actually HAVE experience with C, Perl, PHP, Java, Ruby AND Flash and I actually know a thing or two about software and web development.

Can you offer up some actual links to prove this? The latest version of Flash for Linux is still beta so I suppose it’s possible that there’s ~some~ Flash 9 functionality that doesn’t work quite the same…although this is the first I’ve ever heard of it. I’m sure you’ll be able to provide us with some links to back up your claim though.

Sure, check out the audio buttons for audio reviews on Yamji.com from Linux. They work, but look horrible.

Don’t get me wrong, flash has its place in this huge sea of web development. When it comes to programming rich media web application front ends, it gets the job done. But Hatter, you have a lot to learn (not just about web technology, but apparently about social interaction as well) good luck to ya, you’ll need it.
070 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.02.2007 // 8:58 AM

Care To Keep Running At The Mouth? - Part 1/3

Wow, it’s painfully obvious that you have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m not trying to be rude, but RoR and Django are nothing of the sort. Ruby is a full-fledged programming language, so is Python. Rails and Django are rapid development MVC frameworks for those languages respectively.

Wow, it’s painfully obvious that YOU CAN’T FRELLING READ. You know, what with how I pretty much point blank said that I hadn’t heard much about RoR other than the fact that it was essentially training wheels…I mean hey, if I’m wrong, why don’t you step it up and deliver the good, Junior? I mean hells bells I churned out practically 3 or 4 freakin paragraphs worth of functionality that you can get out of Flash and the most you can do with yer Ruby on Rails and Django circle jerk is a bunch of incoherent posturing and finger pointing…tsch, tsch, tsch…do be sure and let me know when you manage to actually formulate a coherent counter argument to…anything I’ve said.

It was your statement somewhere in the comments above about flash being the “end all solution to web development as far as the user interface is concerned…” and your equally ignorant comments about PHP that sparked my attention and why I saw this as a debate about the future of web development and thus why I made the comparison of rails/django and ruby/python to flash and php.

So what you’re really saying is that it’s not that you actually know or don’t know that I’m right or wrong, it’s simply that you didn’t like the way my post was worded and so then you decided to throw a fit about it and spew out all sorts of ignorant garbage with nothing to back it up with…gotcha.

But to answer your question, TONs, and as much as I would LOVE (:) to sit here and type out all the differences and benefits of ruby over php, I’ll let you go buy a book like I did and find out for yourself…. like I did.

…right. So you have an argument but it’s an imaginary argument that you have to find in…some magical book apparently…which you don’t quite seem to remember the name of and…huh…you know, maybe…just maybe mind you…you’re simply full of sh-t. shrugs

Seems to be the most logical explanation for your lack of a counter argument. I mean it’s not like you saw me yammering on about Flash being the be all and end all of web development and then simply saying, “Go buy a book, hur, hur, you is teh dumba.” Face it Junior…yer a poser, some dribbling little college flunkie whose running at the mouth and now ya can’t back any of it up so yer startin to backpedal.
071 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.02.2007 // 8:58 AM

Care To Keep Running At The Mouth? - Part 2/3

Wrong again. Another thing about flash that sucks, which I didn’t mention earlier is that there’s no standard for how one organizes their swfs, movieclips, images, buttons, actionscripts etc. So taking over someone else’s project is always a nice treat.

Actually there are a whole variety of specific techniques as far as organization of elements. There’s a post in ADG (alt.design.graphics) between Spacey (Space Girl) and I were we talk at length about different forms of organization in Flash and which are superior in various respects. Oh hey, I’ll tell ya what, reply to my posts again with a bunch of backpedalling nonsense and fit throwing and I’ll go ahead and repost some of that discussion here, just to further humiliate your failed “arguments”. ^_^

It DOES matter how the language operates because standards for how one organizes a project are key for legacy development, passing off projects from one dev team to another, etc, etc. But until you’ve worked in an environment where that kind of thing matters, you wouldn’t know what I’m talking about.

…actually I have. See normally I’m the guy who eventually REPLACES an ENTIRE dev team. You see, for those who aren’t posers (you being a poser), it requires SO very little effort to take someone else’s work, no matter what the form and either rebuild it from scratch and master it’s form in less than a day. I always find it so funny how lessers like you WHINE about having to take on OTHER peoples work and how it’s SO complicated for you…he, he, he…perhaps if you ACTUALLY understood what it is you’re doing you wouldn’t have such a hard time adapting.

This is me laughing at you. I’ve been hired by Gartner, UConn and Nerac to build flash applications—a fortune 500, a top-100 university and a lesnip - senseless ego stroking

Unlike you I’ve actually posted links to my work…where as you…well you run at the mouth real good, don’tcha kiddo? And btw, a lot of high end companies hire a lot of useless, unimaginative dribbling little nobodies like yourself to do all sorts of meaningless, simplistic, monkey like tasks. I’m sure you have a LOT of experience molesting the default transition effects in Adobe/Macromedia Flash…but that certainly doesn’t mean that you actually understand the tool at all.

Here’s a site of mine that makes use of the color matrix class and pixel level manipulation of externally loaded image files: http://www.backwater-productions.net/RMXP_CSG/

Okay, your turn, Mouth. Let’s see you step it up with a Flash app/site that can do better than that. Oh and uh, just to warn ya, I’m only gettin warmed up. ^_^

LOL, yer so deficient I bet you can’t even achieve PHP connectivity in a Flash app/site. Oh but hey, you keep runnin at the mouth, Kiddo.
072 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.02.2007 // 9:05 AM

Care To Keep Running At The Mouth? - Part 3/3

Sure, check out the audio buttons for audio reviews on Yamji.com from Linux. They work, but look horrible.

…wow…a link that doesn’t work, how incredible…incredibly lame.

waits

waits some more

wait for FIVE MINUTES

…oh yay, it finally loaded.

looks at buttons

…huh.

looks at HTML code

…ahhh, that’s why. LOL…you really are a n00b when it comes to web development, aren’t you? Free cl00, Kiddie…that’s not a problem with Flash, that’s a problem with HTML cross operating system incompatibilities…well that and the Flash designer is a retard. He could have compensated for the HTML deficiency by using ‘quality = best’ (you have to do it WITHIN the SWF file itself, can’t be done via HTML code). He also used palette based images and then set the “Don’t Smooth” option…or rather he was an idiot and didn’t realize that if you import a palette based image that’s like the default setting (at least in SwishMax).

So, good job, Kiddo, all you’ve done is prove that you don’t know anything about Flash and you’ve supported my position about how Flash really does separate the elitists (me) from the poser class (you). ^_^

Don’t get me wrong,

…you pretty much do that all on your own, you don’t really need much help from me.

flash has its place in this huge sea of web development. When it comes to programming rich media web application front ends, it gets the job done. But Hatter, you have a lot to learn (not just about web technology,

WRONG! You on the other hand have a WHOLE

JeffCroft.com

12.17.2006 // 108 Comments // Aldrich Ct. Townhome ISO: Funny acronym for Flash revival

Comments

This entry’s tags

AuthenticJobs.com

Comments

001 // Fredrik Ohlin // 12.17.2006 // 6:54 AM

002 // Peter Bowyer // 12.17.2006 // 8:03 AM

003 // Maura // 12.17.2006 // 8:56 AM

004 // Brent O'Connor // 12.17.2006 // 9:01 AM

005 // Jeff L // 12.17.2006 // 11:50 AM

006 // Bryan Murley // 12.17.2006 // 12:28 PM

007 // Jeff Croft // 12.17.2006 // 12:30 PM

008 // Jeff Croft // 12.17.2006 // 12:34 PM

009 // Brian Ford // 12.17.2006 // 1:09 PM

010 // Chris Moritz // 12.17.2006 // 1:12 PM

011 // Ross Johnson // 12.17.2006 // 1:49 PM

012 // Jeff Croft // 12.17.2006 // 2:29 PM

013 // Oliver // 12.17.2006 // 3:01 PM

014 // Bryan Murley // 12.17.2006 // 3:08 PM

015 // Jeff Croft // 12.17.2006 // 3:29 PM

016 // Bryan Murley // 12.17.2006 // 3:59 PM

017 // Jeff Croft // 12.17.2006 // 4:35 PM

018 // Ray // 12.17.2006 // 5:23 PM

019 // Brian Ford // 12.17.2006 // 6 PM

020 // Nathan Borror // 12.17.2006 // 6:37 PM

021 // Jeff Croft // 12.17.2006 // 6:38 PM

022 // Allan White // 12.17.2006 // 7:04 PM

023 // Jeff Croft // 12.18.2006 // 2:37 AM

024 // Ray // 12.18.2006 // 4:16 AM

025 // Ross Johnson // 12.18.2006 // 7:52 AM

026 // Jeff Croft // 12.18.2006 // 9:18 AM

027 // Ray // 12.18.2006 // 10:25 AM

028 // Jeff Croft // 12.18.2006 // 10:52 AM

029 // Ray // 12.18.2006 // 10:58 AM

030 // Jeff Croft // 12.18.2006 // 11:06 AM

031 // Allan White // 12.18.2006 // 12:08 PM

032 // Ryan Berg // 12.18.2006 // 12:29 PM

033 // Kristofer Baxter // 12.18.2006 // 12:56 PM

034 // weixi // 12.18.2006 // 4:41 PM

035 // Jeff Croft // 12.18.2006 // 4:49 PM

036 // ale/pepino // 12.19.2006 // 11:03 PM

037 // Jeff Croft // 12.19.2006 // 11:28 PM

038 // Marjorie Johns // 12.20.2006 // 7:25 AM

039 // Ray // 12.20.2006 // 12:14 PM

040 // John Dowdell // 12.20.2006 // 4:08 PM

041 // Jeff Croft // 12.20.2006 // 4:12 PM

042 // Eels // 12.20.2006 // 6:02 PM

043 // Rodrigo // 12.21.2006 // 12:30 PM

044 // Benoit Chesneau // 12.21.2006 // 3:21 PM

045 // Jeff Croft // 12.21.2006 // 3:51 PM

046 // Justin Kistner // 12.22.2006 // 2:26 AM

047 // Justin Kistner // 12.22.2006 // 2:32 AM

048 // Kilian Valkhof // 12.22.2006 // 1:01 PM

049 // Kyle // 12.23.2006 // 9:48 PM

050 // Amit Patel // 12.25.2006 // 11:59 AM

051 // Jeff Croft // 12.25.2006 // 12:51 PM

052 // Theron Parlin // 12.26.2006 // 1:58 AM

053 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 12.28.2006 // 6:44 AM

054 // Onideus Mad Hatter - 2 // 12.28.2006 // 6:49 AM

055 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 12.28.2006 // 6:51 AM

056 // Jeff Croft // 12.28.2006 // 12:37 PM

057 // Jeff Croft // 12.28.2006 // 12:44 PM

058 // Theron Parlin // 12.31.2006 // 11:17 PM

059 // Jeff Croft // 01.01.2007 // 2:11 AM

060 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.01.2007 // 5:50 PM

061 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.01.2007 // 5:51 PM

062 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.01.2007 // 5:52 PM

063 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.01.2007 // 5:53 PM

064 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.01.2007 // 6:14 PM

065 // Jeff Croft // 01.01.2007 // 6:34 PM

066 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.01.2007 // 7:18 PM

067 // Jeff Croft // 01.01.2007 // 7:25 PM

068 // Theron Parlin // 01.01.2007 // 10:11 PM

069 // Theron Parlin // 01.01.2007 // 10:12 PM

070 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.02.2007 // 8:58 AM

071 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.02.2007 // 8:58 AM

072 // Onideus Mad Hatter // 01.02.2007 // 9:05 AM