When to use flash

[evride]

I know in the past its been said to not use flash when it's not needed, but has that changed recently? I'm saying this because I'd much rather build sites in Flash than HTML. i have a better knowledge of Flash. I always combine full flash pages with a PHP/MYSQL backend and try to optimize the flash as much as possible to make it seem that flash isn't even there.

[Paul Ferrie]

I have always preferred to use flash over html.:)
i would go as far as to say that i have quoted more for html work than i would have for the same job in flash.

[mattkenefick]

Well, for one thing, Flash is just another pipeline you have to send data through.

If you don't use it, you can send the data straight to the page. If you use Flash, you're sending it to the page then back to Flash. It also means it's another pipeline you have to secure if you're using sensitive information. Then again, sensitive information should never be used with Flash really.

Also, since Flash can be so easily decompiled, don't put anything up that you don't want someone else to have.

It is extremely popular and very fast so there isn't really an issue of "what if users don't have it" anymore.

A good thing about it is that its the same in every browser. A Flash file is a Flash file.. where as HTML/CSS changes from Safari / Opera / Firefox / IE 6 / IE 7.. javascript compatibility issues.. cookies.. etc..

A bad thing is that it might be computer intensive and really lag on some people's computers depending on your code and animations.


There's a lot of pros and cons, you just have to weigh them in the project you're doing and see what is the better choice.


It would obviously be stupid for Bank of America to do their new website in Flash..
but it wouldn't be so bad to see Sony or Dreamworks come out with a fancy new Flash site.

[evride]

i like the cross-browser compatibility. i hate trying to get javascript to work in all browsers. but about stealing actionscript... I really don't care. If people ask what the code was I'd tell them. I know theres security risks with people taking actionscript but if it needs to be secure than I could just get an actionscript obfuscator. they work don't they? sorry going off subject a little with that question.

[mattkenefick]

i like the cross-browser compatibility. i hate trying to get javascript to work in all browsers. but about stealing actionscript... I really don't care. If people ask what the code was I'd tell them. I know theres security risks with people taking actionscript but if it needs to be secure than I could just get an actionscript obfuscator. they work don't they? sorry going off subject a little with that question.

They're not 100%. They can be cracked.

It's like an anti-virus. McAfee will work , until someone releases something new or finds a workaround.

Then McAfee makes version 2.


Those damn companies release half the viruses out there just so they can make more versions and force people to keep paying. Jerks.

[Cota]

Exactly that, Flash is flash. No real worries about cross browser this and that. No need to get into the FF -vs- IE battle. And its a HUGE F-U to the w3C, whom I hate with every fiber of my being.

[evride]

haha, whats wrong with the w3c?

[CyanBlue]

We hate everything that are abbreviated... ;)

I'd use whatever is easiest/fastest for me to create if the spec does not specify what technology to use... For example, if I need to create a simple drop down menu that opens up a new page, I'd simply do that with the Flash because I do that whole lot faster than I do that with the HTML/JavaScript and the look is not much different either...

[Cota]

haha, whats wrong with the w3c?

Every loves to jump on the "I hate micro$oft" bandwagon. They claim that micro$oft forces them into technologies and methods that arent fair.....well guess what people, the W3C do the exact same thing. Look how long it took them to recognize Flash as a valid web technology..they used to be avid haters of Flash. But toss them a few $$$$ and they become supporters. The W3C is just as corrupt and shadey as M$.

And I really do hate those abbreviations.

[jsebrech]

The W3C is heavily steered by the mobile, accessibility and semantic web communities. They are very consistent within these views. They've rejected flash because it wasn't mobile, wasn't accessible, and wasn't semantic. It basically did nothing that they think a web technology should do, so they didn't consider it a web technology. They didn't hate flash, they hated how it was used (and still do).

Corruption has very little to do with it (aside from the mobile community having bought their way in, but that's not reflected heavily in the anti-flash bias).

What they have paid little attention to is extending abilities for building web applications on the regular desktop for regular people, aka the majority use-case of web technologies. And this is why people who only build apps for this majority think the W3C is irrelevant.

Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle. Flash is indeed abused in ways it shouldn't be, but it allows things that regular web technologies don't allow. I disagree however with the notion that you should build your site navigation in flash. Flash-based navigation I can't open on my cellphone in opera mini, so they aren't part of the web, only of the desktop web. It's not even about making it accessible for the blind, it's about making sure it stays accessible when your users move to different platforms. A particularly incriminating example is the flash-based site of my cell phone company, that I can't navigate from my cell phone, that I bought from them. The people who built that site are amateurs in my mind, regardless of how fancy their flash skills are.

[evride]

well, thanks for all your insight on this. i don't follow the w3c, so i never know whats going on. thanks for giving me a little background on them. i can see why people would hate flash. ameteurs give it a pretty bad rep. but i think if you use it with swfObject, add back button support, make it really dynamic, and make sure its seo'd i think it be better than HTML.

i'm sorry 'nother question. does anyone really use their cell phone for web? i mean, no one i know goes on the web with their cell phone. it costs way too much and its just lame.

[Noct]

Well, I sure don't, and I don't assume there are a large number of people just casually surfing the net on mobile devices in the US/UK, but I wouldn't be surprised if say Japan or Korea had a much larger mobile internet base.

Overall, I would think information service sites would mainly be the ones focusing on mobile devices, places where you can check movie reviews/show-times, get driving directions, buy plane tickets, etc...
Those types of websites should absolutely be created with mobile devices in mind. And as jsebrech mentioned, the companies creating these devices absolutely have to create mobile accessible sites, or at least alternate versions of them, it is just ridiculous of them not to.

Personally, I would love to see all the mobile devices bend to meet the current net then vice versa, but apparently that is not going to be the push...

The funny thing here to me is that when I started using Flash professionally in the 90s, there was two main arguments I used to hear:
The average person can't update a Flash site with new content, and that asking people to download a plug-in would be too frightening for the average user.
Flash overcame those limitations and now we have to worry about whether or not people can view the site on their phone...

[mattkenefick]

I think using your phone to go on the web is stupid. I admit I have, but only to get directions somewhere. I understand getting directions, or looking up a phone number, or anything 411 related like that.. but to just surf the web or go on forums is stupid IMO.

Maybe we should just forget Flash exists and just use Web2.0 technologies. I mean, if Apple doesn't support Flash on their phone, it must not be good.

Or wait a minute.. Since the iPhone is touch screen, why doesn't that just act like a mouse where you click the flash wherever you touch. You'll lack a keyboard but you can use a mouse.

[CyanBlue]

Well... If you live in a country where pretty much everything is done via mobile phone, you don't really have a choice but to follow others... and people tends to use something more cool if that is the case...

I have left Korea before all that mobile jazz started, so I am not really sure what's going on thesedays, but there are 'many' people who changes their phone when the 'new' phone comes out to the market, and the 'new' phone usually has the 'new' features and Flash is simply one of many... and once you have that in your hand, you are bound to use it... ;)

[Noct]

The best part about that is that one of Apple's marketing ploys for iPhone was that it offered the "real" internet, and not some dumbed down mobile version of it... Blah! Yeah, the real internet, without Flash, Shockwave, Java, Embedded Quicktime, Real Player, or PDF. But hey, if you want to watch that video of a dog on a skateboard, you are all set!
(I also heard that you can't dl music from iTunes with it, which amazes me if that’s true...)

So, I revert back to my original statement, if you want to convert info-service sites to be mobile friendly, that makes perfect sense, but I hope we aren't going to see any kind of push to make sites iPhone-accessible, that would be nauseating...

@CyanBlue,
Isn't it true that most people in Korea have high-speed internet connections in thier homes? I would think that it would make even less Koreans want to surf the net on slower mobile devices without half of the features of a desktop, no?

[CyanBlue]

I cannot give you the real data, but I think the connection speed in Korea in general is whole lot faster than the stinky cable/dsl service we currently get...
Yes, I'd use home computer to surf the net, but there are times when you just don't have an access to such equipment... The next best thing in that case would be the mobile service which is also quite fast... I heard that you can watch TV in real time these days... So, I'd assume that is fast...

On top of that, lots of people are encouraging the mobile use... For example, if you are in a concert or some entertainiment case, the people are asked to vote for the best singer via their phone because it's safe to assume that majority of people has the mobile phone... It would not surprise me that they'd add Flash content in it in that case... But it's only speculation cuz I've never had such experience myself... I only watch news from time to time... ;)

[thebeatsuite]

Personally I prefer my webpages in HTML, they're just more useable to the end user in my opinion

[mattkenefick]

I cannot give you the real data, but I think the connection speed in Korea in general is whole lot faster than the stinky cable/dsl service we currently get...
Yes, I'd use home computer to surf the net, but there are times when you just don't have an access to such equipment... The next best thing in that case would be the mobile service which is also quite fast... I heard that you can watch TV in real time these days... So, I'd assume that is fast...

Stinky Cable? Speak for yourself.. My standard cable gets 2mbps down and 1.5 up. The cable, phone, and tv is only $100 a month. We get good cable here.

I'm not complaining.

[Assertnfailure]

I think alot of phones in the Asias already supports Flash player 8 (no flash-lite nonsense).

[CyanBlue]

Well... I've been using lots of different modem/cable connections and I think there are whole lot more room to go, but somehow US is not really going any faster than it should be... I personally think it has to do with less competition plus too many legal restrictions which is why I was mentioning 'stinky' part...
Don't know how accurate this one is, but check this page out...
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070529-survey-average-broadband-speed-in-us-is-1-9mbps.html

[Noct]

Stinky Cable? Speak for yourself.. My standard cable gets 2mbps down and 1.5 up. The cable, phone, and tv is only $100 a month. We get good cable here.
I'm not complaining.
It's all relative man, upstate I pay almost $150 a month for VOIP, Cable internet, and digital cable. Granted, I have a HD package, but that only tacks on like $6 a month or something...

As for speed, RoadRunner claims I get a maximum of 5 Mbps/384 Kpbs down, but my usenet reader says I'm getting speeds between 550-650kpbs with three threads DLing. So, I'm not really sure of what to make of that to be honest with you...
But regardless, we live in NY man, I'm sure the midwest does not have the speed/options we do here.

Either way, versus what I hear they have in Asia, thats nothing... I read an article a few months ago that said the Korean government actually spent many millions building some insane backbone for high speed net there though. That's what my point was earlier about being surprised Korean's would want to use their phones for the net, I assumed it was much slower, but I could be wrong...

And wow CyanBlue, that article was amazing.
Even if those numbers aren't totally right, I am blown away...
I knew Korea and Japan were faster, but I had no idea they were ten times faster... Now I just have to learn Japanese and convince the wife to move.

[evride]

ya, the US really lags behind on data speeds. it's because of several reasons
the US is sparsely populated compared to South Korea and Japan
the government doesn't pay trillions for a fiber optic network
you have the big telecom companies who are happy with you paying $30 a month for slow internet.
the US still doesn't even have cell phone towers in all areas and in some remote areas there aren't even phone lines

[mattkenefick]

well..

The US has a lot more square footage than Japan and Korea aswell..

So for them to fiberoptic their entire country is like us fiberopticing half of our East coast which I'm sure we could easily do.

But then what? "Wah wah how come the east coast gets 60mpbs downloads! :("

And a lot of it is probably also so they can wrench out as much money by spending the least amount as they can. If they spend tons in installing everything and offering it, but get paid the same amount, what was it worth?

It's the same reason of why we don't just make kickass cars. Our "new fancy" cars have all the same things cars 15 years ago could've had.

My 11 year old BMW has the same features as these new Ford Tauruses or what not. If they just jump and add all the features overnight, they lose all the sales from in between.

[CyanBlue]

Yup... You are absolutely correct... It all goes to how much you can make out of the smallest investment... That's the main principal of running a business... No doubt about that... But it is not just the telecommunication industry alone... If the investment was made in the country level, which is whole lot easier in Korea or Japan, lot more industries can grow together...
At any rate. I sure want to enjoy whole lot faster connection speed... Not sure when it will happen though...