121–130 of 199 posts
Well it appears that at least the linked site does need flash. If you click on features and specifications the embedded video is flash (firefox 3.6) So not quite true.
I don't understand how we've gone from "Flash is crap for entire websites" (edit: which is almost always true) to "Flash is the devil in every situation". It has its place, Javascript will never and shouldn't try and "kill" Flash, they're different.
Namely, video, and site navigation.
For other things it could be used - but you could also use HTML5 like the site in the example to do anything you'd do in Flash, and not lock out iPad, iPhone, Android users. Plus, it's open.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly are Flash and JavaScript different? I don't see the separate niches you envision these technologies occupying for the rest of their existence. And how can you say JavaScript "will never" kill Flash? Aren't Apple and JavaScript already hurting Flash's market share? Doesn't every major browser release leave less and less that Flash alone can do? Aren't we looking at an example of a major, mainstream brand a…
The thought of Apple killing flash just about makes me sick. I really don't want to be forced into paying the 50-100 percent Apple premium for hardware just because they managed to "kill" a technology everyone decided to hate for no reason.
* Silly animations are a bad idea in Powerpoint, a bad idea in Word, and a bad idea in web documents. Word seems to be the only place where most people avoid them though.
* Running a program in a web page breaks statelessness.
* Support for disabled readers will get lost.
I understand that gopher - just text and a list of links - is a little too minimalist. But the other extreme (setting up a GUI just to show a document) is worse.
I'm a little worried about losing what is to me one of the main advantages of Flash: that it can be blocked. So your all singing, all dancing website shuts the hell up and behaves like a sedate page full of text and static images. I mean, I can block JS, but it's irritating to have to. That's generally used for useful things like navigation. Flash marks something up as useless pizazz.
Maybe Adobe's next ad campaign will feature this idea: Flash is better because you can turn it off. In fact, if you turn it off, you remove 99% of all truly annoying ads on the web.
Thinking ahead, maybe we need a ClickToJS...
One should note that if you pull the site up in IE it still uses flash, which means we still need flash. Unless you're willing to say goodbye to 40% of your customers.
Graceful degradation / progressive enhancement anyone? (Btw, Raphaël supports IE6 too.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Derp. There are many applications that I cannot run on my computer because my computer isn't an apple. All of these could have been written in flash, and thus been cross-platform. Apple doesn't like flash, because they want people tied to their platform. (Obviously, I'm not talking about plain javascript here, though.) One of these days, a "must have" killer app is going to come around--that could have been written i…
What are you talking about?
This seems really, really simple to understand, but let me know if it's still confusing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Graceful degradation / progressive enhancement anyone? (Btw, Raphaël supports IE6 too.)
Both of these principles are directly responsible for IE6 still being a supported browser.