21–30 of 50 posts
What better technology? Guess who popularized AJAX?
Flash sucks. There's no real support for linux from adobe, it makes the browser heavier, it's a closed proprietary technology and it's awful for things that are not animation related.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the Google Webmaster Central Blog: "Try to use Flash only where it is needed... this makes you[r] site accessible to a larger audience, including, for example, blind people using screen readers, users of old or non-standard browsers, and those on limited low-bandwidth connections such as on a cell phone or PDA." http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/07/best-uses... I can think of a few good examples of…
> However, Flash normally seems to be used for displaying pointless, obnoxious splash screens which add no value for the user. How is that relevant to this discussion?
For practical purposes, I suspect Flash may be a pain in the ass to use on their scale. Debug, version control, localization, analytics, and more probably wouldn't play well with the rest of their platform and processes.
Also, Flash isn't supported on many wireless devices including the high-profile iPhone.
Future releases of HTML and JavsScript will handle some of what Flash does today. Perhaps it's just not necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears that AJAX cross-browser compatibility problems can be solved using infinite money. Besides video, what compelling Flash features aren't available in JS+HTML?
Flash is useful for single player, little games, that you can play in the browser without installation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears that AJAX cross-browser compatibility problems can be solved using infinite money. Besides video, what compelling Flash features aren't available in JS+HTML?
Which would be better for building a word processor or illustrator service? And even if it is not necessary (e.g., for an email service), users still like to use a more professional looking site.
It's also far from obvious that an all-flash site looks more professional than a flash-free one: if you want to make a site look tacky, just throw in some gratuitous flash or animated gifs and you're away.
Javascript works just fine thanks. With HTML5 and the video capabilities flash/silverlight will become even less relevant IMHO
because flash sucks?
Could you elaborate? Maybe it's not convenient for developers, but the result is better for users than an ad hoc mix of old web technologies that is seriously lacking in features and plagued with compatibility problems.
Here's an article from me explaining why, if you're interested.
http://informationrain.com/2007/07/25/why-i-dont-make-flash-...
In my opinion, flash should mainly be used for what it's great at....making games, some types of interactive tools, and a decent quality cross-platform video solution.
I'm surprised nobody here has mentioned what I would expect would be one of the biggest reasons: bandwidth. Considering the number of people hitting the various Google services at any given moment, adding Flash, and/or pretty images or extra CSS or fancy-pants JavaScript could induce a pretty big additional cost, and for no justifiable reason.