Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I don't want Flash to die (and you shouldn't either)

waxpraxis.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: Why I don't want Flash to die (and you shouldn't either)

#61

Post by jasonlotito »

there wrote: post #37
waxpraxis wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some browsers can do all of those things - but you've still only scratched the surface of what Flash can do TODAY with 98% penetration. As for webcam support, some people feel that HTML 5 as a spec will be fully out there and usable by 2022. I wonder when enough browser makers will start on their PROPRIETARY webcam interfaces? Do you think Flash will stand still in that time? Suddenly jump from 98% to 0%?

it will "stand" just as java applets "stand" today. it will still be supported, but it will be seen as a clunky alternative to open technologies that are supported on a wider variety of devices, many of which won't have flash support for any number of reasons. i say this as a user with three major devices (computer, phone, and tablet) that have no flash support, and am happy to see the proliferation of more open tech…

Which Linux tablet do you have? I was tempted by the iPad, but if there is a good Linux one, you got me. Also, does it sync with, what I assume is, your Android?

Re: Why I don't want Flash to die (and you shouldn't either)

#62

Post by waxpraxis »

daleharvey wrote: post #55
waxpraxis wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "small definitions of better"? Can you do a cartoon with synchronized sound with HTML5? Better is a matter of "does it work for enough of your audience that it makes sense to build it". If you know your audience and can push the technology, by all means go for it! GitHub has exactly that audience. They aren't idiots for going with canvas - for them it's a savvy move. But the Flash option is still…

my point was similiar to you last one, while html is catching up with video / audio / animation, flash is still miles behind html in terms of a lot of basic features, accessibility, adoption, easy of introspection, reliability, performance, I am wary of "html is catching up with flash" arguments because as you said its all situational.

Ah certainly. They are all tools - you use the correct tool for the situation. For entertainment purposes I would want to make sure Flash was in my tool belt.

Re: Why I don't want Flash to die (and you shouldn't either)

#63

Post by dalore »

bphogan wrote: post #51
dalore wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* A Flash app is trying to be an app so sometimes persistent URLs are useless. That said there are time you want one and Flash can do that, it's up to the programmer, don't blame the technology, the feature is there. * Adobe have a whole section on how to make your application accessible http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/ * Flash the format is an open standard, In June 2009, Adobe launched the Open Screen Project, w…

People who say that Flash is accessible aren't visually impaired. I am. I have not once seen a Flash application that works well enough to be useful in any screenreader I've used. I have been following Adobe's accessibility efforts for years. HTML5 + JS + ARIA works better now than Flash ever has. It's fine to make Flash games that don't work with screenreaders. But not websites. And it's not fine to claim that somet…

Yes I agree, a whole website should not be done in flash. Web applications on the other hand are a different story.

Re: Why I don't want Flash to die (and you shouldn't either)

#65

Post by ableal »

waxpraxis wrote: post #50
ableal wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, I know how to do that too. Actually I do a lot of reading on a browser with javascript and images off (Konqueror has a convenient 'load images' button, but CSS still sneaks in an occasional annoyance). Firefox without Flash does OK for me now, for the rest of the stuff that needs javascript and images. I doubt it will be possible to tune it properly (short of hosts file munging) if all Flash migrates to HTML5…

This is going to be a very interesting debate moving forward. Flash has shown what happens if you let all elements of a page have the same rights to resources - and Adobe is working on ways of dealing with the issue. Now HTML5 is going to have to deal with the problem and they we'll have to wait until browsers make their own implementation of a solution that will probably be similar to Adobe's eventual solution.

Yes, good point. Probably by this time next year the top story here will be talking about the problem. Ah, well. I'm getting off lightly - as someone put it, Cassandra didn't get half the kicks she deserved ...

Re: Why I don't want Flash to die (and you shouldn't either)

#66

Post by weixiyen »

waxpraxis wrote: post #48
weixiyen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But Flash is much more than just video. But video is what makes Flash considered 'necessary' for most consumers. The two are almost synonymous so if Google goes through with it, it will be the beginning of the end for Flash.

Ah, but why then was Flash at the same kind of penetration #s prior to Flash supporting video (Flash 6)? Also, as I mentioned in my post not all video is meant to be in a little rectangle on the page.

> but why then was Flash at the same kind of penetration #s prior to Flash supporting video (Flash 6)?

Back then, it was animation / interaction. Flash took advantage of a lack of standards across browsers as people were afraid to use javascript extensively. That time has passed.

Right now, Flash lives because of video. The animation necessity has mostly been replaced.

Assuming Google releases VP8, then your only argument left is that either:

1) Flash does video better (by a little)

2) Flash will find the next big thing to keep it alive.

I do not find (1) a compelling argument to use Flash for video on most sites. In fact, the irony is that Flash may be kept alive for backwards browser compatibility.

Until I know what (2) is - concrete examples please - I'm not willing to put any confidence just b/c Flash prevailed in the past. It is too small a sample size to put so much confidence in.

*formatting

Re: Why I don't want Flash to die (and you shouldn't either)

#67

Post by there »

jasonlotito wrote: post #61
there wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it will "stand" just as java applets "stand" today. it will still be supported, but it will be seen as a clunky alternative to open technologies that are supported on a wider variety of devices, many of which won't have flash support for any number of reasons. i say this as a user with three major devices (computer, phone, and tablet) that have no flash support, and am happy to see the proliferation of more open tech…

Which Linux tablet do you have? I was tempted by the iPad, but if there is a good Linux one, you got me. Also, does it sync with, what I assume is, your Android?

none, i have an openbsd laptop, an android phone, and an apple ipad.

Re: Why I don't want Flash to die (and you shouldn't either)

#68

Post by jasonlotito »

there wrote: post #67
jasonlotito wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which Linux tablet do you have? I was tempted by the iPad, but if there is a good Linux one, you got me. Also, does it sync with, what I assume is, your Android?

none, i have an openbsd laptop, an android phone, and an apple ipad.

Oh, so you do prefer proprietary over open. Gotcha.

Re: Why I don't want Flash to die (and you shouldn't either)

#69

Post by tomlin »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #35

The author makes a compelling case for Flash as a vector of innovation, but he really misses the case against Flash. I haven't seen any critiques of Flash based around the idea that it's "conformist". Rather, the critiques focus on one or more of the following issues: * It breaks web standards like persistent URLs and the back button (granted, there are some workarounds) and eschews native UI elements. * It is inacce…

> * It breaks web standards like persistent URLs and the back button (granted, there are some workarounds) and eschews native UI elements.

No more or less than AJAX-driven apps and the "work-around" is the same: anchors.

Post reply on HN