Anti-Flash Standardistas - You’re Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face

Great article :-)

http://www.orange-project.com/ is a great example of accessible flash

Very well put!

The reason I have a bad view on flash developers, is because the majority of them don’t know HTML, and that’s a reason why they use Flash. Flash is not supposed to be a substitute for HTML, but a rich add-on.

I sure do believe that Flash will improve much, and I think we will see more nifty things like sIFR in the comming year - so no reason to block out Flash. Good read :)

Great article. Flash is best used for rich interfaces like Flickr’s Organizr - something like that would be exceptionally hard to pull off in cross-browser JS.

RE: Matt,
I dont think ‘Flash is the Future’ - I think thats a dangerous mindset, really. Remember, it’s a tool to get the job done - not a ’savior of web design.’ Aside from the fact that most people don’t take the time to build flash properly, it will still have issues related to how people use the web.

RE: Tor
You hit the nail on the head. So many designers never want to learn HTML, so they just play in the timeline in flash. To them, thats much easier - but they haven’t got the first clue about creating QUALITY flash for a website, and when/where to use the tool. They just use it for everything.

I had a local ‘developer’ show me some flash movies he made for a client. It took over 2 minutes to download, and when it finally arrived it was less than impressive. He told me ‘the client wanted everything in the flash, so it takes a while to load’ Apparently, he has never learned how to load external movies, how to use flash with JS/AS/XML to get the job done properly. Those movies could have loaded much faster and worked much better if he built them properly, but instead - the client suffers because he doesn’t even know how to use the tool he is working with - Flash. This is not Flash’s fault, but I think so many people are still ignorant as to HOW to use the tool, that it continues to get abused.

I have always conceded that Flash does have its uses, like in music and entertainment-based sites, or as an educational tool, etc. But the amount of abuse makes Flash unappealing, not the technology behind it. I’m also tired of seeing loading screens - how tacky is that? We’re in the age of broadband, and the last thing an end user needs to see is more waiting time.

I totally think Flash is an important part of the web design future. The issue is how to leverage it using progressive enhancement in order to not lose the value of accessible development.

[…] Not having data for the positive attributes of these sites, let us examine the “negative” aspects. According to the formula, sites are penalized for having pop-ups, excessive advertising and flash. In the case of these sites, they certainly employ pop-ups (full-screen viewing windows) and flash for viewing the content, and would thus be penalized for these features. This is to say then, that even if these sites were to be perfectly accessible, secure, functional and usable, they would never reach perfection because they employ useful features that enhance the user experience and actually make the site work. Does this seem a little off? There are actually times when multimedia integration is necessary and beneficial for a site. See discussion on appropriate use of flash within websites and accessibility tips for Flash (PDF). […]

Joe,

Thanks for stopping by, mate. I too think that many Flash sites are inaccessible and the accessible ones are few and far between. But do you think that for the uses that PJ pointed out in the article (e.g. Video or audio playback) that there are ‘better’ alternatives to Flash? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Personally, I agree with PJ in that Flash isn’t the worst solution to some problems on the web - it’s just often misused.

I hate animated content and hate flash as it’s the tool used by ad freaks to distract my viewing pleasure. I acknowledge the need for Internet advertising but if it’s animated, I block it in my firewall and anti .swf software.

cKO2KC eeeerrrffddgggggggccccc

Flash programmers believe the internet is now there to be a visual medium, such as a television, and completely forget what the internet is. The fact is 99% of websites are there to provide information. This information should be immediately available to all users. When this information is not immediately available (or unavailble for longer then 20-30 seconds on a broadband connection), you have already lost the attention of users, and they will find this information elsewere.  As nearly all flash programmers say, flash is a good tool when implemented correctly, however, i have yet to see a site that has flash implemented correctly.It seems that the designer thinks about themselves more then they think about the people going to their site. Finally, why would you force people to install a program that has serious security flaws in order for them to view your site? I recently read an article dated in 2005 where a group of programmers got together and promised $300 cash to someone that could post a full flash site that is profitable… this has yet to be claimed.

I’ll echo the comments made by drew and Zak…but will try to elaborate just a little more…The Internet (as we have come to know it) was developed on open standards because the content was supposed to be accessible regardless of what computer or operating system a person was using.  Adobe has really only acknowledged two desktop computing platforms:  Microsoft Windows-based PCs and Apple Macintosh.  Flash on other computing platforms, whether supported by Adobe or not, either works poorly or not at all.If Flash, as you say, is something that we should "be devoting our energy toward making this technology more seamless throughout the browsing experience" then the proper thing would be for Adobe to establish Flash as an OPEN Internet standard and, even better, release the Flash player to the open source community.  This would allow developers all around the world to assure that the Flash player would function on just about every platform, extend its function as needed, and would also provide an open review of its security flaws so that they could be corrected.As for Flash-based content … I am sure it is debatable whether or not it is applicable in some places.  I am one of  the people who feel it is over-used.  To tell someone they can’t view any part of a web site, like a restaurant menu, unless they download the latest Flash player, is kind of dumb.  Think about it - does a restaurant menu or the front page of a web site really constitute a multimedia experience?  Does it even need to be?  For sure, YouTube is revolutionary in its own right, but it wasn’t Flash that made it possible — it was because someone happened to code the software in Flash.  They could have used Java or even developed some new software.  Content-wise, it’s important to use the most appropriate medium, and not just use something because it’s there.It’s not my call, though, whether someone wants to poorly design a web site or not — that can be done with or without Flash.  The problem that I, and others, have is that Flash has no business being as pervasive as it is without being a truly open Internet standard.  Do you want a single company to control access to your content or to specify what computer and/or operating system you can use?  I certainly don’t.

<a href="http://www.tuzcuoglutur.com.tr">evden eve nakliyat</a>:thanks for information

The main uses of Flash are:
* to set a type of cookie that most web users still haven’t gotten hip to yet
* to annoy your users and drive away your customers
* to appeal to people who are functionally illiterate

Flash
* wastes bandwidth on the Internet
* compromises your security
* requires a more powerful computer
* requires a faster Internet connection

My Solution: uninstall Flash.
That’s worked just fine for me.

If your web site requires Flash, your web site will simply be considered unusable.