Adobe Flash
30 July 2011, 03:34 PM
#31
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Now we get to the crux of the matter. You don't want to do the work.
Maybe I can help you, what is it that you feel you can't do without Flash?
Maybe I can help you, what is it that you feel you can't do without Flash?
30 July 2011, 04:49 PM
#33
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Being more specific would help but I'll have a go.
RIA or Rich Internet Application, a TLA taken straight from an Adobe presentation.
So, here's my example of a RIA that doesn't require Flash, f1 will love this one. http://chrome.angrybirds.com/
I have no idea what two way is but if you mean communication then I present you with Google Talk, it doesn't get more two way than that.
Next...
RIA or Rich Internet Application, a TLA taken straight from an Adobe presentation.
So, here's my example of a RIA that doesn't require Flash, f1 will love this one. http://chrome.angrybirds.com/
I have no idea what two way is but if you mean communication then I present you with Google Talk, it doesn't get more two way than that.
Next...
30 July 2011, 05:42 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, here's my example of a RIA that doesn't require Flash, f1 will love this one. http://chrome.angrybirds.com/
Previous
30 July 2011, 06:29 PM
#35
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
30 July 2011, 07:01 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What, someone who just wants to get a job done in the real world?
The point is Jack this is a serious discussion about genuine solutions and the best you can post as an example of what we can do if we avoid Flash is a game that doesn't work in the web's most popualr bnrowser.
I really don't care about the batlle of egos and all that crap. As a developer I just want a solution that works in every browser the way Flash used to until Apple binned it off IOS.
I don't even particularly like Flash, but it does do a job that nothing else currently seems capable of. When something else comes along that is better well then we shall all be happy, but that time patently isn't now!!
The point is Jack this is a serious discussion about genuine solutions and the best you can post as an example of what we can do if we avoid Flash is a game that doesn't work in the web's most popualr bnrowser.
I really don't care about the batlle of egos and all that crap. As a developer I just want a solution that works in every browser the way Flash used to until Apple binned it off IOS.
I don't even particularly like Flash, but it does do a job that nothing else currently seems capable of. When something else comes along that is better well then we shall all be happy, but that time patently isn't now!!
30 July 2011, 07:23 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All that aside I would ask one question of Apple and their fanboys. If Flash is so bad and not in any way the future why are Apple actively having to kill it. Surely the best thing would be to support it so the consumer of today can use curent Flash enabled websites to their full potential and let it be replaced by the natural process in the future so the consumer of tomorrow will be using the supposedly much better HTML 5 and whatever other associated replacments for Flash come along.
If this were the other way around, I'm willing to bet other software providers would get ar$ed off with the endless dominance of Flash.
As a ex software architect, i fully support Apple's chosen path and paradigm.
30 July 2011, 07:33 PM
#38
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
This conversation was going well until you attitude turned up and took it from a discussion to a name calling session.
I was asked for an example of a RIA, my example may well be a game to you but to other's it's a fine example of what can be done in a modern browser without a separate development layer. Don't look at the game, look at what it does, I'll put money it features everything and more than you will ever offer your customers or they will ask for. Just because you can't achieve these things doesn't mean that the world has to sit on it's heals.
You need to rethink your "works in every browser" argument as if I have put something like that to you you'd be the first to point out that there have always been browsers that don't run flash. Think mobile, the start of your issue.
I was asked for an example of a RIA, my example may well be a game to you but to other's it's a fine example of what can be done in a modern browser without a separate development layer. Don't look at the game, look at what it does, I'll put money it features everything and more than you will ever offer your customers or they will ask for. Just because you can't achieve these things doesn't mean that the world has to sit on it's heals.
You need to rethink your "works in every browser" argument as if I have put something like that to you you'd be the first to point out that there have always been browsers that don't run flash. Think mobile, the start of your issue.
30 July 2011, 08:45 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This conversation was going well until you attitude turned up and took it from a discussion to a name calling session.
I was asked for an example of a RIA, my example may well be a game to you but to other's it's a fine example of what can be done in a modern browser without a separate development layer. Don't look at the game, look at what it does, I'll put money it features everything and more than you will ever offer your customers or they will ask for. Just because you can't achieve these things doesn't mean that the world has to sit on it's heals.
You need to rethink your "works in every browser" argument as if I have put something like that to you you'd be the first to point out that there have always been browsers that don't run flash. Think mobile, the start of your issue.
I was asked for an example of a RIA, my example may well be a game to you but to other's it's a fine example of what can be done in a modern browser without a separate development layer. Don't look at the game, look at what it does, I'll put money it features everything and more than you will ever offer your customers or they will ask for. Just because you can't achieve these things doesn't mean that the world has to sit on it's heals.
You need to rethink your "works in every browser" argument as if I have put something like that to you you'd be the first to point out that there have always been browsers that don't run flash. Think mobile, the start of your issue.
Your example is flawed as like it or not (and I don't) IE8 is the most popular browser on the web and your example doesn't run in it. As a business solution it could not work.
What you don't get is the difference between your Utiopia and the real world. In the real world where most of just use a computer rather than get all worked up over it we just want to go to a website and use it, not have to worry which browser we are using or what platform we are on.
If you cannot grasp that for certain applications Flash could do that until Apple's decision and now nothing can and the fact that the consumer is now worse off then I pity you.
As for your assertion about name calling the only insults on this trhead today have been from you e.g.. the adults comment or my being unable to achieve something. The fact is you 'bully' your opinion onto these threads and like all bullies don't like it when you get called hence this is your typical reaction.
I asked a simple question and you chose to try and answer it and failed. Sorry if that pissies in your chips, but that is the fact of the matter.
30 July 2011, 08:46 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What don't you get about the fact that Apple do not want an addition uncontrolled development layer on top of their OS?! Like it or not, apple have a vision of how they want us to use their products and screw money from us. if we don't like it, we don't have to use them.
If this were the other way around, I'm willing to bet other software providers would get ar$ed off with the endless dominance of Flash.
As a ex software architect, i fully support Apple's chosen path and paradigm.
If this were the other way around, I'm willing to bet other software providers would get ar$ed off with the endless dominance of Flash.
As a ex software architect, i fully support Apple's chosen path and paradigm.
30 July 2011, 09:28 PM
#41
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
What you fail to grasp is that it's not my choice, I'm just going with the inevitable, you're fighting the facts and making yourself look silly doing so. Face the facts, mobile operating systems in use today don't run Flash, even the ones that claim to, your idea that everything "just worked" in the past is a fallacy.
30 July 2011, 09:46 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you fail to grasp is that it's not my choice, I'm just going with the inevitable, you're fighting the facts and making yourself look silly doing so. Face the facts, mobile operating systems in use today don't run Flash, even the ones that claim to, your idea that everything "just worked" in the past is a fallacy.
Apple's pettiness over this is hurtng the consumer right now - that is fact!
30 July 2011, 10:27 PM
#43
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Wrong again. Ask an iPhone or iPad user or the majority of Android users what they'd like from their device and I can assure you Flash isn't on the list. For the majority of people Flash provides nothing more than adverts, and we can all live without those.
30 July 2011, 10:30 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
of all the sites i visit, i think the only flash on them is the uploader for flickr. even then iPad and iPhone have dedicated apps.
i wouldn't miss flash if it disappeared overnight.
i wouldn't miss flash if it disappeared overnight.
30 July 2011, 10:56 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They just want to use the web and when something doesn't work it pisses them off.
They don't know whether the site they have just been to uses Flash or not, they are just using their device to do what they want to do on the web or trying to.
30 July 2011, 10:59 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing is a lot of sites still use it and just because you don't visit them doesn't make the argument any less valid. Even the BBC (one of the most visited websites in the world) use Flash on their site for goodness sake.
31 July 2011, 11:08 AM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flash is a tool (a hidden tool at that), nothing more, to the 'man in the street. He just wants to be able to surf the web, send emails, etc etc. If flash is needed to do some of that, he doesn't give a t055, he just wants it to work. All this IT b*llux about bloat, security, yadda yadda is just that, b*llux. It should just work and it seems to me that a lot of people/companies don't pay that simple little fact enough attention in their desire to get one-up on their competition.
Dave
Dave
I probably sounded a bit like you about 15+ years ago. Worked for a large (then) Unix computer vendor and spouted the corporate marketing BS versus the competition. Even believed some of it. But when you step back and think about things a bit you realise that a PC is just a tool and it should just "work", as I said above. If Flash means that it does just that then fine. But if lack of support for Flash means I can't do my job/get the information I need to make a purchase then someone will get the blame. In this case, Apple. Their arguments mean b*g all to the man in the street who just wants things to work.
Dave
31 July 2011, 12:09 PM
#48
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Thing is Dave I just want the web to work, I don't want to have to install something just so that I can see interactive adverts and menus with flames in them, I don't want the battery drain, security issues and something else to update. I don't think that's too much to ask.
Thankfully reliance on Flash is waining, we can thank mobile browsing for that. Install something like Click to Flash and you'll see just how much dross Flash used for and how little actual content it's needed for.
What I don't understand is why anyone other than a Flash developer/salesman would defend it's use in modern browsers.
Thankfully reliance on Flash is waining, we can thank mobile browsing for that. Install something like Click to Flash and you'll see just how much dross Flash used for and how little actual content it's needed for.
What I don't understand is why anyone other than a Flash developer/salesman would defend it's use in modern browsers.
01 August 2011, 02:41 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gloucestershire, home of the lawnmower.
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edge gives you some basic animation and transitions help for images/text. Basically does what the earliest version of Flash did (when it was Macromedia, say around 10-12 years ago). It's not bad, but of course the output only works in certain browsers right now.
Problem with this (and HTML5 generally) is how bloaty it is. A simple text animation with a few logos, as you would use for say an advert, can easily exceed 2Mb. The Flash version would be about 85-105kb.
So yes, you may be able to do the same advert in HTML5 instead of Flash, but like for like, it'll be huge compared to Flash.
Not a biggy in the normal world, but as we go more mobile, every kb counts. And instead of a single .swf file you need to download multiple images/assets/js/html files, also not good for mobile usage (HTTP standard calls for maximum of only 2 open connections per domain).
Basically, a nice start for a tool to help those who want to do animations using HTML5 and leverage what Canvas can achieve but a long way to go.
Cheers
Ian
Problem with this (and HTML5 generally) is how bloaty it is. A simple text animation with a few logos, as you would use for say an advert, can easily exceed 2Mb. The Flash version would be about 85-105kb.
So yes, you may be able to do the same advert in HTML5 instead of Flash, but like for like, it'll be huge compared to Flash.
Not a biggy in the normal world, but as we go more mobile, every kb counts. And instead of a single .swf file you need to download multiple images/assets/js/html files, also not good for mobile usage (HTTP standard calls for maximum of only 2 open connections per domain).
Basically, a nice start for a tool to help those who want to do animations using HTML5 and leverage what Canvas can achieve but a long way to go.
Cheers
Ian
01 August 2011, 05:40 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gloucestershire, home of the lawnmower.
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack,
I like the AngryBirds, works well on my Mac, not on my PCs though.
But that isn't a good example of an RIA, its an example of game that uses simple graphics and events, not much of a step up from banner adverts.
By two-way, I don't think we are talking about Google Talk here. We are talking RESTful calls via HTTP, real time data feeds via AMF, SOAP calls and a multitude of other ways to communicate via Flash that HTML5 simply doesn't support.
I like the AngryBirds, works well on my Mac, not on my PCs though.
But that isn't a good example of an RIA, its an example of game that uses simple graphics and events, not much of a step up from banner adverts.
By two-way, I don't think we are talking about Google Talk here. We are talking RESTful calls via HTTP, real time data feeds via AMF, SOAP calls and a multitude of other ways to communicate via Flash that HTML5 simply doesn't support.
02 August 2011, 10:36 AM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gloucestershire, home of the lawnmower.
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Facebook and Google+ are social media sites but not really RIAs.
I'll be honest, I always find it difficult to explain exactly what an RIA is without examples, so I understand why others would struggle with the concept.
Basically think of two types of site, old school websites like Facebook and RIAs. RIAs give the user a lot more functions/widgets/controls. I.e. think of a full blown desktop application but runs within a browser using Flash as it's runtime.
A very simple but powerful example of an RIA would be: http://www.dasplankton.de/ContrastA/ (obviously requires Flash).
It is a simple application that allows you to design colour palettes that are good to look at but also colour blind safe. Its a useful straightforward tool that does the job perfectly and fast. I use it almost every day. You can (as with many RIAs that run in a browser) also download it as an AIR application that runs on your desktop itself and uses the AIR runtime (offline Flash basically). AIR gives you a little more access to the machine its on, i.e. local (but controlled) file access.
Cheers
Ian
I'll be honest, I always find it difficult to explain exactly what an RIA is without examples, so I understand why others would struggle with the concept.
Basically think of two types of site, old school websites like Facebook and RIAs. RIAs give the user a lot more functions/widgets/controls. I.e. think of a full blown desktop application but runs within a browser using Flash as it's runtime.
A very simple but powerful example of an RIA would be: http://www.dasplankton.de/ContrastA/ (obviously requires Flash).
It is a simple application that allows you to design colour palettes that are good to look at but also colour blind safe. Its a useful straightforward tool that does the job perfectly and fast. I use it almost every day. You can (as with many RIAs that run in a browser) also download it as an AIR application that runs on your desktop itself and uses the AIR runtime (offline Flash basically). AIR gives you a little more access to the machine its on, i.e. local (but controlled) file access.
Cheers
Ian
02 August 2011, 11:19 AM
#54
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Nice example Ian, cheers.
I've had a dig around and liked this article, pretty reasoned http://active.tutsplus.com/articles/...ave-their-say/
Quite liked this one too http://blogs.forbes.com/fredcavazza/...s-a-non-sense/
And this is amusing and kind of sums up this thread http://youtu.be/sQ-vlJv2dWE
I've had a dig around and liked this article, pretty reasoned http://active.tutsplus.com/articles/...ave-their-say/
Quite liked this one too http://blogs.forbes.com/fredcavazza/...s-a-non-sense/
And this is amusing and kind of sums up this thread http://youtu.be/sQ-vlJv2dWE
02 August 2011, 11:56 AM
#55
Scooby Regular
social media sites of this level, and well.. most web applications these days are built on MVC frameworks, whether an existing like that of Zend, or in google+ and facebooks instance it will most likely be a bespoke framework system used internally.
Google+ however is a java platform, this is why its so quick and allows the asynchronous calls to performs so easily. This is where facebook is let down, not only is it an old application that must have been refactored thousands of times but it runs in php, a serverside only script. The only way to perform the asynchronous calls is via JS (AJAX), and even then to try and speed it all up they use a piece of their own software which converts the application in C++ to then be compiled and run.
This is why Google+ WILL takeover facebook when the time is ready. Flash applications are RIA's but none of the social networks sit on this type of background. They are essentially large pieces of software, performing multiple API calls at all times to various environment haddlers this allows the application to have a high bearing of load. Basically creates the scaleability required. Flash could never fully work in this kind of envrironment, nor would you ever want to as flash is complete ****e, have used flash a few times when was necessary by the client, but would never opt for it, and even tried to convince the client NOT to go the flash route - everything that can be done in flash can also be done using CSS3 properties and HTML5, or even the introduction of AJAX or jQuery libaries hence its redundancy these days - flash is also very greedy in terms of memory (locally) and too much of one thing can cause browsers to crash (most likely browser to struggle will of course be IE, but also firefox has memory leaks so can struggle as i often have issues with JS in this instance).
Personally I think any web app that requires a local resource (flash) is something that should NEVER be done, at the end of the day a website exists to grab end-users, a large majority of individuals will NOT download flash if they dont already have it (or not have the option / apple), so is and instant put off, jQuery/JS/CSS3/HTML5 options prevent this providing you have an up-to-date browser (webkit etc) which 9/10 people have in todays day.
Google+ however is a java platform, this is why its so quick and allows the asynchronous calls to performs so easily. This is where facebook is let down, not only is it an old application that must have been refactored thousands of times but it runs in php, a serverside only script. The only way to perform the asynchronous calls is via JS (AJAX), and even then to try and speed it all up they use a piece of their own software which converts the application in C++ to then be compiled and run.
This is why Google+ WILL takeover facebook when the time is ready. Flash applications are RIA's but none of the social networks sit on this type of background. They are essentially large pieces of software, performing multiple API calls at all times to various environment haddlers this allows the application to have a high bearing of load. Basically creates the scaleability required. Flash could never fully work in this kind of envrironment, nor would you ever want to as flash is complete ****e, have used flash a few times when was necessary by the client, but would never opt for it, and even tried to convince the client NOT to go the flash route - everything that can be done in flash can also be done using CSS3 properties and HTML5, or even the introduction of AJAX or jQuery libaries hence its redundancy these days - flash is also very greedy in terms of memory (locally) and too much of one thing can cause browsers to crash (most likely browser to struggle will of course be IE, but also firefox has memory leaks so can struggle as i often have issues with JS in this instance).
Personally I think any web app that requires a local resource (flash) is something that should NEVER be done, at the end of the day a website exists to grab end-users, a large majority of individuals will NOT download flash if they dont already have it (or not have the option / apple), so is and instant put off, jQuery/JS/CSS3/HTML5 options prevent this providing you have an up-to-date browser (webkit etc) which 9/10 people have in todays day.
02 August 2011, 02:06 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gloucestershire, home of the lawnmower.
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I think any web app that requires a local resource (flash) is something that should NEVER be done, at the end of the day a website exists to grab end-users, a large majority of individuals will NOT download flash if they dont already have it (or not have the option / apple), so is and instant put off, jQuery/JS/CSS3/HTML5 options prevent this providing you have
Again, wrong. Or maybe slightly less wrong if you only include Smartphone users. But still wrong.
02 August 2011, 02:16 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Not at all. Most of the actual applications I build in Flash replace older HTML/JS applications and are much smaller it total footprint and also give much more interactivity and functionality. Several only make one call to a server side system, they don't have to be intensive.
What has a client-side application got to do with scaleability? In 99.999% of cases, scaleability is server side. Flash applications do work in this environment, I've been doing it for years without problems as have many other people. You also say you've used it a few times? Is that to say that you don't actually have a lot of experience with Flash/Flex?
again i'm talking relatively - so not wrong at all - the only market where you will see a low useage of webkit browsers is corporate which commonally still incist on using browsers like IE6/7 or just IE in general - only then do you have to worry about using webkit/moz. but far from wrong, I have been involved in many many many research situ's with large partners checking these very details, so let me assure you this is the truth.
Last edited by simonchapman1986; 02 August 2011 at 02:18 PM.
02 August 2011, 03:08 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gloucestershire, home of the lawnmower.
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No arguing with your logic there, well, no understanding your logic either.
This thread is (was) about Flash. You think it is s****, not really done much with it, steer clients away from it but obviously know everything there is to know about Flash. But you continue to insist that client-side HTML5 type technologies can do everything that Flash can do. I'm sorry, you are wrong with a capital W.
If you have "been involved in many many many research situ's" checking all the details of who uses Webkit browsers and who don't maybe you could tell us how you arrived at 9/10 when most agreed stats make it more like 3/10? Sure take corporate users out of it and the ratio climbs a little but still not 9/10. And why would you design sites that only non-corporate users and also only those with Webkit browsers can use? (unless you're niche market). That would be dumb.
This thread is (was) about Flash. You think it is s****, not really done much with it, steer clients away from it but obviously know everything there is to know about Flash. But you continue to insist that client-side HTML5 type technologies can do everything that Flash can do. I'm sorry, you are wrong with a capital W.
If you have "been involved in many many many research situ's" checking all the details of who uses Webkit browsers and who don't maybe you could tell us how you arrived at 9/10 when most agreed stats make it more like 3/10? Sure take corporate users out of it and the ratio climbs a little but still not 9/10. And why would you design sites that only non-corporate users and also only those with Webkit browsers can use? (unless you're niche market). That would be dumb.