Slashdot Mirror
Flash Developers Fear Spectre of Spyware
SomeGuyNamedMike writes "I realize the thought of using Flash and Actionscript is considered beneath many Slashdotters, but here's this piece, anyway: Macromedia is receiving (and answering) a a lot of flack from several blogs over its decision to package Yahoo! Toolbar with its Flash player. Will your company develop Flash content knowing Macromedia is using its runtime as its own marketing piece?"
In case it's needed.
= 53
http://www.turdhead.com.nyud.net:8090/index.php?p
http://www.hyperology.com.nyud.net:8090/?p=90
In case of Slashdotting, break mirror.
See here.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Ok... somebody get Google on the case to get us an alternative... QUICK!
Everyone today is worried about the 'Spectre of Spyware' - it's not just Flash Developers or any one group. Just about any network enabled software developed today suffers that problem. The real question is do you need to question the security of any/all software that you use/develop? And the quick answer is: Yes
But what will replace it? My little boy likes to play flash games all the time. In theory Java is better all around, but in practice it doesn't seem to run as well.
Hopefully this will allow more open technologies, like SVG to get a better hold.
It is more than time for an open source Flash player...
Anyone know of any?
http://www.diaperdevil.com/
I looked at flash and was happy to see that a flash *.swf file saved and run localy, can't do anything more then when its on the web... unless it's saved to a folder with a 'command' subfolder and batch/scripts in it for each command. Much better then an java applet saved and run locally, which can do anything.
Thanks for putting on the feedbag. Thanks for going all out. Thanks for showing me your Swiss Army knife.
flash is a big player in elearning, and there aren't a lot of tools that can be used at the skillset that many content developers have. We'll just continue, and have our clients use a specific non-ad based version. Macromedia has done a lot to extend the web for a lot of good reasons. They've had some tough times lately, and I think that they really must have struggled with this before selling out.
Flash is successful. There is no real need for Macromedia to bundle the Yahoo toolbar with it, at least not from a technical viewpoint.
Probably some Macromedia executives don't like that they just give Flash away for free. When approached by Yahoo executives who would like their toolbar installed on more computers, these Macromedia executives were happy to learn that they could generate extra revenue from Yahoo by bundling the toolbar.
Unfortunately the executives of neither company had enough insight to predict that the whole thing would blow up in their faces.
sure you can: DRM
Some guy saw that Yahoo toolbar is now being bundled with Flash by default and exploded about how that might be spyware.
Yahoo toolbar isn't a spyware application. I don't like it, but it's just an add-on app from a respectable company to help fix Microsoft's broken browser.
Spyware is a very specific word. It means software that reports back to the author with data about you.
I think a more appropriate term here would be "shovelware"... software you may not care about that gets installed just for kicks. It used to mean software that was shoveled onto a CD along with the main package, just because CDs had so much space free.
Except that I don't need to install a toolbar to visit sites hosted on an Apache server.
What's going on here? Clearly Yahoo paid a bunch of cash to Macromedia. What's the matter, Yahoo? Can't get enough people to install your software on its own merits? Have to resort to tricking people into installing your software? That's the mark of a bad product. A good product people will seek out. A bad product has to be foisted upon an unsuspecting public.
Not quite. This would be like if Apache bundled a copy of Real Player or the Google toolbar with every install.
Macromedia Flash continues to not have a 64-bit linux version.
I make sure to leave a note to all websites that use flash heavily for ads, that they did not even have a chance at getting any money due to my visit.
badness 10000
Isn't that like asking: "Will your company develop content for Firefox knowing that the Mozilla Foundation is using it as its own marketing piece?"
I don't care that Mozilla includes various related links with the browser, nor do I care that Macromedia includes other stuff either. If there's a business case for using Flash, my company will use it. Man, if people objected because of co-marketing deals, then nobody would ever develop for Windows based upon the desktop shortcuts that come with it.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
It seems Flash is going in three directions:
- Flex -- Enterprise Flash based on XML
- Central -- A way for them to use Flash to develop consumer apps
- Classic Flash
Classic Flash is completely hamstrung to prevent it from doing things like writing to your HD, communicating outside the basic arena of your own web site, etc. They are really paranoid about it becoming used for *other people's* spyware/malware.
Now, as far as Flash being spyware itself, they will go as far as the market lets them. If they, like any company, can make money through software add-ons like Yahoo!! toolbar, they will. But it seems unlikely that they will damage their reputation by overstepping, especially when the big money is potentially in Flex, etc.
your witty attack has left me useless and gasping for breath.... i shall never show my face on slashdot again....
Flash is really annoying, but there are times I don't mind it. Most band sites I visit are in Flash, and usually the site's style corresponds closely to the band's most recent album's style which is kinda cool. Green Day's site is a good example of Flash I don't hate.
But Flash ads? Flash nav-bars? Entirely Flash-based sites for products and companies? I don't think I'm alone when I say the web should stay HYPERTEXT based because that's what it is designed for. The web can be as dynamic as it wants to, and languages like php and asp are one of the best examples of the direction the web should be heading, but they're also a good example of where the web should not be heading: flashing lights, obnoxious sounds that play when you visit a site, dynamic and processor-intense media which displays over the page you want to view. So Flash is kind of on thin ice with me right now...
And now they're pulling this stunt? Sorry, but no. Good thing I never paid Macromedia for my copy of Dreamweaver...Hopefully Mozilla doesn't make me eat my words, though. I gave them money (donated) and now they're getting awfully touchy feely with Google...
www.kiwilyrics.com - a wiki for lyrics
I didn't realize that anything called "Turd Head" or a couple other bloggers constituted "a lot" or anything credible for that matter. Is there another news source for the "issue" the parent raised?
As an ex Flash using developer, the advantage Flash has over Java is the IDE. (Not that the Flash Producing program is really an IDE)
With flash you can rapidly develop graphics and then plug in a small amount of code to make it do "clever things". This means a designer (of the graphic type) can build games etc.
On the flip side with Java you have to actually know how to code, so most applets are made by coders not designers.
What does this lead to? Well most of the stuff flash is used for is pretty with not too much coding, like most of the Web. While the Java stuff may have lots of features, but is kinda ugly.
Basically Java could replace Flash, but it would need someone to build an IDE for designers to use before it was popular and started to generate content to match that of Flashes.
As it stands Flash is a graphics format with scripting, while Java is a fully fledged programming language with the ability to do graphics in a web browser. If someone came up with the JavaFlash graphic tool / ide then we would be onto a winner.
The one thing that makes this palatable is you don't actually have to install the Y! toolbar -- you're given an option and can decline the toolbar install. Problem solved.
Macromedia's been doing this for a while with the Shockwave plug-in, and while developers HATE it (including me), the revenue from yahoo's been a godsend for the Director team. (No, Director's not dead, despite what the Flash team at MACR wants you to think...)
Still, I think most of Macromedia's top-level management are pinheads, and this is more proof of it...
>
> sure you can: DRM
Anything not nailed down is yours.
Anything I can pry loose is not nailed down.
If at first you can't crack it, get a bigger hammer.
Corollaries:
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
If the only tool you have is an axe, every problem looks like hours of hacking fun.
If the only tool you have is a shotgun, every problem looks for the nearest exit.
My, that's a useful comment.
Look, I work for Macromedia, so I'm hardly a disinterested observer, but saying "Flash blows" (or "technology X blows", for that matter) is hardly what I'd call a useful contribution to this discussion.
Dislike Flash because it's not open-source and thus is unacceptable to your personal philosophy? Fine, that's a point you should make.
Dislike Flash because it isn't available for your platform of choice (eg, 64-bit Linux)? Fine, that's a point you should make.
Dislike Flash because it (like every other web technology) can be misused to make really annoying ads? Fine, that's a point you should make.
Dislike Flash because of some other, specific reason? Fine, that's a point you should make.
But for all the folks out there who simply have juvenile comments on the order of "Flash sucks"... well, I guess I just don't understand what you think you're contributing to the topic.
(For the record: yeah, I have AdBlock installed in Firefox, to block annoying ads of all sorts.)
IIRC the DivX player has included the Google toolbar for a while - and last time I used it (instead of using the K-lite codecs which include the DivX codecs), it didn't ask me whether or not to install the toolbar - although now it claims to be optional on their web site (or at least doesn't install if IE is not your default browser).
It did let me uninstall it, and I know that the Google toolbar isn't spyware, but it just irritated me that DivX ASSUMED that I wanted a piece of completely unrelated piece of software onto my system without consulting me.
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
Man one of our doze admins just about blew a blood vessel yesteday when he installed flash on a machine and it installed that thing...He went in and immediately banned the site so yes it is gonna cause problems and it already has.
Got Code?
So are they including both the IE and the Firefox toolbar? If they dont distribute it with the FireFox plugin, whats the big deal?
Flash is a platform. If you develop for that platform, you must convince users to download that platform.
Part of convincing your users to download that platform is being able to let them feel like there's no ill effects. This is why web plugins have essentially disappeared, people are afraid or too lazy to install all that shit.
Now Macromedia is selling the ability to get your app bundled with their platform. And if you're a developer for their platform, you now run the risk of getting upset emails from people who don't quite understand what a software installation process entails and just hitting "ok" over and over while installing going "I INSTALLED THE FLASHY THINGY YOU WANTED AND NOW THERE'S THIS WIERD TOOLBAR THING ON MY BROWSER!! WHAT DID YOU DO TO MY COMPUTER??"
This is not so good from the developer's perspective, and it raises valid questions about the future reliability of Macromedia; if they're bundling Yahoo now, what will they be bundling in 4 years?
Anyone else remember when the Flash player was so tiny that it could fit in a java applet, and if you loaded most Flash pages without having the plugin installed, it did?
I recently installed a new Flash player and when I had to fire up IE for a compatibility test - there was the dang Yahoo Toolbar. I was pretty distracted when I did the install and Macromedia had, I repeat HAD, a very high trust factor with me. I don't use IE very often so I didn't notice it for a while. I thought to myself "that's very short sighted thinking Macromedia." They then moved from the high trust level to the do not trust level.
Thalasar
I believe the general hatred is because Flash is largely useless. Especially now that there are more Flash ads than graphic/text ads. Most sites do not use Flash in a meaningful manner (I'm sorry, an HTML menu is just fine, thanks) and do not provide HTML versions.
So how do I know that they are not going to install
anything else on the system. It does not matter much we banned macromedia's web site at the company as soon as we noticed it started installing yahoo toolbar. 100% loss of all trust, they just got placed in the same ranks as Real and Kazzaa
Got Code?
Maybe it's not a constructive comment, but it gives a taste of the public (or at least geek) opinion.
I'm the owner of a company developing a (sucessful) product to manage content on a website (A CMS). - This product is heavy on JavaScript usage, and laso uses ActiveX for several things. - We've been thinking a lot about several things who would be easier and faster to develop in Flash rather than DHTML, but how can I professionally tell people to download a RUNTIME for viewing content, when it comes bundled with third party software, that I myself disapprove of, and find annoying? - The answer is; I can't.
I use Windows, and I have Flash installed myself - This is not enough for me to uninstall it, but this just seem like shady business practice, and depending on the reaction from Macromedia on this issue I can't see myself upgrading it, or recommend others to upgrade it.
My <1000 UID is with a hot chick
Then hate the site, not the standard. I don't see the point in complaining about Flash. As MicroBerto already said earlier...
There's not much you can do about the way people use your tools. You can't program a hammer to only pound nails.
I dislike flash for the reasons you pointed out.
A) not open source. open source is good for me, so closed is worse
B) platform support. Flash will NOT reach the entire world, simply because you must have the flash player, which is unavailable on most platforms (all but the most popular)
C) standardization. There is none. it's proprietary vendor lock in. There's no competeing development environments, no competing players
D) breakage of the web. Flash is not the web. therefore, you can't bookmark it, index it, search it. You can't look at the code, or make the text bigger, or have your text reader read it because you are blind
Basically, flash is okay for silly games or homestarrunner, but so bad in other ways it's generally frowned upon by those who are not confused by colors and animation.
Flash itself as a technology doesn't blow - however, the only sites I've seen that used it (or say, in 99% of cases) use it either for highly annoying ads, very annoying "splash" page when you get tho their websites, or bad and non-accessible site nav (usually with no real structure and nothing to fall back to if flash plasyer isn't installed).
:P )
There might be good uses for it, but I've hardly ever seen that (ok, I'll give you badger badger
So along with adblock (if not even BEFORE it) I load flashblock.
Oh, and be sure I'm not going to use this (flash) instead of XForms (or whatever else) either.
///<sig
I just installed it. It asked me if I wanted the toolbar. I said no. End of story.
Paranoia.
vk.
This isn't spyware at all... The Yahoo! toolbar doesn't do any spying or hijacking, and Flash doesn't require you to install it. You might install it by mistake if you're clicking through the install menu, but then you can just uninstall it right away.
If it were spyware, installing it would be mandatory, Flash might not disclose that it exists, it would interfere with your use of the browser and you couldn't just go to add/remove programs and take it off.
I work for a US government agency. We will not use flash under any circumstances because it is not ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant. No big whoop, you might think, until you start to imagine what it really would be like to be blind. As a blind person, the internet holds great potential to expand the information blind people can expose themselves to, but everytime their parsers hit crazy crap like a flash site, it's basically a brick wall.
So, for their sake, let's abandon Flash, once and for all. If not, let's use intelligent coding that routes blind people's browsers around Flash and to the ASCII content they seek.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
As someone has already mentioned Flash is used extensively on educational websites. I realize that the average geek guy does not find flash extremely useful in daily life unless your into Homestar Runner, but it is incredibly useful in the educational arena, making websites for children much more interactive and useful. (This is my biggest issue with Linux: very few useful, well-designed children's applications.)
I am disappointed to find that Macromedia is taking this route now that they have become a big name. I prefer to download only what I request without having to deal with "extras", spyware or not. I personally won't mind as long as they tell you before hand and give an chance to opt out.
My other concern is that this may make my job harder when it comes to cleaning up other people's computers. Its bad enough trying to convince people that they shouldn't go downloading every free screensaver they like but to have to explain to them where even more random bits of software come from, sigh.
In the end I don't hold it against Macromedia, they do have the right to make their money somewhere (yes, I realize that the prices for the developement software is pretty high.) I just wish they would be more straight forward about things, advertising it on their site like Download.com does instead of just bundling it with their software.
But for all the folks out there who simply have juvenile comments on the order of "Flash sucks"... well, I guess I just don't understand what you think you're contributing to the topic.
;)
It's like this. When you describe dogshit, you don't say "I don't like the smell, although it is a very pretty shade of brown." and you don't say "I don't like the way it sticks to my shoes, although it is very good for growing plants" . You just say "Dammit, I fucking hate dogshit. This sucks."
Now I may be wrong, but it seeems to me that what he was saying wasn't "I don't like Flash because it's not open source and can be used to create really annoying ads, but it's great for stupid cartoons" and it wasn't "I don't like Flash because it isn't available for 64 bit linux"
Again, I may be wrong, but it appears to me that he was saying something more along the lines of "Flash is a lot like dogshit. It sucks and I hate it."
Hope I was able to clear that up for ya!
Oh, b.t.w... VB sucks too!
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
The future is now.
Companies will continue using flash until not a single user looks at a lame flash intro and says "cool"
Bottles.
Not even that. This would be like if apache required a special piece of software (other than a web browser, of course) to view apache-served content, and bundled the Yahoo toolbar with that.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
If they embedded the current flash player in the Yahoo toolbar, I don't think there would be a problem. Heck, they could even make the Yahoo toolbar a fancy flash app.
Strong Mad - 2008: "I PRESIDENT!"
I must be in the minority that actually like Flash. It's very effective for adding interactivity and animation to the web. Yes, it's used for lots of ads, but it's also used for lots of really cool (and even useful) sites.
But the idea that it would come bundled with other software is hideous, and the reasons should be obvious. This is the deal breaker for me and many others, I'm sure. It doesn't matter what software is bundled with Flash, the bundling itself is just wrong, in principle. And the timing of this decision couldn't possibly be worse. Google, for example, is showing more and more that rich, interactive sites can be developed without Flash. Turning Flash into mere packaging for third-party software will shift people in droves to javascript/XML alternatives (and whatever else comes along).
I remember the days when RealPlayer used to be really cool... Look at it now -- it's nothing more than packaging for advertisements. It's bad business, plain and simple.
Man, I didn't expect all the positive reaction to my Dreamweaver comment! Sadly, I don't code commericially or for fun in Dreamweaver...I code in vim and kate. Linux, of course. I haven't paid for ANY software in a long time, with the exception of all the default bundled stuff like WindowsXP Dell sells you with a new PC. I work for an open source-based company and try to keep my entire computing experience as open source/free software-based as possible. And about that Windows I paid for...I dual boot that particular machine, as it's handy to now and then load up Windows and see what the industry buzz is about. Dreamweaver was one such industry buzz, and it didn't really grab me. Seems to be focused more towards web designers than coders, so I'll stick with my free open source tools. Thanks, though.
www.kiwilyrics.com - a wiki for lyrics
By your own definition, Yahoo Toolbar is spyware. See the Yahoo Toolbar's Privacy Page: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/toolbar/detail s.html
Some choice quotes:
etc.Now if you knowingly download and install the Toolbar yourself, you clearly are ok with this (you did read the privacy notice right?). But for someone to have this installed on their computer without their consent is definitely just plain wrong.
Methinks SomeGuyNamedMike had a lot of trouble learning the language.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
What site should your firewall block to prevent a drive-by Yahoo toolbar install?
Personally, I've nothing against it but I find the way it's typically used to be highly irritating.
I find it strange that /.ers aren't clamoring more for SVG growth and development. I understand that SVG is under the radar because development tools are rare. I can't see how we can tout standards in many other aspects of the internet but not this.
Linux at home
Well, show me an *implementation* of the standard that does the things I suggest and I wouldn't dislike it. However, since this is proprietary, the implementation is tied to the standard - they are the same thing. So I feel free to dislike both.
Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
Recently Macromedia actually experimented with the player, to see what effect increasing the size of the plugin would have on downloads. They found that once it got past a certain size (which wasn't revealed), downloads dropped off dramatically.
So I'm really surprised that they're bundling other software in the download now. I've no doubt that the total size is still below that threshold they found. But there's always a constant battle at MM to add features to Flash whilst keeping the player small. This ain't gonna make that easier and any bundling that alienates the user base is pretty self defeating IMHO.
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there
Not only are the blind not seeing your flash site, (well, hearing via screen reader, and yes, there are some workarounds) but search engine bots are skipping it too. Text in a webpage automatically gets included, Flash content and everything it links to is a black hole, the spidering stops. This means your site is irrelevent in search engine results, and you don't contribute to the web in a meaningful way. Add a 10% chance your viewer needs the plugin and will never return, a higher development cost, and a "broken" back button (last html page, not last flash screen) and I rarely recommend the use of Flash, and never for textual information sites.
Rule of the open mind
People who are resistant to change cannot resist change for the worst.
Don't take it personally.
//Troll me up, Scotty
Macromedia has been producing some amazing technology lately. A friend showed me some of the features in the new ColdFusion and I was blown away.
The whole anti-Flash thing here is not real. It's mostly all talk from a bunch of low self-esteem geeks trying to be cool for once.
Flash sucks until the new Strongbad email comes out.
MPAA sucks until the next LoTR comes out.
Windows and Blizzard suck until the next Warcraft comes out.
Big business sucks until it allows for open source use of a few throw away patents
Lucas sucks, but guess who will be first in line the May?
There is very little legitimate discussion here. It's mostly just cliche posts and bitching for the sake of bitching.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
flack? what the heck is a flack?
The right word is flak, ab abbreviation of the German word "Flug Abwehr Kanone". Translated: Anti Aircraft Gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flak
That still doesn't explain why it is so leet to say "received a lot of flak by" instead of just saying "was met with resistance from" or "was opposed by"...
--- Eat my sig.
If all you have are hammer and nails, every problem starts to look like a Messiah...
Flash is a much higher level language than java. Yes, they both (can) run in a browser, but you might as well compare Visual Basic and assembly. Flash, being higher level, is more suited to rapid application development for a fairly limited set of solutions.
While java allows you much more power and flexibility, when it comes to browser based apps there are few if any things java can do that flash can't. Java performs poorly when it comes to GUI-based applications, and requires far more code to get the same result. When it comes down to it, there are only two things Java really does well, portability and reliability, and as a result, it's a great server programming language.
Please provide links to good Flash websites.
I agree that there are some interesting uses of Flash, but Flash sites discourage visiting the same web site many times, because even interesting moving pictures become boring after someone has watched them maybe 3 times.
That's why Google is so successful. The company has a policy of not annoying people.
I don't think even having a process to 'disable' the toolbar in an the interface is remotely acceptable, let alone having to decide to disable it when people install the player themselves.
As developers and corporate end-users, we can not accept something integrated with a web site to suddenly acquire an unnecessary UI element to join the browser screen, especially in something where the UI was supposed to be clean and clear. You will have single handedly broken a look, feel and usability factor that was designed for a client, and the client might just well come to me asking why it's broken. I'll have to spend time and money to fix it. In my mind and possibly reality Macromedia's going to get the bill for any hours of work I spend doing that, as well as the time spend calming down my client.
This opens up the door for advertising to be sent, interrupting or preceding what is supposed to be a design, presentation, logo or splash...Why? Simply because I (or my client) was told to trust something Macromedia decided to add on for those unsuspecting souls who download the new player.
The moment a board member of an organization I'm helping decides to call me in a rage over the Yahoo toolbar showing up in something that's NOT supposed to have any other UI add-ons, I will heavily consider finding a way to sue Macromedia for damages. This is a 'design and programming environment', not Macromedia's or Yahoo's excuse (or their advertising clients excuse) for a billboard. I don't want Yahoo's garbage interrupting my work, or putting it at risk in any way, which is a huge possibility considering a newly-downloaded component of the previously installed toolbar (even it it doesnt contain anything harmful right away) could contain yet another add-on from yet another company I didn't expect to have to deal with before.
They need to change this path before this gets exponentially worse. Take the Yahoo toolbar out permanently, and let Yahoo develop an alternative Flash player if they want one of their own with a toolbar in it so badly.
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
I am a slashdot reader who uses both, and let me tell you something; from my experience, it's not that it's beneath you, it's beyond you. 90% of the slashdot readers couldn't build an interesting interface if you lives depended on it, and I'm willing to put money on that. I know lots of other slashdot readers in my region, and guess what? They know this too. I could code in something other than actionscript, but I choose not to. I like design, I like graphics, and I'd appreciate not getting chastised for this choice, just as you (the rest of the slashdot world who believes Flash is "beneath" you) wouldn't appreciate unfounded criticism of your choice of profession. You, just as I, realize your place and your importance, and without your efforts and work, there would be a lot of people scrambling to get shit done. I make things easy, VERY easy for idiots; the rest of you make it work. We know the world we live in, and we know that without the effort we put into quality work and quality code, this world could be brought to it's knees, and you know as well as the next /.er that you've thought those same words. I would appreciate seeing a little less of this sort of sentiment from the readership here, and just a bit more appreciation for the world beyond C98 code, or whatever the hell you chose to be your weapon of choice.
Mod me down, do what you will, but I had to rant.
Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
Oh, and the swf format is open. There are 3rd party compilers available for both C# and Java.
I very much like the graphic design in the first link: http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/index.asp
However, there were five shortcomings:
On my high-speed DSL connection, I got only the word "loading..." for only a few seconds, but it seemed like a long time. Ford must be very arrogant indeed to believe that this does not annoy people with dial-up connections.
Second, you get the option "Low Speed Non-Flash" only after you have loaded the Flash page. That makes me realize why I don't like the average Flash enthusiasts web designer. They aren't very intelligent, and they assume I'm not very intelligent.
Third, Flash breaks tabbled browsers!!! When I right click on a Flash ad, I don't get the normal menu. My normal way of shopping is to load several pages and flip between them on demand. Macromedia thinks I should not be able to do this.
Fourth, the site uses blind links. I don't know what will happen until I click.
Fifth, after something is clicked on the main page, the connection is kept alive, as is shown by the message "Transferring data from www.fordvehicles.com..." which remains there forever and can't be made to go away by hitting the Escape key.
If there is something that cannot be done in standard HTML, standard HTML should be improved. Flash has had perhaps 38 serious security vulnerabilities. It is not good to introduce an entirely new, essentially proprietary technology.
I don't want an interesting interface, I want one that works. That's exactly the distinction 90% of Flash developers don't understand. If you do then good, Flash can be used well, but don't kid yourself that you're the norm.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS