Adobe Makes Flash Crawlable

Silverlight by Anonymous Coward · 2008-07-01 00:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

Amazing what a little competition will bring...

Re:Silverlight by eggstasy · 2008-07-01 02:52 · Score: 1

Now all we need is for MS to promote their alternatives to PDF a bit more. God, I hate those horrible PDFs full of scanned page images. They should be OCR'ed by Google. I have like two gigs of them, and they're not *searchable* in any way, therefore they're not useful. (many years of old magazine archives...)
Re:Silverlight by Anonymous Coward · 2008-07-01 02:56 · Score: 1

Silverlight is competition?
Re:Silverlight by The+Crooked+Elf · 2008-07-01 02:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Frankly, though, I'm hoping that, rather than little feature additions like this, they do one of the following: * Make it NOT an absolutely ridiculous memory hog. * Invest some time in making it work with Firefox better (i.e., without the crashes). * Make it work under 64-bit because, frankly, it's really, really stupid that it doesn't. They've had half a decade now; I don't care how poorly written their code-base is.

--
"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."
Re:Silverlight by bberens · 2008-07-01 03:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

PDFs are an open format, and as of version 1.0 Google Desktop indexes PDFs. I think all the trouble you have with them is by design.. Businesses love PDFs because they're harder to manipulate.

--
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Re:Silverlight by ivucica · 2008-07-01 05:30 · Score: 1

He said he hates non-OCRed PDFs. He's surely aware of searchability of text PDFs. Image PDFs are horrible on the other hand. You've completely missed his point.
Re:Silverlight by Talchas · 2008-07-01 05:35 · Score: 1

Your problem there is less the PDFs (which could be searched by a sufficiently intelligent program, as the spec is out there), than the fact that your PDFs are no better than a tarball of images. Alternatives to PDFs won't help because the best you'll get is MSPDFs full of scanned images that will still be unsearchable.

--
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century,free flow of information is the only safeguard against...
Re:Silverlight by IntlHarvester · 2008-07-01 06:24 · Score: 2, Informative

"Image PDFs" are required for certain workflows. The people who need them could care less if irrelevant poster #1001089 thinks they're horrible or not.
And they actually have a have a text layer for OCR or searchabity which Google understands.

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:Silverlight by ivucica · 2008-07-02 20:38 · Score: 1

Irrelevant poster #1001089 thinks irrelevant poster #11985 doesn't understand the problem another irrelevant poster #458692 is facing, and that is non-OCRed PDFs. That means, PDFs with no text at all. Text doesn't get embedded unless you turn on the OCR (available perhaps in Acrobat, but not in all PDF conversion tools).

Irrelevant poster #1001089 is fully aware of such PDFs and why they're needed, so no need to insult.

I have many non-OCRed PDFs with no such layer. Want a few? Want to search them? Tell me when you're done.
Re:Silverlight by IntlHarvester · 2008-07-04 14:15 · Score: 1

Sorry, I've read too many posts here where basement dictators are trying to tell the world how to operate.
Yep, Acrobat can OCR em.

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:Silverlight by ivucica · 2008-07-06 01:28 · Score: 1

No problem ;)

Slashdot is the base of operation for basement dictators; on the other hand, so are many forums, and that's why I learned to read every word someone says. Gotta learn to crush the dictators :)

GREAT! by the4thdimension · 2008-07-01 00:41 · Score: 5, Funny

...now I can search directly for those great flash games I use to pass the time at work! What'll they think of next?

--
Crackin' Wise - Blogging about whatever we want

Re:GREAT! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-07-01 01:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

It always surprised me there is no Linux distro that has gone trough the trouble of wrapping systrace around the Flash plugin (or the entire browser?)
I would definitely like to have a Flash-enabled browser that runs in a sandbox, and has only access to some of its own files (to store cookies/settings/etc.) but does not have access to the rest of my homedir.
Re:Great! by Bogtha · 2008-07-01 01:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Now all they have to do is make it so, when you make a web site in Flash, you can link directly to the "page" you want.

That has been possible for years. Possibly ever since the first version, I'm not sure. You use a fragment identifier in the link and check it to find out which "page" to display.
There's enough wrong with Flash that misrepresenting it is unnecessary and only serves to discredit you in the eyes of people who know better.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Re:Great! by geordie_loz · 2008-07-01 01:28 · Score: 1

You need to build this into the flash when creating as far as I know. With html based sites no special work is required to make a page bookmarkable (aside from some ajax stuff, or in-page anchors).

I would welcome this if it is clear that it's flash content (like PDFs) in the search results, so I can make a judgment accordingly.
Re:Great! by Bogtha · 2008-07-01 01:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

You need to build this into the flash when creating as far as I know.

Yes, that's true. Emphasis added to the comment I was replying to:

Now all they have to do is make it so, when you make a web site in Flash, you can link directly to the "page" you want.

nine-times was specifically talking about options available to developers.

With html based sites no special work is required to make a page bookmarkable (aside from some ajax stuff, or in-page anchors).

That's usually true, but like you say, there are exceptions, and it's not just the ones you mention. Frames, for example, cause similar problems, and JavaScript too (not just Ajax).

I would welcome this if it is clear that it's flash content (like PDFs) in the search results, so I can make a judgment accordingly.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this (a lot of people here don't seem to be), but search engines already index Flash. Google example. Yes, Flash results are identified in the same way PDF results are.
This isn't a new feature, it's Adobe helping search engines improve the indexing they already do.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-07-01 01:47 · Score: 1, Interesting

I dunno, I think that's a minor point. The rest of his points were valid about the how much flash sucks.
But if it makes you feel better, I'll add a few more.

No 64bit version of the plugin.
When your cursor is over a flash object in a page, you lose the ability scroll with your mouse.
Flash based site navigation removes the ability to use your browser controls (back, forward, refresh) as they were intended.

Flash is moderately useful as video player for things like youtube, for just about any other use it's 100% garbage and should be avoided at all costs.
Re:Great! by heinzkunz · 2008-07-01 01:48 · Score: 2, Informative

> Now all they have to do is make it so, when you make a web site in Flash, you can link directly to the "page" you want.
Flex Builder 3 has support for deep links (they were possible before, but now it's in the framework), so a link from a search result directly to the searched item should be possible.
You may want to take a closer look at why Flash is slow for you. The player is really fast. It's a decent virtual machine and graphics engine. If you have a flash 9 plugin, take a look at this page: http://papervision3d.org/ It's a 3d engine with texturing support that's usable on a current computer. It is impossible to touch that performance using a web browser without plugins. Flash is only slow if it's used in a stupid way (playing multiple video ads on a page) or programmed for by incompetent people (hobby coders, designers).
I believe that Flash is a good platform, but as long as a single company can run it all into the ground, we can't rely on it. What is really missing is an open source flash player (Gnash is not good enough, I want Adobe to open up the player).
Re:Great! by dave420 · 2008-07-01 02:40 · Score: 1

I don't know what OS you use, or what flash version you use, or how old your computer is, but all of those "issues" ceased being issues years ago. Flash, especially AS3, is fast. It most definitely has uses, such as rich web applications. Seeing as many companies are offering traditional software served over the net, a technology that allows fast 100% OO cross-platform applications seems like a great idea.
Re:Great! by foniksonik · 2008-07-01 02:59 · Score: 1

Uh... you have to do this in HTML as well... it's just that people have already incorporated it into their workflow, whereas for Flash there are still a lot of developers who don't know how to do it.
Think about what HTML sites would be like if everything was in one page. AKA MySpace pages....
This is how most current Flash sites are. They don't architect them, they 'Design' them.... so you end up with one big page and no bookmarks or other ways to programmatically access the content.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Great! by nine-times · 2008-07-01 03:03 · Score: 1

nine-times was specifically talking about options available to developers.

Actually, what I had in mind when I wrote it was this: Even if Google (or some other search engine) can index the Flash file, what do they link to? Does it just link to the Flash file, and then I have to go clicking around to navigate the Flash file looking for the text relevant to my search? Or will Google be able to link straight to the portion that I was searching for?
AFAIK, it's not so simple to link into the Flash file, but correct me if I'm wrong.
And yes, I'm sure I could have stated it better, but I was trying to be glib.

That's usually true, but like you say, there are exceptions, and it's not just the ones you mention. Frames, for example, cause similar problems, and JavaScript too (not just Ajax).

Yeah, personally I'm not such a big fan of frames either. And I do think people should be careful about their use of Javascript (and AJAX) to make sure it's used sensibly.
Re:Great! by nine-times · 2008-07-01 03:38 · Score: 1

Frames, for example, cause similar problems, and JavaScript too (not just Ajax).
I'm sorry, I know I already replied to this, but I think there's a somewhat important point that I was implying by talking about "sensible" use of Javascript/Ajax, and it might warrant being spelled out.
First of all, you should just be careful about how you're using javascript, so as not to obscure any important data. If you're making an Ajax web application, then you probably provide your own search function, and provide perma-links so search engines can link directly to content (if that's appropriate). But you should also just be careful about what's being hidden/obscured.
But beyond that, you should also be making sure that your stuff degrades gracefully. You can write a javascript menu such that, if you disable javascript, you're still given an acceptable HTML menu system. And you can do that without writing separate code.
Can you do that in Flash? I suppose you could do something where the page detects whether you're using Flash, and if not, swaps out an HTML version. But then you have to remake and maintain your entire flash site in HTML anyway.
Let me know if you disagree or have alternate solutions, but because of reasons like this, I don't see Flash as an acceptable solution for making websites.
Re:GREAT! by ivucica · 2008-07-01 06:05 · Score: 1

That's because no real GNU/Linux distro includes Flash :)
Re:Great! by IntlHarvester · 2008-07-01 07:04 · Score: 1

Yup, nearly every AJAX tutorial I've seen says (1) Write the static version first, then (2) Integrate AJAX.
Flash is the just the opposite, where someone has to go back and add the accessibility bits after the fact.

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:Great! by Skuld-Chan · 2008-07-01 08:58 · Score: 1

Not only are slashdotters not reading the article, but apparently they aren't even reading the summary:
Today Adobe systems made an announcement that it has provided technology and information to Google and Yahoo! to help the two search engine rivals index Shockwave Flash (SWF) file formats.

For me... by dotancohen · 2008-07-01 00:42 · Score: 5, Funny

...Flash always crawls. That's life on dialup.

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

Re:For me... by morgan_greywolf · 2008-07-01 01:22 · Score: 1, Funny

...Flash always crawls. That's life on dialup.
You know, you can now use AOL with a high-speed connection, n00b. ;)

--
My blog
Re:For me... by antdude · 2008-07-01 03:22 · Score: 1

He probably can't get broadband where he lives though.

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:For me... by dotancohen · 2008-07-01 04:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually, at home I do have broadband. But I like taking cheap shots at Adobe. So far they've saved me hundreds of dollars by forcing me into the Gimp because Photoshop isn't ported to Linux yet.
You hear me, Adobe! Do not port Photoshop to Linux! I need to keep my money in the bank!

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Re:For me... by TehZorroness · 2008-07-01 06:10 · Score: 1

There you go. That wasn't too painful now, was it? :)
Re:For me... by Tumbleweed · 2008-07-01 06:31 · Score: 1

...Flash always crawls. That's life on dialup.
Dialup is its own punishment. You probably did something really bad in a previous life. Digital karma is a bitch!
Re:For me... by smoker2 · 2008-07-01 06:44 · Score: 1

That's how I always do it.
Re:For me... by morgan_greywolf · 2008-07-01 13:20 · Score: 1

wooooooooosh

--
My blog
Re:For me... by BrokenHalo · 2008-07-02 02:56 · Score: 1

...by forcing me into the Gimp because Photoshop isn't ported to Linux yet.

Personally, I don't give a damn whether Adobe open up PhotoShop to Linux or not. Since I learned to use the Gimp long before I encountered PhotoShop, I have learned my way around it reasonably well, and PS does not necessarily do any better job. The interface is much more cluttered than the Gimp's, though providing little more (if anything) in the way of functionality.

I frequently hear or read of people bleating that the Gimp doesn't support CMYK (which is true), but neglecting to mention that this feature is only of any use to people producing hard copy images on printers which support CMYK. For anything presented online, any of the RGB formats are perfectly sufficient.

What Adobe should do by Anonymous Coward · 2008-07-01 00:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Instead of (or in addition to) giving search engines information on Flash, Adobe should tell Flash users when not to use it. Avoid putting large texts in a Flash application and not offering the same in HTML. This is pretty obvious to everyone with half a brain, but "web developers" often seem to "forget".

Re:What Adobe should do by RangerRick98 · 2008-07-01 01:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Agreed. I don't see why Flash content needs to be indexed by search engines, because no content worth indexing should be exclusively in Flash.
The only good things Flash has done are games and embedded video. Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible.

--
"You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
Re:What Adobe should do by Anonymous Coward · 2008-07-01 01:25 · Score: 5, Informative

"Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible."
Not true (anymore). As of Flash 9, Adobe got some good accessibility implemented. You can have full keyboard accessibility within a Flash movie by enabling tabbing and setting tab indexes, as well as Section 508 support for screen readers. This was present in Flash 8 as well, but you had to jump through hoops just to enable it so it would work properly. Any flash files that aren't made accessible is due to programmer negligence and/or laziness. I still agree that web sites should be at most a mixture of Flash and regular HTML, but it's not as bad as you say.
Re:What Adobe should do by Anonymous Coward · 2008-07-01 01:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

My company and a couple others that friends of mine work for are all currently re-writing their web front ends to use flex exclusively. Granted in all of these cases, these software packages are intended for internal corporations - there are a growing number of developers using Flex for general web sites because it eliminates cross browser compatibility issues. If you don't know anything about Flex, you should head over to Adobe's web site and read up on it.
Re:What Adobe should do by Anonymous Coward · 2008-07-01 01:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

Right...and I think that's the point that's being missed. Currently, Flash is just as you've said, an obscure corner of the web for those high-interactive, non-critical bits.
This move indicates that Adobe would greatly prefer to have Flash's reputation expand beyond "nothing critical" as we move into a future of richer online apps. The main things holding Flash back are 1) it's a separate plugin and 2) it's not indexable. (One could argue that security would've been a major issue, but Flash CS3 has cleaned that area up significantly, before it became a major deal-breaker). Now, problem 1 is practically solved once a user encounters Flash content, since there's plenty of clean, effective ways to point users to the Flash player if it's missing, and more and more users find themselves getting it these days (thanks, youtube). Problem 2, though, has persisted--you don't want to bother making a web page that nobody can find. If Adobe can solve this, their platform can move into being a major content delivery problem.
Re:What Adobe should do by crusty_yet_benign · 2008-07-01 01:56 · Score: 1

...but since the content hasn't been indexed yet, and you can't possibly KNOW what's in every Flash file ever, your grounds for dismissing Flash are...debatable.
Re:What Adobe should do by Peeteriz · 2008-07-01 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

You don't index the web as it should be, you index the web as it is.
"Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible." - probably yes, but there are such websites in noticeable amounts, so indexing them properly is a good thing. And maybe that will make them more accessible - via a deep link to the content you want, bypassing their flash menus.
Re:What Adobe should do by nx6310 · 2008-07-01 02:31 · Score: 1

consdering applications built for a user base that doesn't have full support for multilingual processing, flash applications and animation present a relatively feasible solution technology and financially, so to say:
no content worth indexing should be exclusively in Flash
Is to stay screw whoever needs it. And thats alienation, which is exactly what standards are against, which is actually what Adobe is trying to make flash comply with.
Re:What Adobe should do by Thaelon · 2008-07-01 02:50 · Score: 1

Except when the site is 98% flash and the remaining 2% is just setup to point the browser at the flash objects. If at all possible, I stop going there at that point.

--
Question everything
Re:What Adobe should do by rihteri · 2008-07-01 02:56 · Score: 1

There is only one working plugin, and it is proprietary software. Call me zealot, but that sounds like a main thing holding flash back. If you need a clue, think accessibility with anything other than a windows/linux/mac computer.
Re:What Adobe should do by cheater512 · 2008-07-01 03:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

Web developers dont use flash, thats what Web designers do.
Their heads are up in the clouds and the web developers are left to clean up the mess.
Re:What Adobe should do by h4nk · 2008-07-01 03:07 · Score: 1

Agreed. I don't see why Flash content needs to be indexed by search engines, because no content worth indexing should be exclusively in Flash.
The only good things Flash has done are games and embedded video. Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible.
No offense to the poster, but this is an outdated view of flash and its capabilities. With the advent of Flex, many amazing web apps are being created that eclipse the functionality and cross-platform reliability of the latest generation of browsers. It is true that Flash is overkill for something that could be created solely with xhtml/javascript/css, but the mistakes that some developers make in how and why they implement does not mean that the RIA's created in flash/flex can't benefit from search engine visibility.
Re:What Adobe should do by PopeRatzo · 2008-07-01 03:18 · Score: 1

because no content worth indexing should be exclusively in Flash.
Great point.

Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible.
I'm not sure it has to be, though. Maybe websites can be more than just blocks of text with decoration or blocks of text with video or blocks of text with audio, or blocks of text with dynamic data or just plain blocks of text.
I'm not a professional web developer, but it seems to me that the notion of what a website is supposed to be has been pretty much static.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:What Adobe should do by game+kid · 2008-07-01 04:57 · Score: 1

You may as well tell Microsoft to stop using the "Vista Capable" logo.

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Re:What Adobe should do by Anonymous Coward · 2008-07-01 05:05 · Score: 1, Interesting

It most definitely IS as bad as was said, and worse.
See this thing called the Internet was built upon an OPEN standard. Flash is CLOSED. To participate in the Internet, were it made of Flash, you would need to use both the CLOSED Flash viewer to view any of it (which favors CLOSED platforms as opposed to OPEN platforms), and to produce content you would have to pay for the CLOSED development suite.
In the second place, I don't care how many features Adobe adds. 1000 words of plain text is 2KB. 1000 words encoded into a Flash file is 50KB. That's extra minutes to store and transmit it every time it is edited or viewed, extra time wasted on both ends to create it and read it, and all around amounts to a useless, worthless, FAIL.
But I suppose corporations rue the day they let us have the WWW, freely accessible and neutral and free.
Re:What Adobe should do by rumith · 2008-07-01 05:22 · Score: 1

That's kind of self-defeating, no? Microsoft wants Silverlight to replace HTML altogether; why are you sure that Adobe wouldn't like to do the same with Flash? I'm pretty sure that Adobe would perfectly be OK with the situation when lion's share of web sites would only be implemented in Flash.
Re:What Adobe should do by Skuld-Chan · 2008-07-01 05:48 · Score: 1

Flash is an open standard - whats not documented about it?
Re:What Adobe should do by TehZorroness · 2008-07-01 06:12 · Score: 1

What on earth are you smoking and where can I get some?
Re:What Adobe should do by SanityInAnarchy · 2008-07-01 06:22 · Score: 1

Yeah, that must be why it's not on the iPhone -- which, as we all know, is only used by greasy GNU hippies who are broke and worthless.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:What Adobe should do by AnyoneEB · 2008-07-01 06:37 · Score: 1

The SWF 9 spec was linked from the /. summary. Is it really so much trouble to finish reading the summary before posting?
Yeah, I know, I know. I must be new here.

--
Centralization breaks the internet.
Re:What Adobe should do by raddan · 2008-07-01 06:41 · Score: 1

Flash does not work on my cellphone or BSD laptop. So it's still not very accessible, even for the sighted folks. HTML, XHTML, and CSS work great.
Re:What Adobe should do by chunk08 · 2008-07-01 07:29 · Score: 1

64 bit desktops running linux can use nswrapper, and flash runs perfectly...

--
Do away with our corrupt tax code. Support the Fair Tax
Re:What Adobe should do by professorguy · 2008-07-01 07:31 · Score: 1

Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible.
STILL TRUE. I dial up at 26.4 kbps (2.5 kB/s), so FLASH ONLY sites are inaccessible and horrible.
And if you tell me to get broadband, how about you tell me how to do that (satellite, dsl, cable are all not available on my site).
Re:What Adobe should do by doom · 2008-07-01 07:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

There's a subtle problem here: the standard is open in the sense that it's published, but it's still under the control of one company. If they liked, they could pull a Microsoft, and change the "standard" so that the next version would break everyone else's code.
We might say that it is "open" but not "free", eh?
(There's also a less-subtle problem, that Flash is designed to turn your computer into a television set. But some people will never get enough television.)
Re:What Adobe should do by PitaBred · 2008-07-01 08:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

...turn it into a television set? Man, you're right! All I need is a 16MHz text-processing machine, I don't need that fancy "multi-media" bullshit!
Flash has it's uses. There's communication viable via computers and video that isn't with a television... that's valuable. Look at some of the more serious Youtube videos, that provide information and such. It's not all just videos of people getting kicked in the crotch and Rick Astley. If textual, search-style data is hidden in Flash, I agree that it's a bad thing. But your argument is more like "All we ever needed for information transfer was horses... why would anyone need one of them noisy automobiles?"

--
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Re:What Adobe should do by PitaBred · 2008-07-01 08:13 · Score: 1

I don't know about perfectly... it's still a little flaky. But it does work. I'd still rather have it run in native mode than as a 32bit program inside a 64bit wrapper.

--
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Re:What Adobe should do by Skuld-Chan · 2008-07-01 09:14 · Score: 1

Your typing that message on a lot of closed hardware in that regard. You're CPU (if its AMD/Intel/IBM) is under the same circumstances, same with your video card, and memory. In fact there's no open specs for any of that stuff...
Re:What Adobe should do by Dachannien · 2008-07-01 09:14 · Score: 1

Hmm. Maybe I should try to get "not having Flash installed" classified as a disability, because Flash content is totally inaccessible to me.
Re:What Adobe should do by Skuld-Chan · 2008-07-01 09:16 · Score: 1

I know its fun to be a fanboy etc - if its not linux its not open right?
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/
Also all the api's for flash are publicly documented on the same site.
Re:What Adobe should do by lena_10326 · 2008-07-01 09:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Flash for entire websites is horrible and inaccessible.
My philosophy is flash should be a page element, in other words used as rich media content--not as a page rendering engine, because that's what the browser is for (as well as xhtml/css/xml/xslt/javascript).

I agree with your sentiment but I'll word it in a different way. If one is using flash to structure the document, one is doing it wrong. If one is using flash to deliver elements to implement animation effects, streaming video, logic, or server connectivity that's not feasible (or efficient) with xhtml/css/xml/xslt/javascript, then it's a valid use.

There is one exception to the flash as a full page model. If the site contains a "desktop" application (for example a game, a document editor, a help desk program, or possibly a graphical travel planner, etc), then it's OK, but that application should be placed within a secondary page, clearly separate from general site content. It should not be forced upon the user to view all the remaining documents under the website. The same rules of thumb for when to use Java applets ought to apply for Flash web applications.

When you say inaccessible, I interpret that to mean it's difficult to access the data within flash, as opposed to interface accessibility. I think that's true. You can't "Save As" the document if you pull up a report or tabular data, but you could if the site rendered that data as xhtml. In theory, the flash developer could implement a Print or view as a link feature, but that's no guarantee they will. Whereas Save As works on all xhtml pages regardless of whether the programmer paid attention to it or not. Being forced to screenshot the data, is a crappy inflexible alternative.

--
Camping on quad since 1996.
Re:What Adobe should do by nickull · 2008-07-01 11:14 · Score: 1

I agree. I have advocated using XHTL data providers as dataset which can be slurped into Flex/AIR/Flash using E4X, ECMAScripts XML operators. Cheers /Duane

--
"Question everything, including this!" - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/
Re:What Adobe should do by bhtooefr · 2008-07-01 14:10 · Score: 1

But, that's what hijacking the standard is for.
Follow the standard as closely as possible with a third-party implementation, get said third-party implementation to be popular (with how sucktastic Flash Player is, performance wise, that won't be too hard,) and voila, you've got enough market share that a changed standard might not get adopted.
Re:What Adobe should do by AP31R0N · 2008-07-02 00:42 · Score: 1

There are some sites that are exclusively flash.... i think the site for six flags is utterly useless w/o it. i can't verify because i'm behind websense atM. Many sites require JavaScript to show ANYTHING. Having NoScript in FireFox opened my eyes to how lazy/thoughtless some web developers are.

--
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Re:What Adobe should do by SanityInAnarchy · 2008-07-02 08:43 · Score: 1

I didn't expect having to spell this out...
That is exactly the proprietaryness holding it back. Were Flash a completely open standard, with competing open source implementations, Apple could just build their own version. As it is, they have to deal with Adobe.
And it disproves your point -- the iPhone is, indeed, used by people other than greasy GNU hippies. Therefore, people other than greasy GNU hippies are affected by Flash being proprietary.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:What Adobe should do by True+Grit · 2008-07-02 09:41 · Score: 1

Why should I be forced to enable 32bit backwards-compatibility on my system, and waste megabytes of extra space for all the essentially redundant 32bit libraries that are required, especially when I don't need that for *anything* else?
The only things not available on a Linux 64bit system which are "needed" for full web browsing is the proprietary stuff like Flash and Java, and now that Sun has GPL'd Java, that list will soon be down to just Adobe's Flash.
Fortunately, for me anyway, Flash is far less "needed" than Java/Javascript is, so I happily do without it.
Re:What Adobe should do by doom · 2008-07-07 11:52 · Score: 1

Your typing that message on a lot of closed hardware in that regard. You're CPU (if its AMD/Intel/IBM) is under the same circumstances, same with your video card, and memory. In fact there's no open specs for any of that stuff...

And what the hell, if you're addicted to cigarettes already, why not get addicted to heroin.
Re:What Adobe should do by PortHaven · 2008-07-09 06:32 · Score: 1

Really, sorry, I don't see how that is the case?
Especially with the upcoming Flash 10 which has text support features that HTML just does not have (ie: multi-language, including support for left-to-right languages, etc).
Sorry, I'll stick with Flash.
Re:What Adobe should do by PortHaven · 2008-07-09 06:33 · Score: 1

"No content worth indexing should be in HTML."
You'd probably say the above statement is ignorant. Likewise, yours is as well. A well designed Flash application can do things HTML just cannot do easily.
*shrugs*
Yes, a poorly designed Flash app sucks as much as the blink tag and pop-over and under ads. But that's the makers NOT the technology.
Re:What Adobe should do by PortHaven · 2008-07-09 06:35 · Score: 1

Since WHEN have people been using the web as mere 1000 words of text. Come on...
It's 2008!
The web is more application and interaction than mere text. You're stuck on the digital printing press. About time you realize the web has also invented the digital radio and television services as well.
Re:What Adobe should do by PortHaven · 2008-07-09 06:46 · Score: 1

You are confusing a deficiency of your cell phone with a deficiency of Flash.
So the fact that thousands of cell phones are incapable of reading HTML or XHTML make both of those mark-up languages deficient?
Re:What Adobe should do by PortHaven · 2008-07-09 08:01 · Score: 1

That's because of the same !@#$% ego that won't give me a left and a right button on a Mac laptop.
AND PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT CLICK POINTS ON TRACKPADS
Because I hate that more than anything. Pop-ups are not as annoying and stupid as a trackpad that is also your click. Constantly find myself launching all sorts of random apps and links. Hate it!
Bought a Dell with it. Told them if they didn't give me drivers that let me turn it off I was returning the $2,000 workstation.
Re:What Adobe should do by PortHaven · 2008-07-09 08:04 · Score: 1

Yes, because they've release the protocols. And if they did start charging for the plug-in. It'd be their death knell and clones would appear quickly.

Oh great by Zerth · 2008-07-01 00:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now we'll get black hat SEOs keyword stuffing flash files and adding flash widgets all over the place. /me never enabled flashblock before, but he might soon.

Re:Oh great by dargaud · 2008-07-01 21:49 · Score: 1

/me never enabled flashblock before
You're kidding me! That's the very first thing I do on every computer I touch, even before I install AdBlock Plus.

--
Non-Linux Penguins ?

That's unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · 2008-07-01 00:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'd be much happier if the search engines quit linking to flash-only websites completely. Then maybe those horrible things would go away.

I can't think of any case where I've seen a Flash-only site where Flash added anything of substance (cuteness doesn't count), and they tend to be hard and non-standard to navigate, break key bindings (like CTRL-T to open a new tab doesn't work if mouse is over Flash), etc.

Here is an example: A business association's website was redesigned in Flash. Instead of their staff page having a simple list of photos, names, job titles and phone numbers that you could search by hitting CTRL-F, the flash version just shows a photo of all of the staff members and you can only find the job titles and contact info by holding the mouse over the appropriate person's photo. So, if you want to find the contact info for the newsletter producer and you don't already know what he/she looks like, you have to move your mouse over each of 15 different photos until you find the right one. Stupid. There is just too much dumb stuff going on with Flash.

Re:That's unfortunate by Blakey+Rat · 2008-07-01 02:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Here is an example: A business association's website was redesigned in Flash. Instead of their staff page having a simple list of photos, names, job titles and phone numbers that you could search by hitting CTRL-F, the flash version just shows a photo of all of the staff members and you can only find the job titles and contact info by holding the mouse over the appropriate person's photo. So, if you want to find the contact info for the newsletter producer and you don't already know what he/she looks like, you have to move your mouse over each of 15 different photos until you find the right one. Stupid. There is just too much dumb stuff going on with Flash.
What does that have to do with Flash?
I hate to break this to you, but I could implement the same thing in Javascript really easily. Or even a Windows app, if I wanted.
You're blaming the tool for something that is the fault of the developer who sold this crappy site. (Well, and your associate who apparently contracted the developer without checking out the quality of his work before.)

--
Comment of the year
Re:That's unfortunate by superflippy · 2008-07-01 02:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

One example I've come across in the last few months where Flash is actually useful is for photographers' web sites. They're often paranoid about people copying the photos off their sites, yet they need to show their work so they'll get hired.
Putting their portfolios into a Flash slideshow is a good compromise. Of course, anyone who can make screenshots can still copy their photos, but it adds a little extra security.
Though, too many (IMO) go too far and have whiz-bang all-Flash sites with unnecessary bells and whistles. It's fine to use Flash for a specific purpose, but when you add animation, background music, etc. it detracts from the product being promoted (i.e. photography).

--
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
Re:That's unfortunate by dave420 · 2008-07-01 02:37 · Score: 1

That's just dumb web design. I've seen plenty of (X)HTML sites that are equally, if not more, retarded. Don't shoot the messenger. Flash, even full-page flash apps (RIA, rich web apps aka Flex), have their uses. Try using a full-page Google Maps Flex application and tell me you don't think it has uses :)
Re:That's unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · 2008-07-01 02:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

I hate to break this to you, but I could implement the same thing in Javascript really easily. Or even a Windows app, if I wanted.
Yes, you can do dumb things with other tools if you try to. But, my point is that such dumb things are common and somewhat encouraged by Flash. Plain old HTML provides a basic user interface that works reasonably well. It's not fancy, but it works. If you try hard enough with JavaScript you can muck things up, but things work reasonably well by default; things only go horribly wrong when developers try to move beyond the basics and make bad decisions in the process. Flash gives you a lot more control over the user interface, but without a basic standard starting point for page structure and navigation (as far as I know). So every Flash developer builds his/her own little custom method of navigation, and many lack sensible functionality, worrying more about cuteness instead. Basic things like hitting CTRL-F to search within a page, or being able to bookmark after navigating around get broken.
You're blaming the tool for something that is the fault of the developer who sold this crappy site.
Is it possible to create a decent website in pure Flash? Perhaps. Is it possible to put a screw into a wall with a hammer? Yes, but it's not the best approach. In practice, pure-Flash websites rarely work well, and that's because Flash isn't a good tool for that particular job. Adobe's website isn't pure Flash. That should tell you something.
Re:That's unfortunate by foniksonik · 2008-07-01 02:50 · Score: 1

That's not a problem with Flash... that was a dumb move on the company to let someone hide their employees contact info that way.... if I had done it, I would have tied it to a database/CMS and provided an autosuggest search box at the bottom, then highlighted the photo/person when an individual was selected from the search and showed their contact info in a selectable text box below.... with a button to download their vCard.
The only problem with Flash is that the lowest common denominator is much less accessible both to humans and computers than an html page... even the worst html page is searchable by the browser.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:That's unfortunate by paulgrant · 2008-07-01 02:53 · Score: 1

actually you don't even need that, an imagemap with the title attribute set for the href's would probably do it. ;)
the problem with flash is that flash developers feel the need to justify using flash (when html would do nicely) by doing stupid crap like this -- otherwise, why hire flash people? hence the problem with the technology as opposed to the developer.
Don't get me wrong, I like flash in certain applications - but about 70% of the flash content thats out there is not only sucky, but harmful.
Re:That's unfortunate by Anonymous Coward · 2008-07-01 03:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

That's not a problem with Flash... that was a dumb move on the company to let someone hide their employees contact info that way.... if I had done it, I would have tied it to a database/CMS and provided an autosuggest search box at the bottom, then highlighted the photo/person when an individual was selected from the search and showed their contact info in a selectable text box below.... with a button to download their vCard.
The only problem with Flash is that the lowest common denominator is much less accessible both to humans and computers than an html page... even the worst html page is searchable by the browser.
I agree with everything you said, except the "That's not a problem with Flash" part. My whole point is that a very basic HTML page designed by a novice will have decent functionality by default (you can search within the page with CTRL-F, data isn't hidden, bookmarking works, etc.). Flash doesn't supply such basic functionality by default, so you only get a page with good usability if you put a lot of work into it. Many designers of Flash-only pages don't put that amount of work into it, so the result is web pages with poor functionality. It may be possible to create decent web pages in Flash, but it doesn't seem to happen very often. Since pointy-haired bosses are too often satisfied with "ooh, shiny" a lot of websites go down the Flash path based on the website being cute rather than it being functional. Being able to say "but Google will ignore our website" was a powerful way send the pointy-haired bosses in a better direction when they wouldn't be willing to spend the effort to do Flash right (i.e. just make it look good and then stop before worrying about functionality).
Re:That's unfortunate by Blakey+Rat · 2008-07-01 03:37 · Score: 1

Yes, you can do dumb things with other tools if you try to. But, my point is that such dumb things are common and somewhat encouraged by Flash. Plain old HTML provides a basic user interface that works reasonably well. It's not fancy, but it works. If you try hard enough with JavaScript you can muck things up, but things work reasonably well by default; things only go horribly wrong when developers try to move beyond the basics and make bad decisions in the process. Flash gives you a lot more control over the user interface, but without a basic standard starting point for page structure and navigation (as far as I know). So every Flash developer builds his/her own little custom method of navigation, and many lack sensible functionality, worrying more about cuteness instead. Basic things like hitting CTRL-F to search within a page, or being able to bookmark after navigating around get broken.
Ok, but that big long paragraph? Not Flash's fault.
Look, you can write shitty, gaudy and complicated GUIs in Windows or OS X too, and easily, but people don't-- because they know that customers prefer standard and usable GUIs. The problem "with Flash" isn't Flash, it's web developers that sell shitty, gaudy and complicated websites and the customers who pay them to do it.
You can develop a Flash site with working bookmarks. (Not sure about Find.) Some developers don't do that because their customers don't ask for it. Follow the money. If payment for the site was based on how usable it was, you'd see usable sites.
Is it possible to create a decent website in pure Flash? Perhaps. Is it possible to put a screw into a wall with a hammer? Yes, but it's not the best approach. In practice, pure-Flash websites rarely work well, and that's because Flash isn't a good tool for that particular job. Adobe's website isn't pure Flash. That should tell you something.
I agree with that, but the thing it tells me isn't "Flash should go away," which is what a lot of Slashdotters think. The sad reality is that as long as there are crappy developers, and clients who simply do not care about the quality of the work those developers produce, there'll be crappy Flash sites. Also: crappy desktop programs, AJAX/DHTML sites, etc.

--
Comment of the year
Re:That's unfortunate by hugecabbage · 2008-07-01 05:03 · Score: 1

Here is an example: A business association's website was redesigned in Flash....
I think your example is more an issue with poor design, not the limitations of Flash.

--
oO0Oo
Re:That's unfortunate by JM78 · 2008-07-01 05:08 · Score: 1

As a web developer I must say your perspective of blaming the plug-in for usability issues is downright ignorant. Usability, for web dev's, should be the very first thought. The web must be usable in order to function properly. Usability however is completely relative to individual users (it is impossible for us to satisfy everyone -especially considering the vast number of platforms in use) and the simple fact of the matter is that web dev's must choose the appropriate tool for the desired outcome.

It may be the company doesn't give a damn if you can use a browser's search function to find text on a page. It's a downside, but not necessarily one that wasn't considered and the tossed out the window. Marketing goals don't necessarily have to jive with your personal needs and it may simply be that a company designed a site in Flash because the overall target market is better reached with that medium - you may very well not be that target market; get over it.

Blaming a plug-in because you can't use a site the way you want to is irrational and on par with getting irritated with a website for being offline when your ISP is to blame for bad connectivity - at fault is supreme ignorance of the basics. What happened to critical thinking?

--
I am Jack's smirking revenge.
Re:That's unfortunate by Raenex · 2008-07-01 05:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

When a technology encourages poor design, it's wise to speak out about it. The more people that understand the issues the better. Flash has it's place, but as a standard replacement for basic web pages it just doesn't cut it.
Fash: 99% Bad, written in 2000, still makes as much sense today as it did 8 years ago.
An ideal Flash would be truly integrated in the browser in a seamless way, however it just isn't there. Style sheets and JavaScript are better solutions for most applications.
Re:That's unfortunate by IntlHarvester · 2008-07-01 06:20 · Score: 1

Some developers don't do that because their customers don't ask for it. Follow the money. If payment for the site was based on how usable it was, you'd see usable sites.
Having been in the trenches with this stuff....

First of all, usability is a very specialized skillset, which the average designer maybe understands about 10% of. And it is actually kinda hard to make a HTML site with really terrible usability. You almost have to fight the browser every step (turn off back button, use iframes, and so on).

I really think that Flash gives one too much freedom and is simply too powerful of a tool for the average designer. Certainly, I've met some really good Flash guys, but that's maybe like 10% of the total. So, ok, the problem isn't Flash, it's just almost everyone who uses it.

Second, "the customer" is typically a 30-something female marketing person, and these issues are simply too nitty-gritty and technical. Start talking about bookmarking or keyboard accessiblity, and watch everyone's eyes glaze over. This kind of basic UI functionality will never get written into the specs.

Unfortunately, "Google Can't Index It" has been my easiest push-back against Flash monstrosities. And now I'm going to have to deal with a flash-monkey saying google can, even though he can't understand the problem with a 25MB SWF file.

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:That's unfortunate by mad.frog · 2008-07-01 07:06 · Score: 1

I can't think of any case where I've seen a Flash-only site where Flash added anything of substance
Fail.
Re:That's unfortunate by doom · 2008-07-01 07:53 · Score: 1

You're blaming the tool for something that is the fault of the developer who sold this crappy site.

Myself, I tend to blame tools that encourage people to do stupid things.
Because you see, technology is not "neutral", and different tools have different biases built into them.
Re:That's unfortunate by Dachannien · 2008-07-01 09:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Flash for DRM is (as you've sort of noted) about as silly as Javascript for DRM. After all, "anyone who can make screenshots" would be anyone who knows where the magic PrtSc key is on their keyboard and also knows what it does. Javascript used to be popular to suppress the right-click context menu, so that web developers could "prevent" people from ripping off their uber kewl web programming leetness. Now, Firefox still pops up the message box that the web developer put in to tell you that you can't use the context menu, and then it shows you the context menu anyway. (And that's with Javascript enabled, to say nothing of NoScript.)
Re:That's unfortunate by Nillerz · 2008-07-01 17:59 · Score: 1

exactly, one can't blame flash for improper implementation. Certain websites have done great with flash, see Falcon Northwests' website, and some are horrible, but at the end of the day you blame the dev, and not the platform. Any decent dev who doesn't know that php/html/css layout is better for information representation isn't going to care about seo anyway.
Re:That's unfortunate by JGJones · 2008-07-01 22:18 · Score: 1

Erm...not a fail...the menu at bottom is in very tiny text. I find it a bit difficult to read that. It's ignoring my browser set preferences in minimum font size, so using Flash in this case is a fail. What's wrong with using HTML for the menu? Why does it need to be in Flash where it can ignore my choice of minimum font size, it's more like 4 points size where my minimum is 12.
Re:That's unfortunate by phreakhead · 2008-07-08 04:55 · Score: 1

What I hate is Flash's damn keybindings. Even on a Mac you have to press CTRL-C to copy instead of CMD-C. Even that doesn't work all the time! You have to actually right-click on the text and click "Copy"! I'm a Mac user, I can't be bothered with this right-click nonsense! More than one of anything confuses me!
Re:That's unfortunate by JM78 · 2008-07-08 07:04 · Score: 1

Style sheets and JavaScript are better solutions for most applications.

Again, usability is 100% relative to individual users and situations. It is impossible to satisfy everyone. Web dev's must choose the appropriate tool for the desired outcome - forcing use of a tool or method because it fits a general standard might limit the ability to achieve the end result.

It is up to the company who is developing the product to determine what the best tool for the job is. And it is the performance of the product relative to the desired result that says whether or not the method is/was appropriate.

It is an irrelevant argument to claim that one method is "better" than another in a web dev's line of work. A method is only better than another when weighed against the desired result. A sweeping statement is ridiculous and akin to claiming something tastes better - it is either true or not depending upon your perspective, culture, desires, needs, tastes, history, blah, blah, blah.

Just my humble opinion but one made as a direct result of years of experience in the field. Whatever... it's worked for me so I guess that's all that matters.

--
I am Jack's smirking revenge.
Re:That's unfortunate by PortHaven · 2008-07-09 08:08 · Score: 1

HTML site = terrible usability (ie: new page refresh each step)
HTML+JS+CSS or (AJAX) = improved usability, increased complexity, and just as much potential for bad coding as Flash.
PLUS increased risk of browser compatibility.

Here's hoping... by Tomfrh · 2008-07-01 00:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Hopefully it'll crawl under a rock and die.

Something about this makes me uncomfortable... by Dogtanian · 2008-07-01 00:59 · Score: 5, Funny

...matter of fact, it makes my Flash crawl!

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).

Great! by nine-times · 2008-07-01 01:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now all they have to do is make it so, when you make a web site in Flash, you can link directly to the "page" you want. And make the Flash plugin fast. And make it not crash so often. Oh and then, finally, come up with a real reason as to why we should use Flash instead of something else.

Once they do that, it'll be a great little format.

This seriously sucks by Micah · 2008-07-01 01:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

The fact that search engines couldn't index Flash was a strong argument against its use for textual content. With that excuse gone, more webmasters might consider using it.

Only problem is, Flash for textual content is HORRIBLE. Totally ruins the consistent experience I want with my web browser. Flash text does not behave like HTML text in several ways.

I really hope this doesn't encourage more Flash content from point-n-drool webmasters ...

Re:This seriously sucks by Rocketship+Underpant · 2008-07-01 01:19 · Score: 1

I suspect that with the rise of Javascript libraries for interactive content and animation, the ubiquity of Canvas and SVG, the lack of Flash on the mobile Safari platform, and the general annoyance of animated ads and intro pages, Flash is on its way out. Silverlight's prospects for competing in a shrinking market are also dim.
There was a time you could do things with Flash you couldn't otherwise do. I have trouble coming up with anything that fits that description now, however. All we're really missing, in order for Flash to go the way of Java, is for someone to make a web development application that streamlines development with Mootools or a similar toolkit.

--
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Re:This seriously sucks by Uzuri · 2008-07-01 01:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

If they make it "crawlable", though, wouldn't that mean that the text is available to be read somewhere? And that means it's only a matter of time before someone designs a Flash translator that pulls the content (and say, LINKS?! #$%&@ flash developers) and turns it into straight XHTML.
I'd pay for that.

--
I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.
Re:This seriously sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2008-07-01 01:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Webmasters? The desire to barf Flash all over a page comes from "online marketing managers" (which I am), executives, people near the top of the pyramid and, by and large, people who just don't get it. These individuals will preface every decision with "when I browse I do", or "people don't want to do X, they want to do Y", often without a shred of evidence and, even more infuriatingly, in direct contradiction of someone who took the time to analyze the data in the first place.
Flash has its place, but it's a very narrow place and this announcement has removed one of my biggest trump cards (re: "no you can't have your retarded dancing monkey on the homepage, it wont bring in visitors and thus we'll lose revenue")
Re:This seriously sucks by Tangamandapiano · 2008-07-01 01:55 · Score: 1

I really hope this doesn't encourage more Flash content from point-n-drool webmasters ...
You're so ingenuous...
Re:This seriously sucks by Mike89 · 2008-07-01 02:14 · Score: 1

I hate it too. Seriously, it's either too big, too small, an absurd font or something worse. Furthermore, I usually can't select text, which is important for two reasons - one, I need to do it to read long chunks of text (yes, need to. If I can't, I usually can't read it). Two - copy and paste! I don't want to send my friend to your shitty Flash website to tell him 4 sentences they need to know.
Re:This seriously sucks by patro · 2008-07-01 03:05 · Score: 1

"Flash for textual content is HORRIBLE. Totally ruins the consistent experience I want with my web browser."
Very true. Which brings the question: anyone knows a tool which extracts text from flash pages?
Re:This seriously sucks by foniksonik · 2008-07-01 03:07 · Score: 1

I use both Flash and Javascript/DOM scripting for sites I build. I pick the right tool for the job.
When a site just needs a little extra punch I go with JQuery (personal favorite for all things Javascript). When it needs to be a front end to an application I use ExtJS (awesome UI controls and great support for JSON data structures and templating)
When a site needs to be truly animated though, with characters moving around and video integration with content... Flash is the only way to go. I can stream audio and video, synch it with XML cuepoints, map it to a 3D surface and let the user interact with the results - tweak the audio using a waveform UI or sliders to mess with the video RGB/effects/transformations, etc. I can even embed a physics engine and give objects gravity, velocity and mass so they can interact with each other and the user.
You can't do that with anything else.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:This seriously sucks by poot_rootbeer · 2008-07-01 03:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

Flash text does not behave like HTML text in several ways.
And furthermore, the rules of cricket differ and several ways from the rules of baseball!
The World Wide Web is a medium for many content types, of which text/html is only one. Complaining that Flash doesn't work the same as HTML is like complaining that pears don't taste like apples. They're not SUPPOSED to be the same.
Re:This seriously sucks by John+Hasler · 2008-07-01 05:47 · Score: 1

> You can't do that with anything else.
Thank ghod. Would that you couldn't do it at all.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:This seriously sucks by foniksonik · 2008-07-01 08:14 · Score: 1

Hmm you're life must be pretty boring if you don't like the idea of interactive toys. Do you write technical manuals for a living?

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:This seriously sucks by Zebedeu · 2008-07-01 23:00 · Score: 1

The problem is that they're only giving this access to Google and Yahoo.
Perhaps they're affraid of exactly a scenario such as the one you describe.
Re:This seriously sucks by PortHaven · 2008-07-09 08:12 · Score: 1

While I agree with you regarding Ron Paul as president. I do not see your point on text.
Perhaps to a degree, that yes, there is a lot to be said for HTML and text. But have you checked out "Buzzword"
Or the previews for Flash Player 10? I think Adobe is aware of this deficiency and working to make Flash Player 10 the most powerful web based delivery system for text.
Re:This seriously sucks by PortHaven · 2008-07-09 08:13 · Score: 1

Then you are completely failing to notice what Flash can really do.
Go beyond the animated ads and the widgets. Go to an immersive interactivity.

Flash by ledow · 2008-07-01 01:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

For a start, "crawlable" does not mean it WILL be crawled. More likely, most flash will contain nothing but junk and internals that were never meant to be seen anyway. I wonder when the first "we recovered a password that was stored inside a flash file" / "we googled for vulnerable flash apps and found these" hits will come about. And, as someone's already pointed out, if you *can* extract the text from them, you can't do much useful with it besides say "it's in this Flash somewhere". You can't even do "find in page" once you've clicked on such a link. And if it's at the end of an hour-long Flash animation, you're not going to sit through it.

Then you'll have some people who have actually used bitmaps instead of text inside the Flash for various reasons, etc. The only useful thing to come out of this may well be a "View as HTML" version of Flash-only pages. But they will still be second-class pages because the designer didn't want to do it theirselves.

Given that people who use Flash aren't exactly the most popular people in the world (e.g. if you want it to appear in Google, be read by people, to be bookmarked, to be quoted/cited/linked etc.), this won't affect much - Finding content in a Flash file is like looking for a needle in a haystack. That's the problem solved by this announcement. However, finding *useful* content in that file is going to be even worse, and actually getting users TO that data will be almost impossible.

I imagine that the same thing will happen as it did with images, PDF's, etc. Those who design their Flash well will get something indexed and it'll actually get a hit or two from "View HTML Version" on Google. Those who don't (i.e. 99% of the people who make them) won't see any difference at all.

Re:Flash by Zekasu · 2008-07-01 01:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you store a password in a Java applet in a string, you can download that applet and open it in Notepad to find it. I'm assuming this is the same in SWF documents.
Also considering you can pretty much disassemble SWF files, well, that's your fault.
Although I do agree that being able to search Google for vulnerable Flash applications is a major concern, I'm to go out on a limb and say that Adobe, coupled with Google, are going to do something like only make text-containing boxes into crawl-able material.
That aside, I'm hoping that search engines also implement a "only display results without Flash content" feature.
Re:Flash by Richard_at_work · 2008-07-01 01:32 · Score: 2, Informative

For a start, "crawlable" does not mean it WILL be crawled.
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/06/improved-flash-indexing.html

Meaningful links into complex flash apps? by geomobile · 2008-07-01 01:06 · Score: 1

Thinking about classic "flat & linear" Flash movies this makes sense. But Flash is used as an application platform more and more (think of Flex).

Somebody please explain how Google is going to link into complex applications in a meaningful way.

Maybe they should introduce a standard interface that Flash apps could expose that allows Google to get content from the app together with startup arguments that would put the app into a meaningful state. Otherwise the Google result link would just start the app without any further indication where the content is.

Is there such an interface? Or may be this belongs into sitemap.xml...

--
What I do for a living: Build a GPS mobile game

Re:Meaningful links into complex flash apps? by heinzkunz · 2008-07-01 01:52 · Score: 1

> Somebody please explain how Google is going to link into complex applications in a meaningful way. Using deep links: http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Flex_3:Feature_Introductions:_Deep_Linking
Re:Meaningful links into complex flash apps? by geomobile · 2008-07-01 02:15 · Score: 1

Can google generate working/meaningful deep links from reading an SWF file?

TFA was talking about new possibilities for Google that come from reading and indexing content in SWF files.

--
What I do for a living: Build a GPS mobile game
Re:Meaningful links into complex flash apps? by seanonymous · 2008-07-01 07:34 · Score: 1

I agree, this will be difficult for anything other than flat files with the text hardcoded in. Most modern Flash apps (hell, even a lot of punch-the-monkey-to-lower-your-mortgage banners) import XML files that contain all the text and paths to the other assets. The paths to these XML files are often created by PHP or JavaScript concatenation.

Even if you did index that, it would most likely be useless out of context.

From TFA:
We currently do not attach content from external resources that are loaded by your Flash files. If your Flash file loads an HTML file, an XML file, another SWF file, etc., Google will separately index that resource, but it will not yet be considered to be part of the content in your Flash file.

So, basically, they'll index the labels of your buttons on non-localized apps, along with a slew of third-rate hardcoded flat-file hack sites.

Woo Hoo.

I don't get it by oodaloop · 2008-07-01 01:10 · Score: 4, Funny

Why would I want search engines crawling through my thumb-drive?

OK, before you mod me troll, that was a joke.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.

Any impact? by Dwedit · 2008-07-01 01:13 · Score: 1

Hasn't Google already indexed and crawled .SWF files? How would releasing the SWF specification make things any different than before, when there were other widely available free SWF parsing libraries?

Re:Any impact? by heinzkunz · 2008-07-01 01:55 · Score: 1

Yes, the Search Engine Kit is not new. I don't think there have been any significant developments, maybe they just want to stay on the radar.
Re:Any impact? by biovoid · 2008-07-01 02:03 · Score: 1

Google can currently index the static textual content embedded within a SWF file. What it cannot do is crawl any dynamic content that the SWF file subsequently loads (XML, web-services, other SWF files etc).
Adobe has provided to Google and Yahoo a version of the Flash Player that effectively crawls the UI of a Flash application as if it was a human (much like current search engines crawl HTML pages) - any dynamic/external content is therefore also indexed.

A Good Thing by intx13 · 2008-07-01 01:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'll deride slow-loading, unintuitive Flash apps as much as the next guy, but this is a big step towards Flash a viable alternative to the HTML/XHTML/Javascript/CSS/PHP jumble that makes up the Web today. Other things that still need addressing (IMO) to make a true Flash web:

Flash-to-Flash linking
More natural and useful text objects
Standardized framework for GUI elements
Real accessibility

If these things could get cleared up, I wouldn't mind seeing a Flash Web... where Flash isn't a box in the center of an HTML page, but the basic protocol itself (like what Curl claims to be).

Of course given the cludginess of most Flash apps, maybe I'm just being a masochist here!

Re:A Good Thing by jrumney · 2008-07-01 01:32 · Score: 1

For any app for which Flash gives real benefits over plain HTML, the textual content is going to be dynamically loaded from the server anyway, so this change buys nothing. For annoying little Flash ads and annoying big animated full page Flash "sites" that break the browser's back button, it might make a difference.
Re:A Good Thing by biovoid · 2008-07-01 02:06 · Score: 2, Informative

RTFA - Adobe has provided a version of the Flash Player that allows search engines to crawl dynamically loaded content. That's the whole point of the article. Google has been indexing static SWF content for years - this is all about dynamic content.
Re:A Good Thing by Raenex · 2008-07-01 05:46 · Score: 1

HTML/XHTML/Javascript/CSS/PHP
One of these things is not like the others.
Re:A Good Thing by zarlino · 2008-07-01 11:01 · Score: 1

PHP does not belong to that list.

--
Check out my cross-platform apps

Am I the only one... by Mistshadow2k4 · 2008-07-01 01:17 · Score: 4, Funny

... who read the title as "Adobe Makes Flesh Crawl"? My first thought was, yeah, so what else is new?

--
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.

Re:Am I the only one... by stuntpope · 2008-07-01 05:18 · Score: 1

I did, wondered if Adobe was coming out with something like this.

This will be annoying by uxbn_kuribo · 2008-07-01 01:21 · Score: 1

You guys think it's great until advertisers start making their crappy "You've won a free ipod" flash ads searchable.

--
No portion of this post may be rebroadcast without the express, written consent of Major League Baseball.

An off button by cliffski · 2008-07-01 01:37 · Score: 1

What will be essential for a flash-web is an off button that lets me turn off any flashy repeating flickering and flashing adverts or other pieces of flashing content on a page.
I am not a small kitten that wants to look at the bright flashy thing. if I'm at your website, I'm likely looking for information, so stop flashing at me.
there is a good reason amazon and google don't have flashing animations anywhere.

--
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games

Flash doesn't suck by chord.wav · 2008-07-01 01:43 · Score: 1

Flash doesn't suck, it's a great tool when properly used. The thing is that HTML was so hard to learn for the common "web designer" that they've used Flash to solve all their needs. Even Adobe doesn't use Flash for the entire site, they never did, including Maromedia. It's great for videos and when you need some rich media experience INDISE a web site, but making a WHOLE site using Flash is like using glass to build an entire house, including the pipes.

Back to the point, I guess there's nothing wrong to index flash content meanwhile they refer to those little spaces with media inside HTML web sites. I'd hate this to rocket the entire-Flash sites industry.

Re:Flash doesn't suck by foniksonik · 2008-07-01 03:23 · Score: 1

I agree and disagree... I would love to see this rocket the Flash sites industry AND bump up the game.... with serious developers taking active notice of the platform.
Flash can do whatever you want it to do. It can be rock solid or it can be a house of cards. Either depends on the developers and architects who build it. I love Flash but I hate having to develop 2 sites (1 for the engines and 1 for people). Even if I make the Flash version meet 508 compliance with transcripts, tab indexes, control key support, fully searchable (within flash) content... yes you can do it, up until now (and even still I'm not convinced yet)... it would not be indexed properly by Google, so we still have to make a separate HTML version....
Luckily I architect Flash sites that run off a CMS and pull in assets and content dynamically using platform targeted templates, so the content only has to be updated in 1 place and then is provisioned to: Flash, Flash Lite, HTML, Mobile XHTML and WML and automagically gets added to in-Flash search indexes, and is added to a deep-linking script on the fly as the site is loaded from the CMS. Oh yeah, it also gets tagged with Google Analytics code snippets for tracking purposes...
Now i have an argument for dropping full support for HTML and only include a standard "This site requires Flash", since Flash still has 98% adoption worldwide, despite those who refuse to use it.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Flash doesn't suck by chord.wav · 2008-07-01 06:04 · Score: 1

Yes, HTML, or anything that produces some form of open, text-based, code I can grep through. I don't want to have to disassembly a binary to view the code.
I don't care how it's generated so it can be, PHP, RubyOnRails, Perl, ASP.Net, etc.

Let's Face it by neuromancer23 · 2008-07-01 01:50 · Score: 1

While Flash/ActionScript sucks it doesn't suck nearly as much as trying to write rich user interfaces in the abominable JS and HTML, and at least there is some attempt at object orientation and you can get similar behavior across browsers and operating systems. But yeah Flash still sucks big fat rhino cock, as anyone who has ever tried to use a/v other than the built in codecs will tell you, and open-source support for flash is non-existent. This is good news however if it inspires Java content to do the same thing. Maybe then we can write rich web interfaces in a language that doesn't blow goats and HTML, JS, and Flash can all receive the horrible death that they have deserved for so long.

Re:Let's Face it by Shados · 2008-07-01 02:07 · Score: 1

JS and HTML for RIA only sucks for the people making the frameworks :) (I really pity them). For the rest of us, well... let just say ExtJS is really, really sweet.
Re:Let's Face it by neuromancer23 · 2008-07-01 03:06 · Score: 1

Yeah until you try to write JS of your own and realize that the thir part AJAX library you are using has radically modified the DOM. Actually, JS and HTML probably would have been fine if JS was really object oriented and it weren't for Microsoft. We would never have had any problems if the w3c had done the same thing that Sun did with Java: provide a TCK and trademark HTML, that way when Microsuck subverted the standard, the w3c could have sued the fuck out of that Nazi weasel bill gates. Java works beautifully everywhere across platform and that's because Sun had the foresight to act not only out of charity but with a little god damn common sense as well.
Anyway, we can take some comfort in the fact that there may be a hell, and if there is Bill Gates will certainly burn there.
Re:Let's Face it by Shados · 2008-07-01 03:38 · Score: 1

Java works beautifully across platforms... thats funny... (I'm a big Java fan, but its simply not that simple...)
That said, the -good- ajax librairies do not modify the DOM. (or at least, do not in any way that would conflict). I think Prototype makes a royal mess out of things? Never tried it, but if thats true, that would be a big no no.
Also, HTML existed before the W3C took it in, and it was originally quite limited... Netscape and MS had to extend it to make it useful at first. The W3C just took the extensions that were good and made a standard out of them. Heck, its true for CSS too... opacity control wasn't there in CSS originally... the DX filters, moz-opacity, etc came first, and THEN it was made part of the standard.
Besides, until the W3C makes reference implementations like Sun did with Java, its always going to be a joke spec.

Someone not invited to the party? by slashmojo · 2008-07-01 01:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

So only Google & Yahoo were "provided technology and information" - Microsoft must be feeling left out.. lucky for adobe they dont live in sweden I suppose.

I wonder why adobe didn't invite msft/live.com to the party? Sour grapes over silverlight perhaps?

Re:Someone not invited to the party? by ksdd · 2008-07-01 07:24 · Score: 1

Who says they didn't reach out to Microsoft?
Could just as easily be that since MS has a competing technology, helping Adobe out wouldn't be in Microsoft's best interest.
Fact is, neither one of us knows for sure what happened.

Re:I misread the subject by realkiwi · 2008-07-01 02:04 · Score: 1

My own thought was Adobe makes trash searchable. Always a good thing if you ever happen to lose a valuable object in your trash.

I have yet to find any value in Flash other than its ability to lock my computer up and put me in a bad mood for the rest of the day.

Actionscript programmers reading this please tell me it is just sloppy programming causing this? ... No?
It really is just crap?

--
realkiwi

Re:I misread the subject by tinkerton · 2008-07-01 02:05 · Score: 1

I had problems with the word "crawlable", as if it was whispering "don't try to say me, you'll regret it!" . But then I tried and it was easy, really. I'm sure there's a wise lesson there somewhere. Just goes to show eh, something.

Interesting! by nickgs · 2008-07-01 02:07 · Score: 1

This is good news. It seems everybody hates on Flash here. I am a fan BUT its like everything else, use in moderation!

Any of you who have dealt with real customers know that many of them like to see flash on their page and are willing to pay a premium for it!! It is our responsibility to let them know the proper pro's and con's.

Lets face it, there is some very innovative things being done with the player today. Personally, like many things on the web, this excites me.

Ok, now how do we get it by Paul+Carver · 2008-07-01 02:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

This would be great if it can be implemented directly into web browsers. For example, a Firefox plugin that allows me to specify "view text only" for Flash content.

Or is this "proprietary" information that will only be given to Google and Yahoo and not shared with the us commoners?

I don't know what brain damage causes people to think that they should present text a half a dozen words at a time in a slideshow, but it would be great if my browser would default to showing me all the text from a flash slideshow and then let me choose if I really want to see it pieced out a few words at a time.

Proprietary Solution - NOT A Good Thing by Tungbo · 2008-07-01 02:28 · Score: 1

HTML, etc. is a jumble. But it's an Open jumble.

Nuff said.

Re:Proprietary Solution - NOT A Good Thing by nine-times · 2008-07-01 03:23 · Score: 1

Absolutely. The web would not be where it is today if it required that you purchase expensive proprietary software to make a page. The fact that HTML is viewable in any text editor, and can be edited (and even made compliant) by anyone with half a brain is responsible for the massive amount of content that we have available.
And ultimately, HTML+CSS is a pretty good solution for static text/image representation. Some of the shortcomings (e.g. limited a font selection, image borders) are already being addressed in the current browser war.
So the "jumble" comes from the dynamic "web 2.0" sorts of things, and it comes from using HTML/CSS plus a client-end language plus a server-side language. Even that's being worked on, and it seems likely to me that a lot more work could be done. But the important thing is that it's standardized and open.
If Adobe wants to try to push Flash to be more than a niche product for games, they should turn the whole thing over to a standards body (W3C?) and let it be managed like other standards. But honestly, I'm not sure what the point of that would be. The only good uses of Flash that I've seen are games and embedded video, and really video embedding should be improved in HTML such that Flash players are irrelevant anyway.
Yeah, I know you said, "Nuff said", and honestly what you said was enough. I'm just piling on.
Re:Proprietary Solution - NOT A Good Thing by PortHaven · 2008-07-09 08:15 · Score: 1

And I've yet to see a Linux box that's as usable as OS X or XP.
*shrugs*
Oh, and much of Flash and Flex is or is being open-sourced.

Re:Predictable responses... by superflippy · 2008-07-01 02:39 · Score: 1

CSS...an almost unusable and completely unpredictable triumph of geekeneering over the less tech savvy minions

I remember building web pages back in the pre-CSS days, and let me tell you, the advent of CSS made web design about 1000x easier. No more complicated table layouts that make pages take eons to load. No more individual font tags for every single size and color change. Want to change something throughout the entire site? That'll be one massive find and replace, better hope it works. Today, you can accomplish the same thing by changing one line of text in a stylesheet.

You can stick with 1998-style web design if you want to, but I will keep my stylesheets and the creative freedom they give me, thankyouverymuch.

--
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.

Re:Flash content stuck in Search index by foniksonik · 2008-07-01 02:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Uhh... there are now several ways for flash developers to allow deep linking in to flash... it uses a hash and directory structure with javascript to pass the url into flash, which then auto loads or skips to the content being requested.

This is not new, it's been around for 2 years now.

Here's a site I built in just such a fashion:

http://www.soursweetgone.com/flash/#/friends/punk-a-friend/

This section of the site lets you upload a photo, morph it using a displacement map filter to either spherize or pinch the photo.. don't forget to zoom in on the good part... then you can email the results with a message to anyone. (yes we collect your info, but it's a candy company... your choice).

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.

That's sad news by John+Hasler · 2008-07-01 02:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Lack of indexing may have been one of the only things holding back the total Flashification of the Web.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

Re:hmmmm by jacquesm · 2008-07-01 02:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

the sooner we get rid of flash the better, competition or not.

I hate these 'industry standards' that get used by everybody and their brother in applications where there are much better and open solutions.

To hell with flash, and no kudos for google/yahoo for helping this shite stay around longer.

--
MP3 Search Engine

Re:but how would you direct link? by foniksonik · 2008-07-01 02:55 · Score: 1

Here you go:

Deep linking for flash and ajax

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.

I misunderstood by scourfish · 2008-07-01 02:57 · Score: 1

For a minute there, I thought "crawlable" referred the speed with which adobe products run in my browser, because they've already achieved that milestone.

Re:Predictable responses... by nyctopterus · 2008-07-01 03:15 · Score: 1

It still sucks. Centering things is a pain in the arse--why do we have to use stupid hacks like negative margins? It's on of the most common things you might want to do with layout. How about vertical alignment? Also stupidly complicated involving hacks. Columns? Who'd a thought anyone would want a simple way to do that? And how about positioning?

- "Fixed" = STATIC, doesn't move
- "Absolute" = RELATIVE to the (positioned(!)) containing element.
- "Relative" = OFFSET from the flow.
- "Static" = in flow.

The should be "static", "relative", "offset", and "inflow", respectively.
And don't get me started on floats. Holy crap what a nightmare.
CSS was an okay idea, but it's implementation could have been much, much better. And no one's ever made a decent visual tool to create it either--which is especially irritating because it's (mostly) about visual styling.

gimmie by brock+bitumen · 2008-07-01 03:34 · Score: 1

i wanted that information too, so i can index swf files in my spare time. i'm serious 8|

but they only gave it to google and some yahoo? dang

Re:hmmmm by bberens · 2008-07-01 03:42 · Score: 1

Go easy on flash. At least people don't litter the world with applets. Now THAT would be hideous. And besides, with noscript on I rarely ever see any flash I don't want to.

--
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com

Re:hmmmm by LWATCDR · 2008-07-01 03:58 · Score: 1

Funny I see very little difference except that Flash is a lot nastier to write code in.
Flash and applets are fine for some uses but they both should be banned from menus and buttons!

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

I always said... by etwills · 2008-07-01 03:58 · Score: 1

...that web sites should be flash.

Stood for Fast-Loading, Accessible, Searchable Hypertext though.

(Hmm, suddenly, it's only half the joke it used to be!)

Re:Why the hate? by Lincolnshire+Poacher · 2008-07-01 04:21 · Score: 1

> I can not remember the last time I browsed to a site, expecting something useful, to be held up by flash gimmickery.

One example is the website for William Morris, spectacle frame manufacturers in London. I viewed a pair of their frames in a shop and, wishing to learn more, tried various search term permutations without success.

Questioning my sanity, I resorted to various URL permutations and eventually landed upon:

William Morris ( London )

I cannot conceive any reason why a catalogue site should be implemented in such a manner. In fact, to this day I don't even KNOW what is on their site! There is no indexable content which search engines can use to correlate to query terms, so they are invisible to the searching World.

Re:hmmmm by no1home · 2008-07-01 05:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually, if web programmers would adopt and adhere to some 'best practices', flash, applets, and the like would be less of a problem. What they should include on each of their web pages is a way to toggle each movie and each sound, with the default being to not play until told to do so. I shouldn't need No Script to stop the wailing of a page.

And along the lines of what Google-Yahoo-Adobe are trying to achieve here, they should make it so we can right click on any of the links and get my usual menu options: open link in new window; in new tab; in IE tab (for those who use this); copy link location; bookmark; etc. Then it would be much more integrated into the web experience and we'd all be (at least a little) more comfortable with it.

--
I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!

Persecutors will be violated!

Re:MOST things are Proprietary Solutions... by Raenex · 2008-07-01 05:44 · Score: 1

You're a "dork".

Re:Not All Flash is Bad by cpghost · 2008-07-01 06:18 · Score: 1

Try to view Flash-only sites on FreeBSD and other non-supported OS by Adobe, and you'll come to a very different conclusion. And Flash is very bad and extremely inaccessible for the blind who use text-to-speech programs.

--
cpghost at Cordula's Web.

SWF is open? by SanityInAnarchy · 2008-07-01 06:25 · Score: 1

When did this happen?

Seriously, I'm looking at the spec, and at a first glance, I don't see any kind of clause that I thought was there before -- the clause which says that this spec may not be used to implement a player.

If it really is entirely open, that's great news for Gnash and friends!

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!

From a Flash Developer stand point by StarbuckZero · 2008-07-01 07:02 · Score: 1

I've been a Flash Developer for well over 8+ years starting from Flash 4. When I started I was thinking "This can't really be used for anything useful" so I would only embed it inside other apps or call JavasScript for complex things if its in HTML. Now the times have changed and Flash can do a lot of things however I still try to use the right tool for the job. In most cases now I develop the back-end of a website using PHP and a AJAX tool-kit and the front end in Flash.

A lot of movie sites still want things to be very shinny, flashing and fast moving. That's where Flash comes in however there are a lot of people that don't build those sites thinking about everyone. You can be a script kiddie and develop some stuff in Flash using the time-line. Long as it looks pretty.

I know people that try to use Flash for everything or when they build a flash website leave a lot of things out. For example Accessibility, I've added it into projects before. The thing is you can't get every Flash Developer to do that. I do use stander-fonts over bitmap fonts and make my text selectable. However not everyone is going to do that. Now everyone think about tabbing or not locking the keys to the Flash movie.

Now I'm developing stuff in AS3 and I've talked to a buddy that hates AS3 because it's more locked down and faster. Programming in AS3 is more like programming in C# or Java. I would know because I've also developed Apps in those too. However you can't get everyone to move away from AS2 and shitty standers. However I've seen good code by good developers. For example when I worked for EA. There interface is written in AS2 using there own Flash Plugin. It's not the good Flash Developers that's giving flash a bad name, it's the shity ones. I'm sure the same thing could be said for back in the day VB6 right?

--
From Zero to Hero... Starbuck Zero

Re:Not All Flash is Bad by stewbacca · 2008-07-01 07:10 · Score: 1

That is interesting. I was simply stating that in my field (developing training that simulates the software being used), Flash is pretty much the only option, short of a full-scale install of the real software, which most clients won't/can't do. It has to be deliverable over the net (on Windows or Mac OSX, any browser..since that covers 99% of our users), it has to be interactive, and most of all, it has to work with a learning management system. That rapid e-learning stuff doesn't cut it here. Also, I am pretty agnostic towards disabled users, since I do military work, and they are pretty much exempt from 508 compliance.

linux full screen by ihatethetv · 2008-07-01 07:45 · Score: 1

yea but when will they get decent full screen video performance out on linux? I've tried 5 different machines, different video cards and drivers...none of them can put out a decent full screen gootube frame rate.

-G

One small step for adobe... by doom · 2008-07-01 07:56 · Score: 1

That's one small step for Adobe, but one giant leap for the march of videocy.

Ah well. The internet was kind of cool for a while.

Re:Why the hate? by doom · 2008-07-01 08:01 · Score: 1

As a web designer myself, I'm curious to see where the hostility to Flash really comes from.

Flash is one of a number of things that tends to annoy everyone (and I mean everyone, not just techie geeks) except for the web designer, who thinks this kind of crap is the bees knees, and is always full of excuses for why you don't need to worry about driving away X% of the users.

You think it's great because you can use it to do whizzy, automated things that behave in interesting and unique ways, but everyone hates it for exactly the same reasons.

What's up with the moderation? by mad.frog · 2008-07-01 08:13 · Score: 1

"Troll"? I didn't see any inflammatory language there. Just an opinion, simply stated.

Re:What's up with the moderation? by stewbacca · 2008-07-01 08:24 · Score: 1

Yeah, I've noticed I need to work on my communication a bit, because I keep getting modded troll for otherwise light-hearted or (as in this case) inexplicable reasons. Maybe it was because I stereotyped slashdot users as being non-creative types? Or maybe it was because I took what can be construed as a subtle dig at the open source crowd? I'd sure like to know, so I can stop being a troll ;-)

Re:appear/read/bookmarked/quote/cited/linked by nova_ostrich · 2008-07-01 08:39 · Score: 1

if you want it to appear in Google, be read by people, to be bookmarked, to be quoted/cited/linked etc.

...you probably shouldn't be using Flash. Plain and simple. I'm a Flash developer and I have no problem saying that. The most common argument against Flash on Slashdot is that it sucks as a document. Of course it does. Viewing documents is not the purpose of Flash, especially when you're embedding it into a browser that's way better at displaying, formatting, and laying out text.

--
It's scary being a Flash and Flex developer on Slashdot. You guys are unnaturally rabid.

Already done by scum-o · 2008-07-01 09:11 · Score: 1

http://mediawombat.com/ has been indexing and providing searchable flash content for a long time now. They even show you the actionscript source code.

Just what we need... by Kazoo+the+Clown · 2008-07-01 09:28 · Score: 1

search engines sucking up valuable bandwidth in order to support closed encoding schemes...

Open source flash decompilers? by argent · 2008-07-01 10:32 · Score: 1

So where is a good open source flash decompiler that takes a .SWF and turns it into something you can examine?

Oh... they don't "forget" :-) by RexDevious · 2008-07-01 10:56 · Score: 1

They don't do it because they're not paid to do it. They're paid to make the website look and work the way the client wants. If the client also wants it to be nicely search-able... well that's SEO, an additional service they're happy to provide for a small fee.

This is not a knock on web designers, I work with them and (at least in this studio) they give the clients far more than they deserve as it is. If a client's cool and doesn't waste their time with ridiculous requests "Make it pinker", etc - the people here will make sure it it's more search-able, QA it on every browser and platform, pour over the design to make it even better - you name it. But all that extra service isn't promised up front so they have some wiggle room with time-wasting or after-the-fact penny pinchers.

Is this a good thing? by flashmantom · 2008-07-01 11:36 · Score: 1

I would have to say I'm less than excited about the idea of having flash content search engine indexable. That's not to say that I'm against flash. I love it. I use it in elements on pages all the time, and the idea of indexing is obviously a good idea in itself, but the problem is that with the rise of a new technology comes millions of bottom feeding SOBs just dieing to manipulate it for personal gain and make the internet an altogether less pleasant experience. From the Adobe SWF spec document it seems the only way they'll be indexed is by using title and keyword attributes, which used to be all the rage in web pages but were inherrantly inaccurate because people could write whatever they want in there without it matching the content. And with the millions of bottom feeders out there whose sole purpose is to lure us to useless unrelated pages or link farms to drive up their CPM's, I think the one thing that could make the situation worse is if those same pages could be all flash.

Re:Flash content stuck in Search index by pushing-robot · 2008-07-01 15:50 · Score: 1

--
You must be some kind of super-troll robot from the future where apple has taken over the world.

Lies!

--
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?

Re:hmmmm by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2008-07-01 16:53 · Score: 1

Well, when you get down to it : We shouldn't need noscript. We also shouldn't need addblock. Or anitvirus software. Or security policies. Or locks. Yet, we have all of them for the same reason: people are jerks. I'm a jerk, you're a jerk, you're mom's a jerk. Given the opportunity to make a vast sum of money, people will become jerks. Sure, you say to yourself that you wouldn't be a big jerk, but in a game of one-up-man-ship someone will always be willing to be slightly more of a jerk than you, forcing you to respond in kind. Its human nature, the result of survival instincts and original sin.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.

Ah, for the good old days by XanC · 2008-07-01 19:16 · Score: 1

When Web sites had "best viewed with IE4" banners, and screw anybody who had a Non-Approved (tm) browsing apparatus! That's what the Web is all about!

Re:hmmmm by drinkypoo · 2008-07-01 20:12 · Score: 1

What they should include on each of their web pages is a way to toggle each movie and each sound, with the default being to not play until told to do so. I shouldn't need No Script to stop the wailing of a page.

Today I use noscript, but I always liked flashblock better. Just a big flash-looking play button where the movies normally go. Pretty simple. Today I'd stick an SVG icon in there with a maximum size and scale it down if it didn't fit, but anyway... This is still a job for extensions. I think most people are amused by flashing lights and loud noises (so long as they happen or at least start to happen within four seconds.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:hmmmm by no1home · 2008-07-02 05:08 · Score: 1

I agree entirely. It's like true communism: looks great, all pie-in-the-sky, but when real people are involved, forget about it. But the web would improve if many of the people presenting fairly normal web sites adhered to the standards I noted. Yes, as you said, we would still need No Script or Flash Block, but it wouldn't be nearly as noticeable. Take the gadget blog Gizmodo as an example. They frequently have videos either in their postings, or in the readers' comments. None of them play automatically. Same with any of my preferred video sites. Most of the sites I visit actually already act this way. Ad Block Plus protects me from the major evils (along with anti-virus and anti-malware programs). So I actually don't even have No Script. I used to use Flash Block, might again, but I rarely need it due to the sites I visit behaving well.

--
I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!

Persecutors will be violated!

Re:MOST things are Proprietary Solutions... by Tungbo · 2008-07-02 05:29 · Score: 1

'Oil is a "Proprietary Solution".'

You've certainly demonstrated yourself to be an artist --- Oil is a commodity, not a technology.

What you probably don't know is that all the US oil refineries actually have agreed upon standards. A standard set of gasoline (premium, plus, regulare. etc) is produced in ALL US refineries. Before getting to the local Exxon or BP stations, they have company specific additives added to distinguish them. This system saves the oil companies from shipping gasolines all over the country for lrss time and cost. THIS is the power of standardization. Promoting an Open Standard is the best way to insure standardization.

Most posters here, like myself, feel that there is a proper place for using Flash. However, it is far to encumbered and controlled to be a Web 2.0 replacement for HTML.

As for artist replacing developer, that's great for artistic creation or hacking, but hardly suitable for large scale projects. Want to write an online tax filing app that'll seve 100 millions people over a 2 week period in Flash?

Re:hmmmm by PortHaven · 2008-07-09 06:28 · Score: 1

Please suggest a much better and more open standard?

OMG, so it's not open-source (oh wait, the Flex Framework is and they now have the open Flash initiative). What more do you want?

Come on...give it a break. Sorry, yes there are a few who want everything free as in Linux. But frankly, my experience with Linux has been poor. Yes, it's mostly driver support and installation issues.

I'd rather that experience not be expanded to everything.

Re:Flash content stuck in Search index by PortHaven · 2008-07-09 08:05 · Score: 1

Actually you can...if the application is designed properly. Heck, you can even use the back button.

Re:Predictable responses... by PortHaven · 2008-07-09 08:20 · Score: 1

I always thought Geeks like complexity and fickleness because it ensured job security?

Hence their dislike for Flash - "works the same in all supported browsers".

Re:Predictable responses... by PortHaven · 2008-07-09 08:21 · Score: 1

And I have yet to see a complex site using CSS that looks identically in IE, Firefox, & Safari.

And can use the same code (without browser specific conditionalization)

Re:Not All Flash is Bad by PortHaven · 2008-07-09 08:24 · Score: 1

As soon as I can get one of these free 'nix to ever work on one of my hardware boxes. I'll do that...

But I have yet to ever get Linux working smoothly on a box. And a few years I went laptop only. And that will only make it all the more unlikely.

I wouldn't mind if we were talking about brand spanking new products. But when they're 2 yrs old and still do not have driver support.

I am not surprised you can't get Flash or much else to work on such OS's.

*pulls out marshmallows*

If you're going to be flamed might as well roast a few marshmallows for enjoyment.

192 of 232 comments (clear)