Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

HTML5 vs. Flash — the Case For Flash

Posted by timothy on from the here-and-now-has-an-advantage dept.

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Peter Wayner offers seven reasons why web designers will remain loyal to Flash for rich web content, despite 'seductive' new capabilities offered by HTML5. Sure, HTML5 aims to duplicate many of the features that were once the sole province of plugins (local disk storage, video display, better rendering, algorithmic drawing, and more) and has high-profile backers in Google and Apple, but as Wayner sees it, this fight is more about designers than it is about technocrats and programmers. And from its sub-pixel resolution, to its developer tools, to its 'write once, play everywhere' functionality, Flash has too much going for it to fall by the wayside. 'The designers will make the final determination. As long as Flash and its cousins Flex and Shockwave remain the simplest tools for producing drop-dead gorgeous websites, they'll keep their place on the Internet.'"

3 of 510 comments (clear)

  1. Nonsense by ScienceMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I already block Flash automatically, as it drags down performance and rarely adds any content.

    There are a few cases in which useful content has been designed in Flash, but most of the time it is useless eye candy - and more often than not, just pure advertising. A great way to block most advertising that you do not want is to block Flash. Why would you not want to do that?

  2. Re:maybe but,, by AndGodSed · · Score: 3, Informative

    To wit, you can watch youtube in HTML5 for those who don't know already.

    Linky: http://www.youtube.com/html5

    I would like to see someone run a comparative benchmark on that puppy...

    --

    Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity

  3. Point by point by nine-times · · Score: 5, Informative
    • Reason No. 1: Flash's sub-pixel resolution and anti-aliasing: Seriously?
    • Reason No. 2: Flash beats Canvas: Ok, I bet there are still some things that Flash does better/faster. But complaining that HTML5 sometimes has bad performance isn't too compelling for me, since Flash constantly crashes on me. Further, the idea that HTML5 is bad because some browser might work a little different doesn't quite work for me since: (A) HTML5 is new and not complete, and it will take a little while to work things out. (B) At least I have the option of different browsers; if Adobe Flash Player isn't working for me, there's not really too much I can do.
    • Reason No. 3: Flash's good developer tools: Fair enough.
    • Reason No. 4: Flash's supercool fonts: Better support for custom fonts is being built into HTML5/CSS3. Flash shouldn't really be used for rendering text on websites anyway, since it interferes with searching and linking and indexing.
    • Reason No. 5: Flash is write once, play everywhere: More like write once, play anywhere that runs Flash. That means play anywhere on Windows desktops, kind of play on Mac and Linux but not well, and then barely play on some mobile devices.
    • Reason No. 6: The Flash commercial ecosystem: Ok. I don't know if this is an actual benefit, or if you lose more support through being semi-closed than you gain by having some commercial support.
    • Reason No. 7: Flash's game engines: I don't get it. Why is he talking about "Born to Run"?