Slashdot Mirror
HTML5 vs. Flash — the Case For Flash
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.'"
i understand the arguement, but don't forget about performance and stability.
wait and see how smooth, fast, and stable the HTML5 sites are to the flash counterparts.
give it time.
None of the flash benefits described by the article are impossible to replicate in HTML5/browser/javascript, and it's naive to assume that the new ecosystem wont continue to evolve over time just as flash has.
They are right that the development environment matters. That is not a reason to tell out right lies.
How come the folks at Adobe cannot just change it so that the output is javascript and html rather than actionscript? Does html 5 just not do vector graphics?
This one has multiple fronts. Don't let anyone kid you, this isn't A vs. B, it is at least ABC vs. XYZ where each factor is independently weighed and measured.
Remember to maintain your supply of
No website on this planet is "drop-dead gorgeous"... a woman (or man if you prefer) in real 3D right in front of you and that you can touch and communicate with is infinitely much more "drop-dead gorgeous" even if they are butt ugly.
The whole point of flash was that the standards were so ignored that designers were glomping onto something, anything, that would show consistently across the browsers. But at this point with Firefox having the market share that it does and the other minor browsers taking on as many installs as they do by being more or less standards compliant, I fail to see why any designer in their right mind would be using Flash where alternatives exist.
As long as it isn't a real standard you're going to be giving up a portion of the potential market by using a proprietary plug in that isn't universally supported. Not to mention the people that block it because of the problems it causes and the abuses of technology over the years.
The fact that garbage like Badgers exists on the web at all is strong evidence that we need to leave Flash behind.
But at this point with Firefox having the market share that it does and the other minor browsers taking on as many installs as they do by being more or less standards compliant, I fail to see why any designer in their right mind would be using Flash where alternatives exist.
Because Firefox itself is a minor browser. More than half of web users (and likely more than half of your site's customers) use Internet Explorer 8 or earlier, whose DOM doesn't support all features needed to replace SWF. For example, where's SVG? Where's the 2D canvas? Where's procedural audio?
"Drop dead gorgeous" has nothing to do with the technology being used. That is the weakest argument yet for Flash.
I think the number one reason for not going to HTML5 is MSIE. Microsoft has no intention of creating a fully standards compliant browser. If they did that, they would likely also need to make their web based applications standards compliant and that would end their lock-in for Windows on the desktop and server where web applications are concerned. And MSIE is still the major browser out there.
Web developers don't like creating sites for MSIE and sites for others. It's lots of work. Just doing it in flash will assure that the flashy parts of the page will display well on all devices where HTML5 will not.
Now if by some miracle, Microsoft decides to change its selfish ways and gets compliant, that would be another thing entirely. But before anyone moves forward, something has to be done about the Microsoft problem.
Someone comes up with an IDE that rivals the Flash tool set that uses HTML5 and Javascript and Flash is dead.
Between you, me (Flashblock myself), and 2 million iPad owners, "its 'write once, play everywhere' functionality" seems to have lost its luster...
The biggest advantage that the new technologies have that flash has been trying very hard to get into is the ease with which interactive applications that integrate well with the browser and backend services can be developed without having to pay huge scaling licensing fees to anyone. The designers are certainly critical in making applications look good, but they don't get to decide what technologies the system is built on, they have to work with what they are given. If the requirements are that the webapp does X, Y and Z which flash cannot do, then it doesn't really matter what the designer would prefer to work with. They will be forced to work with what they are told to work with. If the need for good tools is great enough than the development of said tools will inevitably follow.
I started to pray that Flash would die as soon as they took away the user controls that let me stop the idiotic flickering, bouncing, annoying ads.
Don't think for a minute that all these Flash ads won't be replaced by equivalent HTML5 ads.
Yeah, Flash and Flex (nobody uses Shockwave) should not be used for websites. The goal of a site is to get people information as quickly and easily as possible. These technologies should be used for moderately-complex web applications (where HTML controls are too limiting).
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
How about flash sucks because it doesn't include a volume controls by default?
That's all it takes to trump that idiotic article.
Don't get me wrong, there are many other reasons to hate flash, (Including some of the reasons identified in the article as reasons to use flash: Flash's sub-pixel resolution and anti-aliasing and Flash's supercool fonts ) and that's not even the biggest one. But its more than adequate to just beg for that POS to die.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Reason No. 5: Flash is write once, play everywhere. Flash 10 support on Wii? Nope. Flash support on Nintendo DS? Nope? Flash 10 support on Android 1.6? Nope. Flash support on iPhone/iPad? Nope. There's everything from Flash 7 to Flash 10 out there in the field; saying you can write something for Flash ten and have it "play everywhere" is blatant bullshit. Plus, some devices simply don't have enough memory to run bloated Flash apps! Flash apps takes a long time to load because they are BIG. Sure, embedding fonts in the app is a great idea -- if you don't care how big the app is.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
is because it's only as good as Adobe implementation on your platform, and they and they alone decide whether your platform is worth sticking money/time into to make a better flash player. It's not a standard. Unlike a browser, no one else can go out and decide to make a better flash player (gnash ignored).
My 1.67Ghz G4 Powerbook to this day can only play flash videos extremely choppy and games hardly at all. It can play downloaded video or DVDs just fine.
Please point me to one website that is "drop-dead gorgeous" and not full of superfluous animations that slow down my browser.
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
I don't know about gorgeous, but I've seen lots of drop-dead websites. As in websites that cause my browser to "drop dead" and my CPU fan to whir like it is about to fly away.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Which brings to mind my favorite thing about Flash - it's so easy to block.
Yeah, I'd like to introduce the OP to this little thing out here that we have called "the internet".
You see on "the internet" the VAST MAJORITY of websites that use flash would not (by any sane or right-minded person) be classified as "drop-dead gorgeous". In fact many of them are aberrations of nature.
Flash has become a way for ignorant web designers lead by even more ignorant managers to design glittery and flashy (no pun intended) websites that focus on dazzling the user instead of usable and content-filled designs. Poor Jakob Nielsen probably cries himself to sleep every night.
Yes there are a few solitary websites out there that do use flash productively and do things that genuinely can be justified as a valued-added usage of flash that could not have been provided in plain HTML, but those are far and few between.
So what this sensationalist article is really spouting is that there are yet no good development tools for HTML5. Wow Really? So a product that just came out (relatively speaking) doesn't have as good or as many design tools yet as a product that has been around for a 14 years. Good thing you pointed that out!
Once the HTML5 tools are available and it's as easy to develop "drop-dead gorgeous" (for better or worse) websites for HTML5 as it is for Flash I think that Adobe is going to have trouble justifying Flash's existence ESPECIALLY because some of those utilities are going to be open-source and free.
If God gave us curiosity
I think he's perhaps missing the point that their place in the internet is that they're the sites that take forever to load, and that we often surf away from because we think they're broken, and on which we can't find anything we need because they're usually not usefully indexed by Google. Not an enviable place, but certainly a place.
The most common place where I encounter flash in this context is restaurant web sites when I'm going to look at the menu. If I'm on an iPhone, I just don't go to that restaurant, or I go despite the web site, not because of it. I think restauranteurs don't realize that if I'm at their web site, it's because I already am interested in going to their restaurant, and what I need is information, not a glossy brochure.
Sigh.
The goal of a website changes depending on the website. I have no idea really what the point of badger badger is, but who are you to say it's an invalid goal? As someone else mentioned, that website would not be easy to make in HTML 5.
Qxe4
You want to know the most basic reason I despise Flash? It breaks the back button.
The fundamental problem with Flash, is that end user-experience and preferences are totally ignored. Yeah, maybe it's nice for developers, maybe it's nice for content providers -- but it totally sucks for users. Why should I bother to choose a browser and customize it, if Flash is just going to come along and ignore the buttons and menus bars, play me music I don't want to hear, autoplay video when I'm trying to read another part of a page?
The problem with developers who choose Flash, is that they don't give a damn about the people who use the sites they create. They are so caught up in being clever with action script that they've forgotten the most basic principles of design.
There are plenty of ways to create "drop-dead gorgeous" sites that also abide by browser conventions, don't crash a Mac, and don't fuck with the preferences and minds of the end-user. Anyone who thinks they need Flash to do that, is a piss-poor designer, or an arrogant dick.
I may not agree with all of Apple's reasoning in banishing Flash, but the user-experience one is very valid. I welcome their decision to punch Flash in the face with this. I will rejoice when the Internet is a Flash-free zone.
We do NOT NEED Flash. Just as Real Player was once the best and easiest way of getting audio and video on the net, Flash can die just as fast as they did -- and for exactly the same reasons. Real did not give a fuck about their users, and neither do most people working in Flash.
Flashbock is the best piece of software development in the past 15 years. Nothing of value is lost by using it. Nothing of value is lost by using an iPad.
How anti-internet.
The internet is a communication medium, and it's not up to you to dictate what message people want to spread, or how they wish to present it.
Good form says simple is better, but the web is a lot more then a bunch of bullet pointed lists.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
> Unfortunately that will all fall by the wayside if/when advertisers start
> using HTML5.
And that may be the opening wedge for HTML5. Advertisers may insist that their designers learn to use it because it gets past adblockers.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
HTML5 faces the same problems as HTML & CSS & javascript currently have - namely that the webpage code looks completely different depending on which of the sixteen million different web browsers it's being viewed in. Until such time as ALL browsers render the code exactly the same way (and we all know that will never happen) there will always be a need for a specialized technology (whether it's Flash or whatever) that actually does display the content the way the designer meant for it to look no matter what browser it's running in. And of course Flash content that was created specifically for a full-size, full-screen webpage (at 1024x768 or 1600x1200 resolutions, as examples) doesn't 'work' on a tiny 300-pixel cellphone browser - so stop whining about it and use a real computer to surf those sites. You use a Wii or Xbox to play games specifically created for those platforms, not a dipshit cell phone.
Same quote I picked out to comment on ... I took the bait but had a meeting so couldn't post until hundreds of others.
I need someone to show me "drop-dead gorgeous Websites" that are actually usable, engaging, and used more than 30 seconds by the visitor. Anything? Beuler?
Most sites I see are designer conceits with text that is too small to read, unnecessary animation, ill conceived interaction, and serving little purpose beyond a billboard.
I won't advocate to throw out the Flash platform because 90% of the produced works are garbage but will call them out.
Yes, and this has absolutely nothing to do with you running pre-release, debug mode software, or that you're comparing low-def YouTube videos to high-def Vimeo.
I replicated your experiment, except with Chrome 5 (the release version) in Ubuntu: Vimeo and YouTube in flash (standalone plugin), at the same time. With the CNN ROV stream from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on my other monitor. So that's three video streams, and according to top npviewer.bin (the flash plugin) is taking around 70% CPU time. With just the CNN live stream it's around 8%.
So yeah, PEBKAC.
Like everyone else I hate the security issues of Flash and think that for simple things like web forms, pull-down menus and video players designers should switch to HTML5. However there's no good alternative for web games.
Though there's clearly some progress, I have yet to see playable games in HTML5. All we have right now are few conceptual proofs. Google's pacman doesn't count: it lags and I'm pretty sure took 20 times more time to develop than its Flash alternative.
The goal of a site is to get people information as quickly and easily as possible.
That's arguable.
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
Flash itself is really very clever. The player packs an incredible amount of functionality into a very tiny executable. It's only 1.83MB. There's an animation engine, a JIT compiler, a video player, an audio system, and a multichannel download manager.
The problem is what people use it for. Which is mostly either ads or lame web sites.
Nobody really bothers doing Flash animations as entertainment much. If you've never seen one, check out Thugs on Film. Flash games remain popular, although Shockwave, which has full 3D capability, is a far better game platform. Many console games use Flash for 2D interface elements, typically using Adobe's authoring tools but a non-Adobe player. (Yes, there are non-Adobe Flash players.)
But it's not Adobe's fault that the content sucks.
This won't happen very quickly, but if HTML5 is basically capable of doing about everything Flash can, then I expect that Adobe will eventually just phase out the Flash player? Why? They don't make a nickel off the player - only the tools. Adobe has always been about the tools. While it will probably take some work to convert them, their developer tools should, it would seem like, be able to be modified to output HTML5+JS instead of Flash.
They can keep making money on having the best developer tools, while not having the costs of maintaining Flash.
There is one counter-argument, though, which might be persuasive to Adobe's management - they might not like being in a position of being 'just another vendor' in a level playing field where any company can develop HTML5 development tools. The control they have over Flash player does mean that they can kind of lock developers into their tools, instead of using someone else's tools.
Anyhow, it'll be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Designers HATE Flash. HTML stems from traditional typography layout languages. Designers have been used to and comfortable with that format for over 5 decades. Flash is NOT a designer-friendly environment. It's a motion graphics and video editing-friendly environment... if it's friendly at all. Flash was made popular by the geek teen crowd for making crude animations, and has been picked up by some websites, which more-often-than-not, use it in garashly over-elaborate ways. It's a hack. That's all there is to it. It's buggy, it has compatability issues, and often slows down or prevents users from accessing content that they could have just as easilly gotten with HTML.
As long as I've been a designer and a user, I've hated Flash. I've crossed my fingers from over 5 years ago and hoped that it wouldn't catch on. Thankfully, most of the big sites stay away from it, and that is a credit to their sense of simplicity in design. Flash is just too unstructured.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Since Apple makes software, perhaps they should actually make some relevant software here.
They could turn all of the web developer's heads and make them forget all about Flash.
That's assuming they've actually got the chops for it and don't have complete contempt for developers.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You see on "the internet" the VAST MAJORITY of websites that use flash would not (by any sane or right-minded person) be classified as "drop-dead gorgeous". In fact many of them are aberrations of nature.
And would be just as bad if written purely in HTML5.
I see your badger badger badger mushroom, and up you one rathergood.com
Of course, such sites and similar could just be produced as a movie (using HTML5) but (1) that would probably take quite a bit more bandwidth, and (2) I'm not sure it would be easier to produce, because using Flash you can indeed easily do simple animations, duplicate and scale objects, do worse-than-Southpark style animations etc. I'm sure there is software to do this for movies, but it might be more involved/complex than some rainy sunday afternoon Flash hackery.
Btw. I detest Flash, but well...after a couple of beers such websites can make me suspend my hatred for a while.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
"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."
Who cares about "drop-dead gorgeous"? Can someone show me a site using Flash for its major content, that isn't totally f@#($ing God-awful?
Major uses of Flash today, as I see them:
Anything else? As soon as HTML5 is well-supported, I can't see any good use of Flash besides games, and even there I imagine that HTML5 will make inroads.
My bicyles
HTML5 does not have the capability to access the webcam and the microphone on the desktop. That is a pretty serious problem considering the number of people who use this feature regularly.
The other MAJOR "feature" that Flash has is that it can be installed as a plugin in pretty much *any* browser - so if you are stuck with using IE6 because of some enterprise app which doesn't run on anything else, it will still be possible to install the flash plugin on the browser - that makes Flash far more ubiquitous that HTML5 can ever hope to be in the next 5 years.
In fact, they'd be worse. You can block Flash by either not installing the plugin or using one of the many Flashblock plugins. You wont find it so easy with HTML5.