Posted by Krusty on 11/23/62 11:36

"Jose" <teacherjh@aol.nojunk.com> wrote
> Bald Pup asks..
>> Are there any cogent arguments against the use of Flash?
>
> 1: Flash is used primarily by advertisers to steal your attention away
> from the content the user came to see.

Wrong. Opinion, and a bad one.

> 2: Flash cannot be turned off at the browser preferences level, like
> animations, graphics, sound, java, scripts, and other stuff can be. True,
> there are workarounds with additional software, but that's not the point.

Conceded. But again, it's only bad if it's designed and executed poorly. Not
Flash's fault. The designer's fault. So the only reason you'd want to turn
it off is if it's for some reason "bad". Which in my opinion reflects more
on the developer than the product.

> 3: Flash is free to the user - Macromedia makes its money from flash
> content creators, which are largely the advertisers mentioned above.
> Therefore it will probably always be the case that flash is not
> defeatable, since that's the way advertisers want it.

Again, flash isn't used by "advertisers". It's used by Universities, large
institutions creating complex interfaces, etc. This again smacks of opinion
and not fact. Just look at Flex, which IS Flash.

> 4: Flash content is large. Large content is discouraged on home pages
> and anywhere small content would suffice.

Wrong. Flash content is large if the moron creating the Flash piece doesn't
know what they're doing. I've seen entire complex shopping carts executed
COMPLETELY in Flash that are less than 150k.

Again, bad design, not bad Flash.

> 5: Flash doesn't resize gracefully. Flash movies and slide shows play at
> their own pace, not at the user's pace, unlike text which is read at the
> user's pace.

Wrong. It's a simple exercise for the *developer* to allow the user to do
whatever the user wants to do. Just because the Flash *you've* seen played
at its own pace doesn't mean that this isn't a feature of Flash. It means
the piss poor developer who developed the Flash app didn't know what he was
doing.

> 6: Flash is powerful; it can take over (for example) the user's
> microphone. Flash will be upgraded and there may be illicit uses for this
> ability. I am not all that confident that other such abilities will be
> introduced, should advertisers want it. Can you say "Sony"?

lmao..."illicit uses"? Only if you *allow* it. Flash *asks* you if it can
use your microphone.

> 7: Flash is ubiquitous and getting more so. This is a very bad trend
> which should be impeded, mainly because of (1) and (2) above.

Which you are completely wrong about. You're drawing a bad conclusion based
on a foundation of opinion and incorrect assumptions.

> 8: Most flash content I've seen is lame, and not worth the time,
> bandwidth, or effort. Ask yourself very critically whether your message
> or information is really =really= enhanced by being presented in this
> manner.

Aha, so this is REALLY what's it's about isn't it? The Flash *you've seen*
was bad, so all of Flash is bad? What about all those horrible photoshop
buttons with every filter on earth dumped into it and horribly overused drop
shadows? Should we get rid of Photoshop because people use it incorrectly or
"badly"?

Again, I hate to keep beating the same drum, but the more this thread
progresses, the more it becomes apparent that there is a LARGE percentage of
the newsgroup that really has no idea what Flash is or how to use it. As a
result there is a LOT of misinformation and opinion being passed off as
fact.

Just because people see bad Flash design doesn't mean the product is in any
way faulty. Should we get rid of Dreamweaver, Front Page, and Go Live
because sometimes morons get their hands on them and create atrocious pages?
Should I draw conclusions about how bad Front Page is because I saw a
handful of bad pages "designed" in Front Page?

Come on people, it's a product. Use it well, and the results are
outstanding. Use it poorly and the results are predictable.

[Back to original message]