Posted by Rob McAninch on 01/20/29 11:36

Krusty>:
> "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.

What WWW are you looking at? Indeed it is an opinion but it is not
unfounded. I'd say in the mainstream sites, not really the most
popular sites e.g.
http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?ts_mode=global
but the ones right below these that many users still go to have more
bad use of Flash than good. I get Flash advertisements forced at me
quite frequently.

> But again, it's only bad if it's designed and executed poorly. Not
> Flash's fault. The designer's fault.

I still need to look at current levels of Flash but I'll agree that
executed properly it is a good thing. However, Macromedia could do
something about the poor use of Flash. E.g. giving a browser option
to only display Flash on request, similar to a popupblocker that
lets you create approved lists. Somehow encourage a skip button on
animations that often get used as splash screens.

It's the bad experiences that stick with us.

>>3: Flash is free to the user - Macromedia makes its money from flash
>>content creators, which are largely the advertisers mentioned above.
>
> Again, flash isn't used by "advertisers".

Opinion. And I would say this one is a flawed one. :-)

> It's used by Universities, large
> institutions creating complex interfaces, etc.

Indeed it is used by these groups _too_. I've seen nice Flash
applications. I use some on a frequent basis. I'll even say that
some web based applications that would benefit from being done in
Flash instead of the "friendlier" DHTML. But these complex
applications are likely among the minority of what the average web
user interacts with.

It remains that advertisements are being created with Flash with
increasing frequency. As advertising drove design methods in the
past, e.g. popup and pop under windows, reopening and moving
windows, and so forth, methods of forcing ads on users continues to
be a driving force of design.

> 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.

Just like shoddy Java implementation takes time to get over, so will
Flash; if the abuse is filtered out by _good_ Flash design. But as
mentioned earlier, it is the bad experiences that get remembered and
passed on.

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

I do recall getting that request once from a default install of
Flash. Hm, Macromedia could've made it more obvious how to get to
the control panel though.

>>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.

I think it is a good trend as it provides a common platform for web
applications so it should not be impeded. A user level control to
"prompt for Flash display" would be a good idea. But I do agree
(with point 1) that bad design is a serious issue with Flash.

> 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"?

Not really a good comparison. Images are easily disabled and
typically not the resource hog that the typical Flash is. Not to
mention, I'd say the 'horrible buttons' are a hold over of *yours*
from bad experiences (If your asking your reader to be objective you
should try as well).

I haven't seen many of these in the past few years. And, LOL, I
_have_ seen some Flash that seems to have every effect dumped into a
four link navigation bar that could be easily done in text or simple
graphics. When the novelty of Photoshop dwindled so did the horrible
buttons, as the novelty of Flash is still on the rise (at least in
areas where broadband usage is increasing) we'll likely continue
seeing poor Flash design.

> 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.

Q: "Any good reason not to use Flash?"
A: Bad reputation.

That is a valid, and with the current state of affairs, reasonable
answer. I might substitute "Flash" with popup windows, Java applets,
window resizing, or frames. They all have good uses when done
correctly, but the number of poor uses leave a bad taste in my mouth
when discussing them.

> Should we get rid of Dreamweaver, Front Page, and Go Live
> because sometimes morons get their hands on them and create atrocious pages?

<sarcasm>Do you *really* want me to answer that?</sarcasm>

There is a touch of seriousness to that sarcasm. However, in this
case I'm not saying get rid of HTML, CSS, JS, etc. but that the
applications you mention have been known to spew forth rubbish and
could stand some redesigning.

In the same light I'm not saying get rid of Flash technology, rather
the developer application and the plugin could use some redesigning
to alleviate the bad reputation.

> Should I draw conclusions about how bad Front Page is because I saw a
> handful of bad pages "designed" in Front Page?

Yes, feel free to draw conclusions on FP. It stinks.

--
Rob McAninch
http://rock13.com

[Back to original message]