Flash Sucks
Web Development July 31st, 2007 - 126,535 views
The Adobe Flash Player is a multimedia application created by Macromedia (now a division of Adobe Systems). Flash Player features support for both vector and raster graphics, along with a scripting language and bidirectional streaming of video and audio content. The player is a virtual machine that runs Flash files, which are often embedded in websites to present animations, games, GUIs, or other visual interestingness. If you’re reading this website, you probably know all of this. What you might not know is that Flash sucks. It is the bane of the Internet, and it needs to go away.
Usability and Accessibility
The ironic thing about Flash is that its use is so frequently self-defeating. Flash is often used in an attempt to make sites more user friendly. But replacing familiar browser components with custom Flash garbage only hurts usability. Consistency is imperative for a UI — users learn how to do something once, and can apply that knowledge in tons of places. But with Flash, overzealous designers try to “fix” what they see as bad interface models by creating custom Flash crap. This sucks.
While we’re on usability, let’s talk about people who are disabled. Flash sucks at accessibility. Though Flash has some features that are supposed to improve accessibility, they’re weak and almost never used. The fact of the matter is that Flash is pretty much inherently inaccessible. If you want to use Flash, and remain accessible (and indexable — web spiders can’t understand Flash binaries either), your only real option is to create a second version of your site that uses standard technologies. That sucks.
Technically, the accessibility and usability issues apply only to poorly designed Flash sites. Someone could (and probably will) counter that it’s not Flash that sucks, but people who are using Flash the wrong way. I’d argue that a tool that encourages suckiness is itself inherently sucky, but I’ll spare you that schpeel and move on to the one thing that makes Flash incontrovertibly sucky, regardless of how you use it.
Closed Specification
Call me idealistic, but I hate companies that use closed specifications to stifle competition. And that may be my biggest issue with Flash. Sure, Adobe provides the SWF and FLV Specifications to developers who want to create Flash content. But first you have to agree to the SWF File Format Specification License where you promise that you will “not use the Specification in any way to create or develop a runtime, client, player, executable or other program that reads or renders SWF files.” That sucks.
Don’t care about the closed specification issues? Well, you should. As more and more content is stored in Adobe’s proprietary format, the company is gaining a tremendous amount of power. They’ve already announced a version of Flash that includes DRM support, allowing “copyright holders” to prevent users from skipping advertisements and restrict copying. Heck, digital rights management (DRM), combined with the overly restrictive anti-circumvention legislation in the DMCA, could make it illegal to download and save your own damned YouTube videos! That would definitely suck.
Glad to see Adobe has it’s priorities straight. While they rushed to include DRM support, the company has been dragging it’s feet on Flash support for 64-bit operating systems (there is none). This problem is years old. And it’s not like the advent of 64-bit CPUs was a surprise. They should have been working on 64-bit Flash in the late 1990s — or they should have at least given it some thought! And, seriously, it’s taken a team of coders more than two years to port a plugin from 32-bit to 64-bit? Christ, Apple ported an entire operating system from a RISC to a CISC chipset in less time than that. Sounds like the Flash code-base sucks too.
So what’s the alternative?
Yea, you got me. That’s what really sucks. Microsoft Silverlight might provide a viable alternative once it’s released. But chances are it will suck at least as much as Flash. Maybe if the W3C standards for SVG and SMIL are ever fully implemented a decent open solution will exist and the problem will go away (if you’re in Firefox, check out some of the SVG samples, they’re pretty cool). But until then, we’re stuck with Adobe’s crap. So I implore you: use it right, and only when absolutely, positively, unquestionably and undeniably necessary.
July 31st, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Flash is great for lots of things: graphs, file uploading, … that’s all I could think of..
July 31st, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Nice post Mike. I have been telling people for years that designing Flash websites are a bad solution. There are many “cool” things to do with Flash, but you can’t be arrogant and think that everyone is using Windows XP SP2 with Internet Explorer. Ultimately you will loose the reach-ability of you site.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Let us not forget that it was Adobe who pushed SVG so hard. The market didn’t want it, developers didn’t like it — it was a failed spec that has been abandoned. Silverlight… ugh. No way. Let’s not even go there.
The truth is Flash is simply better at rendering motion than browsers are and the web is increasingly moving towards motion. Be it through cheesy script.aculo.us effects or not, we’re entering a RIA age.
People confuse Flash 9 with the Flash 6 days of old. Most of your arguments are null and void. Such as accessibility (what do you mean by this? keyboard/mouse support? That’s way supported and on by default in Flash 9).
The biggest plus of Flash is the (open source) Flex framework. It’s a huge step forwards in terms of everything. It takes ActionScript to a whole new level (it’s almost insulting to call it a scripting language any longer). Bringing baked in support for handling data and visualizations better than any other UI language yet.
Flash can be used for wrong: but so can HTML. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen people replace text with images for no reason. That’s worse than Flash by far. Don’t hate the game, hate the player.
Flash rocks. ;)
August 1st, 2007 at 12:18 am
aarrgg DRM in Flash…
I hate Flash but it’s currently the only solution (accessible by the majority from people) for reading sounds embedded in a Web page…
And you’re right when you say the team of coders is very BAD! For a pre-compilate script, Actionscript is very slow. Compare speed of a function of crytpage (AES for example) in Javascript and in ActionScript… Actionscript time / 2 = Javascript time…
I don’t believe the solution is SMIL because the binairies medias include in (sound, video) can be all format and depends of codec installed on the client.
Maybe SilverLight will be well for that…
But Sun annonces javaFX. And I see it well implementing a restrictive plugin/framework in browser coupled with an IDE for make easier animations with Java :)
August 1st, 2007 at 12:32 am
There is also JavaFX (see demos at https://openjfx.dev.java.net/)
and a related article is here: http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/news/2007/05/open_source
August 1st, 2007 at 2:35 am
Great post. Personally, I think Silverlight will be a serious competitor to Flash/Flex when it is released. I’ve been trying out the alpha and beta bits and it absolutely blows me away.
Flex is also a powerful tool, but every time you deploy a flex movie it has to carry the Flex runtime in that file as well. That means that Flex files are always heavier than ~250KB.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:45 am
You’re not 100% right with your comments on the 64-bit functionality. You can run Flash plugins quite happily on a 64-bit operating system, but you have to be running a 32-bit browser for it to work. :)
I’m not trying to be rude, I’m just pointing out the difference. Both my 64-bit OSes (WinXP x64 and Ubuntu) run the flash plugin just fine, but I have to have 32-bit Firefox running for it to work.
Cheers.
August 1st, 2007 at 3:09 am
Interesting angle.
I developed some web-based video applications and was disappointed to find there wasnt much competition for a well-supported, customised Plugin Video player. FLASH is widely supported but I was put-off by its closed spec and licensing etc. Quicktime has a java API, but this unfortunately also sucks (IMHO).
I noted there was no mention of JavaFX in your article.
August 1st, 2007 at 4:04 am
As much as I don’t love embedded objects in web pages for some of the reasons reported in the article, you should remember that Flash isn’t for accessibility, it’s for rich media! And it greatly succeded where java failed. It even won the Internet video market, not bad.
/* java rant */
To me Java should leave the web ASAP and be left to the enterprise market. That 14MB slow and broken JVM must be buried for ever. Javafx hopes to revive the java horror period, I wish them to fail as they failed with WebStart!
/* java rant */
PS. your web page wants to store something on my machine via GoogleGears !? not nice
August 1st, 2007 at 4:37 am
Wow, I’ve never read such a BIASED article ever before about Flash.
Usability:
probably you never visited any decent flash website. If someone thinks those websites with INNOVATIVE designs and UI suck i would say he himself sucks.
Accessibility:
Runs well with IE, Firefox, opera, Safari on Windows, Linux, OS X. Thats what i call accessibility.
Closed specs:
LMAO. Crysis must suck because its not open! So iPhone sucks too? and what about windows? and OS X? hmmm, i smell hatred from another Open Source fanboy.
Don’t like it, don’t use it.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:26 am
idiot
August 1st, 2007 at 7:07 am
(Yawn) Another day, another “Flash sucks”/”Flash is evil” blog post. Not exactly original.
The most annoying part of the argument is the whole “closed source is bad” angle. Closed specifications might stifle innovation somewhat, but it ensures code and performance ubiquity, which is one of the selling points of Flash-based interfaces in a world of browser incompatibility.
And what do you think would happen if Adobe did open up the Flash source? I’ll tell you: Microsoft will build their own Flash variant and promote their version through the Windows OS in an attempt to take control of the codex themselves. And Microsoft is much deeper into DRM and DRM technology than Adobe is.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:26 am
Great article, the only problem is how to make some clients understand that too…
August 1st, 2007 at 8:50 am
“Someone could (and probably will) counter that it’s not Flash that sucks, but people who are using Flash the wrong way”
That’s what I’d counter, and I have a counter for your counter. Like PHP, HTML, and Javascript, Flash began as very accepting of bad user input. Actionscript 3 fixes some of these problems, and requires more exact coding. It also has 10 times the speed of Actionscript 2. Sure you still wont be building the next Crysis with it, but, it is more than capable of the things currently needed for the web.
But this comment still isn’t in much disagreement. I think Flash has it’s place, and that place isn’t designing websites. It makes a great video player. It also can be great for interactive portions of a site, games, etc. At times it can be useful on some other parts (Navbar for example, with a fall back, of course)
You mention Silverlight as a possible thing to switch to, with not much else. I’d like to direct your attention to OpenLaszlo. Still have a few problems, but, if someone doesn’t have Flash, it will convert the code to DHTML. Another option is XUL, (only works on Firefox currently, but there are a few possible workarounds (http://www.starkravingfinkle.org/blog/ mentions a few) Though, I don’t think any address anything but IE. Lastly, as mentioned above, there’s JavaFX, which, I haven’t played with yet, but I’ve heard some good things for the point it’s at.
I love Flash, but, it is used improperly 99.9% of the time, but like anything, no matter how idiot proof you go for, there will always be bigger idiots.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:04 am
The only reason why I’m glad flash hasn’t gone away, is because there seems to be a trend going that all web-accessible video needs to be in a flash player. This is great for us non-windows users. It means that we get the same experience when watching a video as everyone else. In that sense, I think flash is wonderful.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:33 am
Why should you be able to block ads? If you don’t want to view ads don’t use the software or read the site. It’s not your right to have the ability to block the revenue stream of free software and content. This attitude always aggravates me. If you don’t like ads do watch them, but don’t get mad when you can’t block them. There’s no free lunch!
August 1st, 2007 at 11:14 am
Flash, when used properly by skilled developers, can be a fantastic tool. Making a second version of the website for search engines, those without Javascript/Flash, and for increased accessibility is not a big task if you’ve built the Flash website properly. Data stored in xml or in a database can quickly be put on screen in a simple and effective way. Updates made to the data source will change both versions of the website.
Flash never was intended to be all that a standard XHTML/CSS/Javascript website is. That’s why Flash has a use. Actionscript 3.0 has processing times that rival Java Applets, both of which are much faster than Javascript.
I think that using Flash for the sake of using Flash is a waste. You use Flash when rich interactivity will improver the user experience of those your site is targeted at.
Flash is like any other tool. If you know how to use it well, and in a thought out way, you will achieve good results. If you use it when you don’t need to, then you’ll be one of the people who make Flash look bad.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Hey everyone, awesome feedback! (Except for the guy who just called me an idiot.) A bunch of people mentioned JavaFX. I was under the impression that JavaFX was just for Rich Internet Applications (e.g., desktop apps only, not embedded stuff in your browser), which is why I didn’t really discuss it. I guess I was wrong! JavaFX might answer my prayers then, since Sun has embraced open standards and is all about agreeing on specifications, then competing on implementation.
@NoMi, Brian Swartzfager, and others who thing I’m an “open source fanboy”: There’s a distinction between open source and open spec. I may prefer open source software, but I have absolutely no problem running closed source software if it’s the best solution. What I don’t like are closed specifications. Closed specifications tie you to a single vendor, which I hate. Even Microsoft is beginning to open up some specs (e.g., the MS Word document spec). And OS X is POSIX compliant.
@rms: I don’t mind ads. But these technologies are often abused. For example, it pisses me off when I pay for a $20 DVD, bring it home, and have to sit through 4 movie promos before I can access the disk menu. In the case of Flash, adding DRM is going to cause all sorts of copyright issues for end users. Because of the DMCA anti-circumvention clause, it would likely become illegal to download a video from YouTube, for example, and store it on your local machine, even if you have permission from the person who made the video. The problem is that copying the video would require DRM circumvention, which the DMCA prohibits.
@OJ: Sure, you can run Flash on a 64-bit system in emulation mode. But that’s not the same thing as 64-bit Flash. That’s not really a solution at all. I spend the majority of the day in my web browser, by running a 32-bit browser I’m more or less giving up all of the benefits of a 64-bit processor. That sucks. =p
August 1st, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Hey wait a minute, I didn’t call you an idiot, I called people who misuse Flash idiots. Sorry for that misunderstanding, I should have made it more clear.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:43 pm
oh… I just noticed that someone else called you an idiot… heh, should have read up some.
August 1st, 2007 at 4:07 pm
A provocative post :-) I can understand some of what you say, but it seems biased. But okay.
Well, flash is here and has been for some time. It has tremendous market penetration, meaning the runtime is just there.
I for one, is developing a large, flex2 based application, which is to run on the flash runtime. The application has a closed user-group, and as such, it resembles a real desktop application. I think flash is great for that, with the flex2 framework for development.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Kyle, without marketing millions to scream about it, SVG is just used. Everything except IE (which has lost the lead in some countries already) does SVG natively. Check out http://svg.startpagina.nl to get your take on SVG up to date.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Also, I don’t think Adobe discontinued the SVG viewer because of low adoption rates. If you look at the timing, Adobe stopped pushing SVG right after they purchased Macromedia, when the company went from competing with Flash to owning it. I think it’s much more likely that Adobe dropping SVG was a business decision that had nothing to do with the products technical merits or adoption rate.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Awesome post. Flash looks cool, and there are pretty cool games in Flash, but overall, it’s an ugly duckling. I hate the Flash 8 environment too.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:50 pm
“I’d argue that a tool that encourages suckiness is itself inherently sucky.”
By your definition any tool that doesn’t confine you to a few, limited methods for completing a task must inherently suck.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:54 pm
@George: Not exactly. There’s a difference between encouraging suckiness and allowing it. A well designed tool should, ideally, encourage you to do things properly, while allowing “experts” to do whatever the heck they want.
August 1st, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Anyone seen a flash site work with a screen reader? That is what he is referring to with accessibility.
Flash sucks.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:39 am
I cant believe there is another blog post on this. This topic has been beaten to death on the web! Saying something that will undoubtedly provoke responses from the annoyed flash developers and then counter responses from the html camp is the cheapest way to get traffic on your blog. However I will add a couple of comments here anyway (cos I have nothing better to do). Flash and HTML seem to address different needs of the web, Nothing is easier to use than HTML for getting info and if BBC news ever went Flash I would go nuts. But for visualization, creative expression and design, html has limits. Take the movie pre-release sites. They are fun, and once I see it I am done. But it was different. Put the same in html and it wont be half as entertaining. And would web video be as pervasive without Flash? And lets talk accessibility around AJAX sites, or google indexing of those. In any case the widespread adoption of Flash would indicate the masses feel differently than you. So go ahead and uninstall Flash and all the best to you.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:47 am
Most AJAX sites degrade gracefully (at least most good ones). And you pretty much ignored what I said was my biggest concern: a closed spec. I’m not arguing that Flash can’t do cool visualizations, play video, and allow you to distribute content across platforms. What I’m saying is that we need something that does that without the crappy restrictions that Adobe places on Flash.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:31 am
[...] read more | digg story [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:24 am
Adobe sucks big time!
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:31 am
I agree, we should also get rid of all the music in the world too because some people are deaf.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:35 am
I think Silverlight may be a really good alternative. Think what you want about Microsoft but Silverlight “movies” will be entirely made up of XML so it makes adding support for search engines and even screen readers relatively easy.
As for Flash… well, you’re right on the money. I’ve had to do quite a bit of Flash development creating RIAs and Flash is just a relative pain to work with and very buggy. It especially sucks when you want to do Flash remoting entirely in ActionScript. In order to do so, you have to drag the Flash remoting components onto your movie then delete them. That “magically” allows you to access them via ActionScript. What kind of crap is that?
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:37 am
I agree there need to be an alternative to Flash, but in the end the tool (Flash) itself is pretty good at what it does
http://www.idolornot.net
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:38 am
[...] Flash Sucks - I’m Mike: It has a time and a place, but not often and not on my band sites (too much, except for media players) You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:39 am
Your being kind to flash, it really sucks and is trying to ruin the internet. I’m surprise at some of the angry responses. I think those are mostly from self decided ‘kewl’ web designers. I would bet that most probably just got nominated for ‘worst web design’ and have some energy to kill.
Another problem with Flashs, all the insipid ‘commercial’ banners people all over the place with flashing images, excessive unwanted animation, etc. You get the picture.
AND, you can’t turn it off! Animated GIFs being annoying, you can turn them off. That’s my biggest complaint is not off button Flash, I might want it running in one box, but not all over the place.
I always have at least one web browser with no flash installed. Life is so much happier and peaceful that way.
I don’t know if Microsoft can save us from Flash. I’ll keep my fingers crossed.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:41 am
Well flash did revolutionize the video industry, I mean the flv files are smaller then say an mpg or wmv, and it’s cross-compatible and less cpu/memory hungry then say Java. For website design it’s complete crap, but for online games, video files it’s the best solution.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:43 am
Oh, and good work!
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:46 am
These articles are garbage. It’s like bitching about PowerPoint. Or Americans and guns, for that matter.
There’s no “sucky” tools. Only persons putting them to sucky use.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:54 am
You got it all wrong. Flash simply rules. It is the best plug-in around and I’m glad that it exists: without it, the Web wouldn’t have all the great interactive websites. And what about youtube? Man, you are so biased. Read an alternative opinion here: http://www.lukamaras.com/tutorials/getting-started/why-flash-player-is-the-best-plugin.html
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:03 am
” It’s like bitching about PowerPoint”
Powerpoint is garbage it can’t even render text well and thats pretty much its only job to display text
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:03 am
[...] So I dropped flash *yeah stupid thing to do* Now i hardly know my way around the timeframe plus bits and pieces of AS.. Now I came around this very interesting article @ Mike’s Blog [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:06 am
Anyone should be allowed to express their feelings; so, nice hearing you out. However, either you like it or not, Flash is here to stay.
Btw, even Jakob Nielsen who coined the famous “99% Flash Bad” joined in with the Flash Force/Team in June, 2002. Read more at
http://www.adobe.com/macromedia/proom/pr/2002/macromedia_nielsen.html
Don’t you think you’re 5 years behind. (Just a thought)
Nontheless, I like your blog, nice reading those good resources. We seem to have many things in common except the Flash part!
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:17 am
“(and indexable — web spiders can’t understand Flash binaries either)”
Ummm wrong, some major search engines (inc google) can and do index text stored within a swf. To me that means its indexable (http://www.adobe.com/licensing/developer/search/faq/)
To me your little rant just sounds like another empty useless rant from someone who *thinks* they know what they are talking about when they really have no clue.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:25 am
Flash is right thing to use in some situations but plain ol’ HTML is still king of the hill. For one thing - search engines still have a long way to go when it comes to crawling swf. (I find it interesting no one has mentioned SEO.) To a lot of commercial sites it’s simply too important to be getting organic search results.
I agree with the comment that Flash is like PHP - it’s (relatively) easy to learn and so it’s easy to make mistakes. The main thing for me is breaking web conventions - back button?! We don’t do back buttons!
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:29 am
Flash is just as necessary as Javascript, imagine having to create all those effects with JS that we do so easily in Flash? The CPU resource usage would be enormous.
Music apps? If it wasn’t for Flash we’d have to rely on Windows only embedded Windows Media Player, or would you like hoggy Java to do that?
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:31 am
Stay up to date and stop these kinds of flaming uninfomed blogposts. if you look to flash these days its becomming better and better.
What people dont realise is that flash has alot of shortcomings due to its native purpose. its wasnt built for the web, it was built as an animation tool at first.
it is becoming better and it will surely becoming more usability friendly. realise that flash is not only a technology it is the standard for animation and interactive animation on the web.
and the fact that you even compare it to silverlight is quite annoying, only proves your ignorance.
but you know what they say, ignorance is bliss.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:33 am
y’all who say flash sux prob never seen sites like Nike Plus or Nseries. I agree that a lot bout flash aint ideal but there re things u wouldnt use anything but flash to do. If nothing else flash apps are platform independent which is something u cant even bout with DOM
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:35 am
flash is a piece of crap.
It doesnt do proper upload…you just can do that lousy 100Megs upload or alike if you get your server set up right.
A real coder would do a javaFTP applet.
The worst ist: it is now owned by adobe..which means in a year or two it’ll be slow as the acrobat reader and crap like the bridge stuff.
I am shocked that you consider silverlight as an alternative….well, i even had to laugh.
Did you ever hear about Flex? And that it is more or less free? Got give that a try. Frameworks are the future.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:38 am
Mike - are you for real. Articles like this went out of fashion with flares and are about as much use as factor 50 sun lotion in a deep dark cave.
Sadly for you your rant is about as much use as the paper its printed on. Flash is here to stay - you wont be ($5 says your flipping my whopper burger next time I go to BK) - and for what its worth - without it the web would be a pretty boring place. Its created a web where content is delivered in an engaging mannor with rich features. But then if folk like you had there way we’d still be on HTML 2.0 with grey backgrounds and all text in TimesRoman .
…. yeah that would be cool wouldn’t it
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:38 am
NoMi, please get your facts right, just because flash runs well in all browser doesn’t make the flash movie accessible enough. Accessiblity is about if able and disable people can access the same content when required, but not always the case with falsh. As for Flash being sucks well I can only say that it all depends on your target audience and is it the best solution to present your creative content?
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:39 am
[...] Flash sucks by I’m Mike [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:40 am
wow, the flash fanboyism here is worse than RoR fanboys commenting on a positive article about PHP. Sorry guys, your hammer sucks, not everything is a nail after all.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:44 am
As a functionalist i couldn’t agree more. And those who argue Web 2.0 is trying to imitate Flash, you’re kidding yourself if you think clever DHTML effects are the future of the web.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:47 am
oh yeah flash sucks
because when used with it’s basic fonctions, flash propose a linear (see timelines) way of approching the complexity where the TCPIP propose an un-linear way : flash does not only sucks, it is not even conceptually compatible with the web !
when used as an advanced program it gives :
http://labs.digg.com/bigspy/?popular
or
http://www.marumushi.com/apps/newsmap/newsmap.cfm
or
http://www.wefeelfine.org/movements.html
wich of course maybe well-known and beautiful but also that nobody use
the only thing why flash survived is that it won the battle of video plugin (till when ?)
but I have to admit it : it a lot easier to make money with flash than with the poetry of xhtml…
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:48 am
JN4
Hmmmmm … you clearly dont know what your talking about. Flash and Flex are intrinsically related - they both use the Flash player - so to say Adobe will bloat it and make it ‘as bad as PDF’ - and then go onto say Flex is thr future is fundementally flawed …
why oh why are somem people SO GO DAMMED STOOPID !!!
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:49 am
Go to a business who has a good online flash website, such as a hotel, these companies will tell you that a very large number of customers used to leave their booking website because of page reloads not working and lots of scrolling and complexity.
Ask them how much a flash RIA improved their business and you will find its a very very very very very big amount.
You need to ask developers who actually make really good flash applications and their clients before you start talking this complete bull shit. Disney’s online booking site dramatically improved online sales and customer satisfaction is way up, why? Because they can select their dates without a horible popup calendar for each arrival and leaving dates, because they can go back to any part of the form whenever they want without a 404 or “YOU CANT GO BACK”, because they can easily customize every part of their trip.
If you have good flash developers you can do amazing things, dont blame flash because the shitty sites or devs you know dont know how to use it well.
Lets not forget video, flash made video the thing for the web since the first spark codec in flash 6, web video was never a big thing before that with every site demanding you pick a player and a bitrate, in flash i can sample your bit rate for you and give you the best video possible. Not only that, flash gives you a great way to save data between uses of a website, SharedObjects are better and safer than cookies, so i book my vacation at disney, come back in 2 weeks and it still remembers me.
And your talk of closed source, what are they going to do? They make their money from IDEs and tools, take away their core business and we no longer have an innovative flash player pushing the bounds of the web!
And best of all, flash’s ubiquity, its everywhere, over 98% of internet users have a recent enough version of flash installed. Can you gaurentee that percent will support your ajax? or silverlight or WPF? I think not (i actually like silverlight btw).
Flash does its job well, and FYI the flash code base is amazing, incredibly efficient (It has 2 video codecs, 2 runtimes and has backwards support for every single version of flash and its still 2 megs!) with genious pointer algorithms, the AS3 runtime is a peice of art, go attack something which deserves it.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:53 am
I have only one comment on this thread.
Matthew Minix Says: … It makes a great video player. …
I say you have never used a good video player. Flash players are exceptionally sucky. No scrub. Huge GOPs. If you think that this is a good video player technology then you probably think Windows is a good OS.
There are video players that allow you to jump to ANY point in a movie, to scrub the playbar and the movie actually plays as you scrub. And have you ever played a Flash movie and had it mysteriously stop playing at some point in the movie? Let me guess…yes. I bet you reload the page and try again. Don’t you?
Accepting low quality products has been beaten so thoroughly into most PC users that it is second nature to not only find the work-around but to defend the marginally useable crap that stands head and shoulders above the complete crap that you wade in day and night.
Please, for your own sake and for future generations, make the effort to try other solutions, OSs and technologies. There are GOOD ones out there waiting for you.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:53 am
I’d argue that the problem with Flash isn’t that it inherently sucks, but that a Flash site simply isn’t a website. It completely ignores the basic principles that the World Wide Web was built on.
Flash plugins to provide pretty animated pictures to go alongside the actual website is one thing. Using flash for animated effects on navigation menus etc. (ie. elements that break the site when not accessible), or for an entire website is something else entirely.
http://www.blog.somerandomnerd.com/2007/06/28/when-is-a-website-not-a-website/
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:06 am
“only when absolutely, positively, unquestionably and undeniably necessary”
Which is of course, never.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:09 am
“This technology sucks, it’s not as good as the technology that I’m fantasizing about but doesn’t exist yet”.
Get a life.
Yeah Flash isn’t great. Newsflash dipshit: Browsers aren’t great. DHTML isn’t great. Java really isn’t great.
And you’re pushing SILVERLIGHT? You’re apparently new around here.
Microsoft is fundamentally incapable of creating software that’s:
a) small
b) fast
c) open
d) good
And for a variety of cultural reasons, Microsoft is incapable of appealing to the design community. It will be a flop from day one.
You’re a tard.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:10 am
congrats Mike for a desparate attempt to drive some traffic to your site. It worked - I’m here. However your post is really lame so I’m off. You seem to be stuck in the nineties. The SVG stuff made me laugh. Anyone remember it?
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:12 am
@ Mads Kristensen:
the latest Flash Player caches the entire Flex runtime so once you’ve downloaded it once it won’t have to load again on the next Flex app you visit. I personally don’t care much for the 250k download though when in the next minute I’m streaming a 750kbps video…
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:22 am
I’ll agree to a point.
While flash does have its uses, generally I hate fully flash sites. Too often people over design, with crap whizzing about, music loops that after the 50th time round make you want to scream and add annoying sound FX to practically everything. There seems a perpensity to over complicate, even making the design surreal or ‘mysterious’ in an attempt to gain surfers interest. Instead it pisses us off.
A website should first and formost be functional, provide the information they were created for and THEN worry about how they look/sound though a good clean and asthetic design is essential. I hate having to download a 100% flash site, especially if I’m on a slow network or for those poor sods still in the dark ages on dial-up etc. Every smart designer knows you should create a design that will still function for the lower end of the market (which is why all software files are backward compatible). Integrating Flash elements can be great and a benefit, so I dont think Flash is going anywhere but designers are moving away from the 100% flash sites now (THANK GOD!) and instead, using it to provide extra interactive features and animated elements to php, asp etc pages.
Flash, changing it role but its here to stay.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:27 am
Fewer things bother me more than some anal prick flaming flash. If you lived closer to me, I’d pay small kids to throw rocks at your house all day.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:35 am
I totally agree that Flash SUCKS. Big time. And furthermore I’d add that PDF sucks too. It feels so good to say… Adobe SUCKS :)
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:37 am
umm… Apple didn’t port their code in under two years.. they built OS X for intel in parallel to the power PC version.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:38 am
Mike says: “I’d argue that a tool that encourages suckiness is itself inherently sucky …”
Then your own logic would follow, Mike, that a blog author that encourages suckiness (in saying such about anything) is inherently sucky.
And I don’t think you’re right.
Flash is awesome. Like most any technology, our web tools and methods are to be used with respect to the situation, and applied with good design and implementation skills. There is not sucky Flash, there are sucky designers or developers who make sucky Flash content just as they make sucky HTML sites or sucky blog and sucky digg posts. They also probably make sucky sucky.
Here are several most EXCELLENT uses of Flash–in DIGG LABS (labs.digg.com).
How else could anyone make such innovative and compelling web applications such as these without Flash? And only recently have Flex and AIR emerged to bring Flash to an even higher level of coherence and functionality.
We have gone from stone tablets to books to television to HTML to Flash … and I’m sure the evolution of information design will continue to go far beyond the imaginations of most of us here today. We are just now beginning to witness the emergence of a type of “ecology” of the internet where the quality and diversity of development components are meeting standardizations of interoperability that imply the emergence of an even higher-order dimension of the information environment. Flash is clearly an integral, significant, and continuously evolving element within the interdependently growing information “ecology”.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:49 am
[...] read more | digg story No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:54 am
hey (you, the author of this article), go fuck your self with your accessibility and shit like that. Flash is a great and very powerful program and it helps people to express their artistical potential, originality and ingenuity into websites and much more.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:08 am
Yeah! Flash sucks!
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:08 am
I agree with Mikeisatwat, and everyone in favor of FLASH…. vector based technologies like it or not are here to stay. HTML and Java etc will die out along with the ‘OLD’ dare I say ‘Dinosaur’ way of building websites.
Flash is flexible, scaleable, dynamic, fast, usable and it makes the web what it should be…interesting and engaging.
As far as accessibility and screen readers go, it’s not Flash that needs to change it’s the screen reading software. Screen readers are not innovating fast enough or adopting new standards and technology and still try to read everything the old way. Which really SUCKS by the way. Screen readers and web crawlers have only recently changed the way they read pages to read flash.
Flash is perfectly accessible…. the author just has to know how to set up the flash object(s) correctly when authored so all child elements can be read.
I find the people who bad-mouth flash either have not used it, don’t want to adopt a new technology because they are comfortable with their ignorance firstly and have been ‘institutionalised’ to a certain way of doing things, or they just believe nothing could be better than tables and 216 colors.
The reality is, FLASH is better, easier to learn and anyone can do it if they are prepared to learn the tool.
Traditional Web Developer dinosaurs have realised that with this tool their profession is not as unique and specialised as it once was. No longer can they charge $$$ for providing complex buggy code. A user with little knowledge or experience can build and deploy a website in Flash with more interactivity and dynamic content much more quickly than than a traditional HTML based webpage.
Nuff said really - if you don’t agree …. you’re entitled to your opinion and the confines of your confined narrow view of the world …. it’s nice and safe in there isn’t it!
Quote “Go take step outside see what’s shaking in the real world” John Butler Trio
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:18 am
FLASH GAMES!!! - fast to build and fun to play! nothing can top that yet? flash is coooool
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:20 am
I completely agree. I’ve recently started learning bits of flash and it is pretty easy to produce rubbish! Advances in AJAX etc. will be infinitely more useful.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:27 am
I agree that entire sites made in Flash do suck and are not useful to the end user, however, Flash is good for some things like one-off apps like the email applications on http://www.flashattach.com or like the stuff in digg labs.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:27 am
My addition to why Flash sucks: It’s not possible to predict the framerate of your “movie”. Sure, you can set it in the IDE and hope for the best. But you won’t get the same framerate when you play it in a browser. Try this: set the framerate to 62 in the IDE. Your swf will now play at 50 fps on Mac, ~45 in Internet Explorer, and ~40 in FireFox! But sometimes Firefox will play it at 62fps. Don’t ask me why or when though…
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:28 am
Ok, so you say that Flash isn´t accessible and that´s why we need to completly remove it from the Internet. It´s like banning art because not everyone on this planet understands it.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:29 am
If Flash is that good and entrenched as the flash fans say…then Adobe should open it up like Sun did w/ java. If it’s that good, then people will contribute to make it better as opposed to fractures.
To all you flex fans - It’s decent, but when WPF comes out, it’s going to roll through flex like a sledgehammer. Adobe is trying to charge for FlexBuilder which is the biggest piece of $500 sh*t I’ve ever used. Enterprises will see that RAD w/ WPF via Visual Studio will be much better + faster, and that’s where their money will go. If they are already running Windows Server, then it’s a no brainer as opposed to paying an extra like 12k per cpu for Flex Data Services.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:31 am
You forgot to add that flash (and javascript) allows people to program your computer from remote.
NEVER EVER let someone program your computer from remote!
It’s pretty simple, and people break this rule all the time, you get what you deserve!
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:34 am
Good post espesially Flash ads are very annoying. But I think that there wouldn´t be youtube without Flash. If you don´t like Flash, use Flash Block http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:35 am
@rmf: Do you think TV networks should be able to disable my mute button or force my television to stay on during commercials? After all, advertising is their primary (if not sole) source of income. How dare we deprive them of their revenue!
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:56 am
Yeah they pretty much discovered this eight years ago.
http://dack.com/web/flash_evil.html
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:57 am
Flash being bad for Accessiblity is about the only decent point you make in your mammoth rant of piss. Fully flash websites are maybe not the best solution but flash elements done right can really liven up a boring ass website like your blog buddy!
A2daK
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:00 am
Silverlight? Microsoft as a “gui” contender?! Get real. Flash doesn’t suck — it’s the people who don’t know how to program usable apps. Don’t blame the car when the driver doesn’t know how to drive.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:02 am
Every Flash user interface element can (and should) be recreated using Javascript. People still using Flash for these elements need to rethink their career in web development.
Flash is still best at rendering certain things but it should only be used in those cases. Please stop using flash everywhere for the sake of flash, thank you!
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:09 am
the biggest casualties would be the fashion websites doing everything with flash overkill. I’d rather read and see my content in a ‘flash’ rather than waiting for ‘Flash’ to load.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:10 am
To read the specification for Flash requires a “non-compete” agreement? Agree to it. You will not create a competing product.
Do it to spite Adobe. Adobe cannot trace a new application that imitates Flash back to you. Upload it to torrent sites with a dummy account and dummy FTP space on a free server.
That’s the perfect solution to any “agreement” issue: Click OK then do it anyway. Oh, you wanted me to answer truthfully? You didn’t specify that in the agreement.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:24 am
Please note that Opera can also render svg; the zoom feature works perfectly on them as well.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:27 am
You know what sucks more then flash. Your site color scheme. Talk about hurting my eyes.. its atrocious. Flash is good based on demographic.. but obviously you never took that into consideration did you? Of course grandma may not want to play flash games.. so good for her.. she can go read a boring ass text site with her 508 standards and speaking robotic computer. You my friend, are an idiot. Stop trying to be such a fucking purist.. ‘oh the web MUST be HTML / CSS’ blah blah.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:32 am
You are ignorant on this topic, and apparently very angry about that. We’ll forgive you when you realise what you’re missing out on by being a flash hater.
I wonder, do you hate steel because of all the horrible things that have been made with it?
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:32 am
Hey Mike, your site itself is not so accessible (try to change the font size).
And about the specifications - do you really think that product of MICROSOFT will be better?
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:34 am
Flash doesn’t kill people. People kill people.
Flash, when used properly can be great .. It’s misused quite a bit so it has a bad rap. Google analytics uses flash in a great way which would be hard to do with any other technology .. but yes .. creating an entire site is flash is a usability/accessibility nightmare.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:38 am
There’s a lot of so-called fanboyism around here, on both sides of the fence, which is getting in the way of a useful and informative debate.
I’ll take your arguments one by one:
1. Usability
Flash-based sites are no better or worse in terms of usability than funky DHTML-based ones. I’ve seen HTML websites with custom DHTML scrollbars, buttons that aren’t really buttons (or even anchors) and a whole vat of tag soup lurking under the covers. Does this mean that HTML is ’sucky’ because it made it easy for the developer(s) to make these mistakes?
On the flip side, Flash usability is all about the skill of the developer. It’s only a tool, and it makes it no more easy to kill usability than HTML does.
2. Accessibility
It’s true that a lot of the Flash widgets and websites out there leave a lot to be desired in the accessibility department. However, there are a raft of DHTML (or AJAX, if you prefer that buzzword) techniques that are even less accessible. Heck, there are a whole load of plain HTML websites out there that are all but unusable in a screen reader, because they’ve not been coded with accessibility in mind. Once again, we’re back to the ‘Flash is just a tool’ argument, and no matter which way you look at it the developers are the ones at fault.
My one big Flash-related accessibility bugbear is that it only works with MSAA under Internet Explorer. Accessibility in Firefox on Windows is coming soon (http://weblogs.macromedia.com/emmy/archives/2007/06/flash_player_9_7.cfm) and I’d be surprised if Adobe weren’t already working on integration with accessibility layers on other platforms.
3. Closed specification
I’m sorry, but this just isn’t an issue that anyone cares about in the real world. The SWF file format is open and available to anyone who wants to build better tools for creating/manipulating Flash content (like MTASC and SWFMILL). Sure, you have to sign an agreement that you’re not going to create an alternative Flash player, but why should that matter?
This keeps getting compared to the situation with HTML and browser vendors, where Microsoft effectively strangled innovation by closing development on the browser used by 98% of the populous. In case you hadn’t notices that tactic hasn’t worked out so well for Microsoft. Adobe’s concern isn’t that someone else might create another Flash player, but that they might start messing with the spec and adding proprietary elements and the using their dominance in other markets to push this new player out to everyone. If that sounds familiar, search for ‘embrace and extend’ on your favourite search engine. Adobe’s real concern is that a rival technology might come along and replace Flash, so be sure they’re keeping an eye on Silverlight, and that’s what’s driving the innovation in the market.
4. SVG vs Flash
Adobe effectively abandoned the SVG Viewer well before they took over Macromedia. Their SVG plugin plugin was several versions behind spec, full of bugs, and a serious memory hog. The truth is that at no time has SVG met the needs of web developers, so web developers just weren’t interested.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:38 am
This from a guy that can’t even design his own blog. N-Design Studio Template, Nice.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:39 am
hey buddy, i get why you are so pissed and use the work “sucks” as often as a 16 year old, no offense to 16 year olds, but we use flash all of the time. The types of people/clients who want to use flash are retail companies and anyone else who has high visual taste and they will always want to use cutting edge technologies to express this taste. Our firm has gotten flash to be read by the awful google spiders and a have fixed the flash bugg-a-bo of backward browser navigation. Flash can also be used for pretty powerful things like linking to back end databases to visualize the minute differences in large compiled information.
Check out http://www.bartv.com were we used flash to compile attributes to over 1000 different cocktail recipes to help the user visualize how the drink looks and gets made. An even created a small thumbnail search engine within the entire site. This was designed and developed almost three years ago.
I do however think that a hybrid of html and flash works best for issues like accessibility. So my advice to you is to learn flash and help fix the issues instead of meeting your “sucks” blog quota.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:40 am
if you open most sites today you will notice that most do NOT have any flash animation anymore.
web2.0 designs are 90% “no flash” .
in the past if a website will not load within 20 secs like movie sites, i just close it.
now web2.0 types sites loads quite fast.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:50 am
I respectfully disagree with most of this article.
Adobe does keep a tight reign on their flash players, but they do an excellent job of mainting those players. 32bit players work in 64 bit operating systems, and there is absolutely no need for a 64 bit processing in a web plugin!
Adobe is constantly adding new features, and providing bug fixes. In the extremely unlikely case that a user doesn’t have a flash player, the install is a very easy two click process; one click for those that simply need to upgrade an existing player.
Flash is not slow. Infact, its extremely fast. I am constantly amazed at how quickly flex performs transformation on data sets and renders results. You should try making an overly complicated flex program that counts to a billion every time you click on a button. You’ll be amazed at the result.
Adobe is also VERY active in the developer community, especially with Flex. Visit the Yahoo FlexCoders group to get any question answered by an Adobe employee.
In the end, everything is about money. And I’ve made ALOT of money with flash, and now flex. People enjoy the interactive experience flash and flex programs create. No other pluggin provides the same cohesive, rock solid method of deploying “next generation” web applications.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:00 am
Hope you get lots of ad clicks from this inflammatory flamebait excuse for a blog post.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:00 am
Oh noes! A nicely designed website that will look THE SAME IN ALL BROWSERS!!!
Flash IS the future of the web. Get ready.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:05 am
Mike Sucks - I’m Flash… and your opinion sucks. Please suppress your envy for all the beautiful flash sites out there that have turned the cold, square, and … nature of the digital information age into something personable. You say that flash sites are hard to navigate - that’s because of the designer/programmer. The fact is, a Flash site could be built to look and function exactly like what you think a user-friendly site is. Go back to your static html/css/whathaveyou. kthxnp~
p.s. urtehl@m30rziffic
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:06 am
Flash hatred is nothing more than narrow minded design fascism by untalented nobodies than can’t handle the limitless creativity, object orientated programming and advanced functionality it provides.
All the points used by these design biggots to criticize flash are easily refuted, (accessability, size, degradability,alternate content, bookmarking etc are all easily optimized in modern flash development) but like all biggots, flash haters small minds refuse to be educated or know the truth, preferring to nurture their hatred with a twisted mess of old lies and falsehoods, while fantasizing about sending flash developers to the ‘gas chamber’. These design nazis would prefer every site to march in step wearing a dull brown shirt of little square boxes and drab plain text of their beloved but exceedingly boring web standards.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:07 am
If Flash has poor functionality it is the fault of the designer. For every Flash site with bad UI, I can give you just as many non-Flash sites.
It’s accessiblity is weak admitedly, as for search engines, there are plenty of non-Macromedia/Adobe plugins for Flash that create all of the content from XML which is highly searchable. A term found in the XML by a spider, when clicked on in Google will take you to the appropriate part of the Flash file, again, if the designer has done his job correctly.
One thing remains true of Flash that is not true of non-Flash sites, CONSISTENCY. Because none of the corporations building web browsers want to stick with W3C standards, it is impossible to build one site that works exactly the same in all browsers without having to create additional CSS, XML or other files that read the browser. Even this text box and submit button look different on Safari than many of you are seeing on IEEEE. a Flash site however, once published, will look exactly the same on all browsers. Even interactive elements such as forms can look the same everywhere.
Flash challenges designers to rethink and reevaluae what makes good UI. The thing is that many web designers suck and are lazy. That goes for designers that use AJAX or Flash.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:11 am
i disagree specially with extremist, chek out nokia.com if well handled it can make browsing easier and fun. Go learn more stuff before making yourself look NOOB. Peace NOOB!
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:13 am
Yes. We get it. Flash sucks as a full-screen website - acccessibility is very limited, yada yada yada; but as a provider for “rich content” such as games, graphs, videos and whatnot it’s good. What more is there to argue on that point?
Stop duplicating points and nit-picking at flash - j4n comes to mind; I’m sure if you tried to use flash to run the stock exchange you would view it as a “sucky” tool. It is what it is.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:14 am
With regards to accessibility I would have to agree with the comment that flash is not exactly accessible. The whole point of accessibility is that structure and style should be kept separated so that users can view the content even without the aesthetics elements. This is not the case with Flash and as such if you are designing with this technology solely then you are cutting out part of your viewing audience.
This might be fine if you are happy to do this, but I really can’t see any excuse for anyone to be excluded when there are better alternatives around.
Although that said Flash has been excellent at slowing down my browser since every banner on the net now seems to be done in Flash, way to improve the user experience!
/* Rant over */
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:15 am
Oh how quickly people forget… Macromedia did NOT create flash, they purchased a product called “FutureSplash Animator” and renamed it to flash.
http://www.adobe.com/macromedia/events/john_gay/page04.html
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:16 am
I think the key to JavaFX having ANY viablility at all hinges on Suns introducing a much smaller (~2MB) Java browser plugin. A tiny, easy to intall plug-in, would allow instant startup of FX based apps. Sun talked about this at JavaOne, but I haven’t heard much since.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:17 am
Haha. Look at this guy…. he has no clue. Stop complaining and uninstall the Flash player from your browser, then enjoy the internet. Go read a Flex tutorial.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:21 am
Wow, it’s rip on Flash time for most of these comments. But Nielsen’s “Flash 99% Bad” AlertBox from 2000 is really insufficient to call Flash unusable these days. First of all, most of those issues have been fixed (four versions later), either by Adobe or through code snippets easily available on the web.
Secondly, Airgid & Reindel responded to that AlertBox in 2002 with the book “Flash 99% Good,” which discusses how to design a Flash site with usability in mind - one of many books on this topic. Even Nielsen himself has revised his harsh stance and said that Flash is fine as long as particular design guidelines are followed.
Flash is a tool, and like any other tool (even basic HTML), it can be a very engaging experience, or it can really suck - but that’s not Flash’s fault. It’s the fault of the programmers. Do you really think Silverlight will fix this? One of Nielsen’s comments is around gratuitous animation in Flash - “Since we can make things move, why not make things move?” Silverlight is built on top of Microsoft’s new WPF, which means that Drop Shadows, Gradients, Animations, and tons of other UI glitz are now possible with one simple declaration. And because they *can* do it, developers *will* do it.
Anyway, this point has been made above - stop ripping on Flash. Designers love it as a tool that can get their vision out. It probably won’t be leaving us anytime soon.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:22 am
[...] few months you come across posts like Flash Sucksthis and it makes you think how the Flash has moved on in leaps and [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:23 am
Not every page has disabled visitors you retard. Or need to care about them.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:24 am
[...] This is a pretty interesting article in the sense that it provides a great insight into the minds of people who love, hate, and love to hate, Flash. The article writer’s opinion is that Flash sucks, but the shining point is the comments section which is full of well-thought responses. Truth is, most everybody on that web page seems like an intelligent individual, albeit with varying levels of bias. I can’t think of a single argument for or against Flash that wasn’t covered in a convincing way. [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:24 am
Most of the people i know who say that “Flash sucks” are those who, no matter what they do, don’t understand how to use it. =)
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:24 am
Flash USED to suck and I used to loathe it intensely.
But with the advent of Flex 2, AVM2 and AS3, I LURV IT! It is *finally* what Java has always promised but could never deliver satisfactorily. A lean and mean cross-platform set of APIs that can be used for full-fledged development running the gamut from Unix to Windows to handheld devices.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:32 am
This article is ridiculous. What really pissed me of is that your complaining it was closed source. If you made an application that your making millions of dollars of would you want to make it open-source? I think not moron. Flash is not meant for your average joe site. It’s meant for high-class high impact sites that want to deliver information in a more exciting way. It’s a way to stand out from the crowd and if you think all flash sites suck please visit any of the following.
http://www.2advanced.com
http://www.wa007.com
http://www.thefwa.com
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:33 am
Of course Flash sucks bigtime, mainly because it is often used badly. And indeed we do not need another web interface.
Then again: you don’t need Flash to have a lousy site. Look at your own site for instance. 2/3rd of my screen is friggin’ empty; the middle part containing contents is 520 pixels wide filled with unreadably-small text. Real good use of my 1920×1200 screen. Perhaps time to read some usability manuals before barfing about usability on another product?
HTML was made to present properly on many screen formats. Why do you need to specify everything in pixels!? Use percentages and point for $DEITY’s sake!
One of the most important points in usability is - WE MUST BE ABLE TO FSCKING READ WHAT’S WRITTEN!
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:35 am
Yawn…
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:39 am
http://www.2advanced.com/ > your opinions
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:39 am
People who hate on Flash are people who haven’t been able to learn it.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:42 am
Wow what a completely original article. I’ve only read the same argument 23 times in the last month. I bet it makes you feel smart saying something sucks though. Get over it everything has ups and downs.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:42 am
It seems to me your article is well thought out and researched fairly well. My problem with your piece here is that perhaps the fundamental argument is flawed. It is not Flash that is causing most of the dilemmas you put forth here, but the way most some web devs utilize Flash (or OVER utilize it).
Flash can be a great tool to introduce multimedia to your site and otherwise, break out of the structured grid of standard construction languages. But just like CSS and JAVA, you shouldn’t create an entire site using just one of the tools at your disposal. Use Flash, CSS, JAVA, etc. sparingly but comprehensively. It is just one of the many tools you SHOULD master in order to be successful as a web developer.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:42 am
Man… Grow up, are you sure you don’t work in my company I swear you are the project manager that is 50 years old and is not willing to let go of Java and learn new tricks, Is your name Bob?
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:44 am
[...] Grafted from ImMike [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:44 am
Flash and Flash Gordon the Movie then has something in common. They both suck :)
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:45 am
For somebody who is so anti-closed, thinking silverlight will solve anything is a bit of a joke.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:46 am
I agree with your argument - seeing flash used for anything beyond video leaves me nauseous - but frankly I see nothing new here that hasn’t already been said since ye olden days of Flash 4 (except your oddball silverlight mention).
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:47 am
so i take it none of you like youtube?
this post sucked. flash rules. and you’re a dick.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 am
[...] some people think flash sucks. (http://immike.net/blog/2007/07/31/flash-sucks/. I personally think flash rocks. I only read his first paragraph, but I saw the issue of Usability. [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 am
although flash is good, it also has bad points, but from the end user i find it very help ful, but their is always corporate crap invlved
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:58 am
To me, the tech part of your argument is very much on point. As in I understand why you would be so frustrated. The other half of this argument is a bit selfish. Your comment about “Consistency is imperative for a UI — users learn how to do something once, and can apply that knowledge in tons of places.” is true. If you are checking your email, bank statement etc. But if a company is trying to sell me a product I would want to see something different.
On the other side of the coin, some of us thrive to push interactivity and that’s what pushes that side of the technological front. Flash sucks, who says that while viewing a you tube video, creating a Simpsons character or telling a subservient chicken what to do. It’s advertising and if a person is not up to date to view, understand or engage in this type of digital environment. Then that’s ok cause they are not the target audience.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:09 am
I’m all for open standards and open source, but if a product is good I don’t let my personal ideological preferences get in the way.
My customers pay me for what I can provide to their users, not to promote an ideological agenda.
And in practice I don’t really see an issue with Adobe not allowing anyone to create their own player.
There is plenty of OS tools you can use to create swf’s, but yes, there is pretty much only one player.
IMO that’s what gives the advantage over standards like HTML, JS and SVG.
You simply do not have to deal with all the hassle of different implementations of the standard and the last thing I would want is to sit and test my swf’s in the MS player, the Mozilla player and Safari player.
That is a very real advantage that saves me and my customers loads of time and money.
The only practical arguments against the closed specification in the article is that he “hates” companies that use closed specifications and that they are planning to incorporate DRM.
Sure I dislike DRM as much as anyone, but that’s mainly if I buy a product and it restricts my use of that.
If I listen to some streaming music on a site it really does not bother me so much, and many people do want to put up media that you can access through their website but not letting people download it. Adobe have no interest in their own of DRM, but since their customers do they implement it.
If they don’t do it, someone else would take their customers that do want to use DRM.
Anyway, I’m sure it will be optional, and if you want people to be able to download your media as DRM free files there is nothing to stop you from implementing a solution for that.
So I really have trouble seeing how that can be an argument against Adobe for them listening to what their users want…in that case blame the users.
And I really can’t how it is an argument against the closed specification…even if it was an open specification for it to be any use sure anyone implementing it would have to follow the spec, otherwise we get a situation where some sites work with one player while others only work with another. Hardly ideal for neither developers or users.
Flash is IMO great when used correctly.
I whenever plausible use progressive enhancement to ensure that users without Flash, spiders and screen readers will have full access the site without problems, I implement deep-linking and browser history and if needed make the interface and text resizeable.
With the proper attention to details such as those one can make very accessible Flash and in fact even improve accessibility and usability beyond the capabilities of HTML.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:20 am
Jon: Yes, Flash works with screen readers.
You probably didn’t know that because you aren’t a Flash developer (which makes you an expert here, obviously).
What amazes me is how none of these blogs posts mention a viable alternative.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:23 am
Sure, sure, Flash sucks a big one.
I LOVE NEWGROUNDS.COM
*cough* Well, I see Flash as an animation tool and a great way to make games. This article makes some good points. I would never make a web page entirely out of flash, because I’m not an idiot. Sadly, just like with most religions, there are some very misguided individuals that do some things that make the world hate them and everything that they “say” they stand for.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:25 am
[quote]Sadly for you your rant is about as much use as the paper its printed on. Flash is here to stay - you wont be ($5 says your flipping my whopper burger next time I go to BK) - and for what its worth - without it the web would be a pretty boring place. Its created a web where content is delivered in an engaging mannor with rich features. But then if folk like you had there way we’d still be on HTML 2.0 with grey backgrounds and all text in TimesRoman .
…. yeah that would be cool wouldn’t it[/quote]
Your post shows just how ignorant you actually are. Flash has its uses, but it is NOT a subsitute for web design. That is where Ajax comes in. Your comment about web conetent with grey backgrounds is an ignorant statement, as if you knew anything in web design, you would realize you can make some pretty good sites without flash.
And with other font types.
Instead of opening up your mouth and spewing forth garbage about something you have no idea about, try studying. Do you even know what an html element is?
$5 bucks to bet you are flipping whoppers at BK.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:31 am
Adobe Flash and now Adobe Flex provide for all the short comings of HTML, etc. One must remember that the internet was never originally designed to stream video and provide the interactivity that Flash and other technologies provide. It helps eliminate cross browser incompatibilities and browser proprieties. It allows static content to be more engaging and allows authors to convey their message in a more meaningful way other than text.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:37 am
I’m millionaire because of Flash…
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 am
Yo, DRD, I have a birthday present for you!
Just load the FLASHBLOCK and NOSCRIPT extensions into the FIREFOX web browser, and surf the net a whole new way. You get to decide what flashes and scripts you want to allow - by default you see only a placeholder.
The author(s) of noscript are very considerate in their handling of the functional overlap between the two extensions; you will find it takes a couple weeks to get noscript tuned properly but it really is worth the effort.
I’ve been browsing flash-free and script-safe for at least a year. I can’t remember the last time I had to wait for some stupid flash nonsense to complete before getting the information I came for.
PS - Adblock works with these extensions too… It’s like turning the dial on the Internet back to just before the AOL invasion, it adds an implicit intelligence test to web site creation.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:49 am
[...] Flash Sucks (via digg) [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 am
Hi, I’m Tim and I’m posting on this epic thread. I have nothing to day that hasn’t already been said 10 times over, so I’ll just lay back and enjoy the spectacle.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 am
flash is amazing. people that suck when they dont know how to make a proper use of it
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:53 am
I’m not crazy about Flash, but I do admit it does have some uses- video, games and advertising come to mind.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:58 am
[...] you might not know is that Flash sucks. It is the bane of the Internet, and it needs to go away.read more | digg story Sphere [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:00 am
criticizing FLASH in this way is an interesting point of view — i thought similar difficulties with trying to OCR an oil painting.
to me a flash movie’s real purpose is uniqueness and artistic flair (hopefully).
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:01 am
Flash doesn’t kill websites, people kill websites. It’s all in how you use it, so don’t blame the tool. Flash is great when it’s used responsibly and as an enhancement (and not at the expense of standards, usability, etc).
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:11 am
Your article sucks- how many games have you programmed without flash. How many audio mixers or video players? Its the same whinney arguement for the past 6 years, yet clients will still want some things in flash and flash programmers still makes lots of money. Just because you can’t code in it doesn’t mean it sucks.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:12 am
Oh cute! Someone read a Nielson book and felt it was time to regurgitate someone else’s ideas as their own. This article is about seven years too late.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:16 am
RE #23 : Flash 9 can read SVG
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:19 am
You can get away w/ a lot of ‘flashy’ effects by using any one of the javascript animation libraries built on the prototype framework.
http://script.aculo.us
http://mad4milk.net
http://dojotoolkit.org/
etc…
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:23 am
Thanks for the article. I, too agree that Flash is a poor design choice.
@ Crila (response #126): The argument with this article (as I take it) is not to use Flash to create your entire website, or use it for major design elements – due to it’s inherent problems.
@ Kyle (response #3): Accessibility doesn’t pertain to how you use your keyboard or mouse to browse a website. It has to do with disabled people who browse with ‘non conventional’ browsers such as JAWS for the blind. The problem with Flash is that it’s one giant image - or at least that’s how it’s read by screen readers. So, when an entire site is made from Flash, the browser can’t ‘read’ the site, and therefore, the user can’t ‘view’ it. Also, the text isn’t scalable. Per accessibility requirements, your site should have the option to have at least 3 text sizes (sm, med, lg) for the sight impaired. You can do this easily with CSS. However, it’s not an option for Flash. Which means that if you use an insanely small and unreadable font like a 9pt or a 10pt Arial - people who are vision impaired have a hard time reading the content on your site?
Indeed, Flash is lame. Sure, it looks good, but so did that crappy .gif image of the dancing baby from the mid-90’s. If Flash isn’t brought under control as a design medium, it risks becoming the .gif of our day. Use Flash sparingly as ELEMENTS on a page, but not for the entire page!
Please, if you want to truly design a good, sexy, readable, usable site; use CSS for your design, and create a dynamic site w/XHTML or DHTML, maybe even throw in some JavaScript for functionality (use JS sparingly, though as some people disable that in their browsers).
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:24 am
see the gnash project:
Gnash is the GNU Flash movie player, which can be run standalone on the desktop or an embedded device, as well as as a plugin for several browsers.
http://gnash.lulu.com/
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:26 am
Incidentally, the DRM you were referring to is for Adobe Media Player, which is a desktop player for Flash Video. It is separate from the Flash Player, although the article you linked to is unclear on that point. See this for more info: http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Media_Player
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:27 am
Hi,
Since you brought up the point of accessibility, I noticed your own site failed the 508 Compliance Automated Verification - http://www.cynthiasays.com/mynewtester/cynthia.exe?rptmode=-1&url1=http%3A%2F%2Fimmike.net%2Fblog%2F2007%2F07%2F31%2Fflash-sucks%2F
Does that mean WP sucks?
Closed Specification:
So if a restaurant wouldn’t give you the recipe for an item on their menu, would they suck for being proprietary?
At the end of the day its a business. If you don’t like it, don’t use it OR do something about it instead of making sweeping statements like, “Flash sucks”.
Flash/Flex/AIR are only going to get more popular. If people don’t like it, that’s fine but folks who bash Flash with uninformed, wrong, and out of date reasoning can’t expect to be taken seriously.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:27 am
Saying consistancy is imperative for a UI is like saying “Dont innovate”. Speaking as a Flash developer….Flash is not bad — its just a few small groups developing badly…as much as there are badly developed non-flash web content.
Also - the Nielsona article is about 5-6 yrs old. He turned the corner & is now behind Adobe Flash as an interface.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:28 am
A lot of this article seems like it was written around the same time as the link to Jakob Nielsens useit.com criticism of Flash (2000), thta is referenced:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html
Since then, Nielsen has revisited Flash for usability & accessibility and, surprise, is not nearly as critical.
Most of the other design considerations (new and confusing UI, lack of consistency, accessibility) can be said as well for ajax, and likely silverlight. MSFTs Blend, if you’ve used it, is much more a Dev tool than designer tool so I’m absolutely *SURE* we’ll see great design coming from it (right….).
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 am
I couldn’t disagree more with this article. Flash is very visually pleasing and allows for way more freedom than xhtml or css can provide. Flash opens up the door for creativity. I have a feeling this article was written by some coder elitist.
Good day.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:37 am
whine, whine, whine. the only valid fact you had in your whole entire article is the part about accessibility. However a good developer will take the time to make their site accessible to everyone if they want to.
Flash is amazing piece of software. It was doing things for the internet no other language/software could do. What gives you the right to bash it when you can’t even design/develop your own blog?
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 am
Who the hell is this Mike, and why is he trying so hard?
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:53 am
Yawn. Another incoherent rant hurriedly thrown together behind a traffic-generating title. Web development can’t sit still forever Mike. Maybe you don’t like the innovations or maybe you can’t keep up with them. The latter is certainly true of this developer, but I blame myself for that.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:59 am
It sounds like someone tried to use Flash and found it to difficult to understand and decided to rant about it instead.
Without Flash, there would be no YouTube, now would there? How about MySpace that runs ColdFusion which uses Flash as a large component of it? How about ESPN.com ?
Come on, whoever wrote this piece does not deserve to comment on anything ever again.
I respect that we each have our own opinions, but at least make sure you know what you’re talking about.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 am
[...] I’m Mike provides another fine rant on the “suckiness” of Flash. He covers some points I hadn’t considered, among them that Flash is a closed spec, and its vile DRM support. [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:17 am
you are an asshole and your arguments are out-dated by at least 3 years. Sounds like someone is 1)not a designer, perhaps a programmer, 2)you cant make anything on it except cheesy crap. 3)think of flash as only a web design tool, when clearly its a multimedia authoring on par with and i prefer over Director. Course you are an asshole, and your argument is only skewed to web interface design, when clearly its much more than that. In fact I am creating a multimedia cd with it now for a company marketing program, with video, full catalogs, and content pulled off-site. So your one-dimensional statements hold no water. How dare you bring up another program from microsoft that is far more notorious controling standards. When has microsoft made a usable interface/OS/software that needs constant updates, they have not poorly reversed-engineered?
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:17 am
Haters are lame. Some flash sites can, have and will suck. Many do not. Look at http://www.thefwa.com. Bad design pops up in all forms (just browse around myspace for a while). Flash, when developed correctly can have very small file sizes. As for accessibility, just take a look at JK Rowlings flash site… nuff said. Consistency is imperative for a UI… Consistency is boring. The idea of finding the “right” way to do something and not experimenting is just moronic. Anyone want to go back to DOS, or windows 3.1 or OS 9? This guy is an html Luddite… “Change Bad!!!” As for the comments on DRM nice that he put “copyright holders” in quotes. welcome to capitalism. I bet you download stolen… I mean free music too.
Look if someone stabs me with a fork in the leg, forks suck, I f I use one to eat, forks rule. It’s all in how you use it my boy!
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:19 am
You know the worst thing about Flash? The portion of untalented, cooler-than-thou people that use it. I mean bulldogs have been known to ride skateboards, does that make them athletes? Wow! It blinks and moves! It MUST be cool!!!!
I say tp these people: So you have a comuter and some software? OOOOO you are now an experienced designer and artist and user interface expert. (Also known as the 22 year old hipster brat living with his mommy that wishes the whole world WAS a video game.)
It’s not the program. It’s the no-talent dorks that abuse it that make it look bad for everyone else who is into it.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:21 am
such an old, tired discussion point. this has been bitched about for a decade. just a good way to get lots of comments and traffic. I’ve done it myself… over two years ago and to this day I still show up in the top 10 results when you search for 2Advanced.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:27 am
I don’t see why we need an alternative to flash. The programmability functions can be replaced with D/HTML, CSS and AJAX, and the media functions can be replaced with media-specific plugins. Flash is a crappy product that is more oriented to allowing advertisers to cram the garbage down users throats than it is toward giving users control over the content that gets displayed in their browsers.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 am
[...] Flash Sucks [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:34 am
my whole career is a LIE!
:_(
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:45 am
There’s just something I have to add: While I was using a 56kbps modem and I “had” to disable some of the more important things in my browser (such as animated GIFs, pics, and flash) I had a few wonderful experiances. — I came to a company site and couldn’t see anything! — Nothing was therer for me, not even a line of text. After that I enabled flash, waited for about 10 mins to load and got the page. — Now, I really can’t imagine howcan an imparied person browse that kind of a page… Just horrible :(
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 am
[...] is that Flash sucks. It is the bane of the Internet, and it needs to go away. sailor moon dbz xxxread more | digg [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 am
and we should all be using only OS X with only Firefox 2.0.0.0.x
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:53 am
I have been fighting this fight for years. The team that I work with is constantly using Flash where it isn’t necessary. A typical planning conversation for a new website usually has some line of conversation that goes like this:
“Yeah, that’s a really good idea for the new site, but you know what I think would make it a great idea? Doing it in Flash. It would make it looks super-cool then… I mean, it would let the user be a part of the site experience.”
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Say the guy who put a stupid custom cursor on is blog
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:15 pm
hey man, I feel what you say, but I really love flash. I understand that its nearly criminal how badly some people implement it (the same could be said of the internet in general). I set my hotmail account to read as ‘Afganistan’ instead of the USA as flash ads are localised by country. VIOLA, no advertising. hehe.
I use it to game homebrew games, and it works cross platform and on mobile devices. Thats very nice for me.
Sorry, I love the flashness. There will be no macswitch from me this time. Good luck in your quest.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Games, games, games — Flash can’t suck!
People use Flash poorly, but there are no better alternatives, not by a mile.
So good luck getting everybody to stop playing games.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Amen brother. ;)
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Wow… lots of feedback. I’m reading through all the comments right now and I just wanted to clarify one thing. I definitely think Flash has it’s uses, and I don’t blame anyone for using it. I think that for certain tasks (e.g., web video) Flash is pretty much your only choice. I also understand, and sympathize with designers who use Flash because it gives them the freedom to create whatever they’re envisioning, without some of the restrictions of XHTML/CSS.
My problem with Flash, and the point I was trying to make in my post, is that as a developer I want the freedom to mash-up/parse/autogenerate/do whatever the heck I want with the content that I own or have permission to use. The restrictions that Adobe places on Flash files limit what I can do with Flash content. That’s what I really hate. Ideally, some solution will emerge (it could even be Flash, if certain things changed) that will make everyone happy. Flash, in it’s current state, doesn’t. That’s why I don’t like it.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
You are right in that Flash can be, and has been, totally abused. But you are wrong when you say something that encourages suckiness makes it sucky. HTML can be easily abused (look at myspace). Does this make HTML bad?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I’m sorry, but I have to hand it to Mike for not being afraid to address something that has flaws, could be improved upon, but is constantly defended by fanboys as the end-all be-all web technology.
Who wouldn’t want what is currently “teh best” to be improved upon, or perhaps, *GASP* a successor that’s EVEN BETTER to come forth and take the lead?
Too much flash fanboy fapping in here for me.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Okay, Flash doesn’t do what, exactly? The vast majority of the stuff I build (in Flash) pulls data from an external source. Are you that far behind?
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
dude, you are so fckng full of sht!!! You either have to be a complete retard to post something like this — or you’ve never had the opportunity to work with a flash developer who is actually competent. Which unfortunately there are not many of. So, rather than defame one of the most innovative and pervasive VM’s — BETTER THAN JAVA!!!! Why don’t you read newstoday or look up joshua davis, or jared tarbell and reconsider your foolish statement.
i’ll allow it this time, but just because you are clearly and underprivileged ignoramus. So i can’t blame you. But seriously — you should really read up before you go blathering like a moron, dude.
Love,
me
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Just curious… why even such a post? What’s griping about flash really going to do? Improve the web? Eliminate the use of flash. Get adobe to change their hearts and take it off the market? Ahhh, I know, It will convince all of the flash soldiers the error of their heathen ways and make them drop their weapons (flash) and raise the white flag… yeah ok.
Like it or not, Flash is here to stay. It has its place on the web, and you might do well to just accept it as it is.
A boring and very old topic… while I know flash and have used it, it isn’t really what I usually do. But your kidding yourselves to say flash doesn’t have its place. Get over it guys. Just make websites.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
So the one tool that made youtube possible sucks eh?
You said it yourself man, it’s the bad developers who make flash suck. It took years to mature yes, but whatever your needs are, it can be done.
Good flash design dictates that you embed safely. That mainly means that you should have alternative xhtml content for any .swf you place. That way the spiders are happy.
The real holy grail is deep linking and browser forward and back. But hey, even I figured that out.
http://www.lightgroup.com/#/photos/light-nightclub
Don’t choke on the hatorade.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Anyone who wrote accessibility is how many browsers flash player is available for or that it has mouse and keyboard support should stop making websites. Now.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
This guy is an idiot! He shays look at these examples and none of them are cross browser compatible! Secondly Flash is the most ubiquitous, and most powerful redering engine for vector graphics and animation. Love it or hat it there is no viable aternative.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm
You can tell an article is going to be quality stuff when the opening sentence is wrong. Flash wasn’t created by Macromedia. It was created by San Diego based Silicon Beach Software (FutureWave) as FutureSplash Animator, which was in turn SOLD to Macromedia.
As far as you not liking Flash because it doesn’t let you do what you want, I’d recommend using something else. Seems pretty simple.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
seriously…right there you just proved your whole argument is complete bs. thanks for that, it really shows you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Evan, it’s not about pulling data from external sources. It’s about creating my own Flash video player, converting Flash into other formats, and otherwise interacting with Flash apps programatically. The current license stipulates that you must “not use the Specification in any way to create or develop a runtime, client, player, executable or other program that reads or renders SWF files.”
Flashape, how does that invalidate my argument at all?
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I haven’t had the time to read through all 150+ posts but I noticed a trend with the accessibility comment. So I apologize in advance if I am repeating another reply.
Accessibility has more to do with Flash’s ability to run on multiple browsers. It has a lot more to do with the user and how they are viewing a web site. Accessibility questions, “is it accessible to a a wide range of users?”
Flash limits this in most cases because it isn’t used correctly or completely over used.
My opinion is that Flash is a trend, as multiple things out there in the technological age and something will come along and knock it out range. And to go along with that, nothing will ever be perfect and there will always be limitations.
Let’s all be friends now and accept that there are advantages and disadvantages to Flash! :P
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
@Chris
I think you have misunderstood what accessibility means.
You said “It has to do with disabled people who browse with ‘non conventional’ browsers such as JAWS for the blind.”
Accessibility means simply put how accessible your site is.
Some choices can make it hard for a user without a certain plugin or with an old and slow computer to use your site properly, hence it will not be accessible for them.
You can have a complex navigation that the non-mensa members of your users can’t figure out how to use, making your site inaccessible to them.
If you reduce accessibility to meaning catering for visually impaired you are only taking into account a small fraction of the necessary considerations to make an accessible site.
Flash can, when used correctly, improve accessibility if you take care of it when designing.
For example scaling text is not at all impossible with Flash as you claim.
Before you write off Flash and not being capable of making accessible sites you should make sure you understand what accessibility means as well as get your facts straight about what Flash can and cannot do.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
[...] 2 augustus 2007 20:23 | Geef commentaar Flash Sucks niet mee eens en de paar miljoen gebruikers van YouTube ook niet waarschijnlijk, je moet het wel [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
drop it down a gear mate. stop moaning and just don’t use site that have flash. Christ. It’s only the internet. If someone’s stupid enough to make a site in flash. that’s their problem.
It’s not gonna go away. SO deal with it.
Yawn
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Search engines *can* read Flash binaries.
Most of your points, although I agree with them, were covered by Jacob Nielson in his manifesto “Flash: 99% bad” and almost all of those were subsequently fixed by Macromedia. The fact that Flash developers don’t really care about what you and Jacob don’t like is disappointing, but it’s their choice just as much as it is your choice to go to their sites.
Still to this day, there are dozens of things you can do in Flash that you can’t do otherwise. Unlike other technologies you mention, Flash is already on almost every computer.
I think your inability to “mash-up/parse/autogenerate/do whatever the heck [you] want” is more your inabilities with Flash, in all due respect, than the limitation of the program. I’ve seen and created many mash-ups in Flash.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I agree, websites should not use flash to create their websites layout, however really its not useless when it comes to:
Flash Games - People love simple fun games to play in their freetime.
Flash Movies - Remember the stickman movie boom a few years back?
Flash banners - Simple flash banners add alot to a site.
The problem is when people start to use it for every button and every damned pixel of a webpage.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I’m sure it’s been said already, but I’ll repeat it if it has….
Mike — You blame a technology (Flash) for mistakes of Developers… It’s like saying HTML Sucks because it let’s Developers specify , and alike tags that are very annoying and probably hazardous to our health.
I’m not a Flash developer but happen to think that a widespread technology that let’s people to implement outside the box thinking can only improve the “internet” — however poor use of it can also hurt it… but that’s true for pretty much everything.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
“Evan, it’s not about pulling data from external sources. It’s about creating my own Flash video player, converting Flash into other formats, and otherwise interacting with Flash apps programatically. The current license stipulates that you must “not use the Specification in any way to create or develop a runtime, client, player, executable or other program that reads or renders SWF files.”
But what sense does that make?? Have you ever had a need to write an engine to parse/render xhtml and css differently? Why in the world would you want to make a new Flash Player? You can create a custom “Flash video player” without creating a new spec for SWF files.
If you have more than one spec, how will that improve accessibility? I don’t want to have to develop Flash applications to work on three different Flash Player specs. If I wanted to waste time doing that, I’d be a css/xhtml developer.
I think I need a practical, real-world example of what exactly you would like to do with Flash that isn’t currently possible.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
— cut our some of my comments —
… let’s Developers specify marquee, blink and alike tags …
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Get off your high, ignorant horse. Something with 98% penetration on the internets CAN’T SUCK, you nooblet. IE6, on the other hand, SUCKS. And the numbers prove it. Way to write a shock value headline and get traffic, though. I’ll never return.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:54 pm
So I can have a Flash player on my 64-bit Sun box, for example.
According to Adobe’s FAQ at http://www.adobe.com/licensing/developer/fileformat/faq/#item-1-9
Can I use the File Format Specification to create a FLV encoder or an FLV streaming service?
No, the File Format Specification is provided for the specific purpose of enabling software applications to export to the SWF file format.
I’m not saying we need more than one spec. I’m saying I’d like the current spect to be open. And if Adobe’s not willing to do that, I think it’s time people start looking at other technologies/companies that are embracing open specs.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
well first off, interesting post. I personally like Flash and design all my websites in Flash. I should also note that by trate I am a designer. Flash, while I’m sure it has it’s set backs, is an incredibly powerful tool that was developed to push the limits of webdesign. It does kind of suck that there is no competition, because competition is always good.
Some of the comments here are not true though - any flash site can be made “handicap friendly” with keyboard control (I assume that’s what you meant), and the last flash video player I created had a wonderful scrubbing function.
The main thing I hate when designing websites about html and other traditional languages is that to this day there is no guarantee of what the site will look like for other users depending on what OS/browser combo they have! I have 4 browsers installed at home, and it’s still not enough to fully test an html based site. And I’d much rather have a Flash based site than some LAME website that was built around XP/IE and doesn’t work on any other system or browser. Flash is cross-platform and always looks/works the same - a key point to any website where design is of importance.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Been in the business for 30 years and flash is where the internet is heading.
You MUST be able to handle non-linear elements, 3d, and graphic manipulation and animation and it must be usable on all platforms. That is flash - ajax doesn’t even come close.
There will always be the mass following the lead and flash has been consistently showing the way. Ajax is and was an attempt to duplicate the capabilities of Flash and will continue to do so. It will never take the lead as it has to constantly fight the every growing inconsistencies of implementation.
If you want to see what Ajax etc. might be able to do in the future - look at flash today.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Unfortunately, this is an antiquated argument that would have had relevance four or five years ago.
Yes, we know, do not build Flash apps that do not take advantage of rich media or heavy interaction. No design technologist worth his/her weight is doing that. To blame a technology on a segment of the population that use it poorly is highly problematic. Can we please move on now?
Flash (and other rich media technologies) are necessary due to the inherent rich media limitations of HTML/CSS/JS. The whole video boom? Possible because of a highly penetrated rich media browser plugin. The two technologies are both needed - we should spend time finding ways to better integrate them, not spend time saying their counterpart sucks (literally).
If one is interested in accessibility, there are scores of methods to aid in that arena. Flash’s ExternalInterface (which allows Flash and Javascript to communicate with each other) offers developers the ability to use Flash as the display mechanism and use Javscript-enabled HTML to interface with the Flash display component. Another is swfObject which uses Javascript to inject a swf at runtime - allowing developers to create alternate/accessible content for those who do not have the plugin or potentially would not be able to use it.
In terms of a closed specification, Macromedia was making considerable strides to open up the SWF, and Adobe seems to be continuing down that path. The Flex 3 SDK will be open source, allowing for a free development tool for the web community and the Tamarin project is just another step towards an open SWF player. I am not happy with Adobe’s control on the creative software sector. I am also not a big fan of any company holding the cards to a technology. That being said, the inevitable open-source future of Flash development seems to be taking its course and Adobe is not getting in the way. That’s to be commended.
I fail to see how articles like this gain so much traction as they just do not stand up when put to the fire. Rich media is an important piece of the web - let’s get over the it.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
SVG is already a feasible replacement for Flash in all areas except file-handling widgets, and multimedia playback (videos and audio). SVG has only two real problems; lack of support from intellectually lazy developers, and the fact that there is no real “complete” implementation. All that remains to be implemented in the major browsers is SMIL and font handling. And of course, Microsoft has to stop wasting our time with Silverlight and bring their worthless browser up to spec. It’s the only major one that doesn’t have any SVG support, unless you count plugins (which have the same issues as Flash, in the grand scheme of things).
Seriously, I don’t know what people have against SVG anymore. Firefox, Opera 9, and Safari 3 support enough of it natively to get most jobs done. You can get Explorer to support it with Adobe’s incomplete and buggy plugin, or wait for Renesis to get their plugin to support scripting a little better. I think it’s just honestly lazy developers that are holding the spec back.
The only concern people usually have for SVG is performance. Flash is “faster” then most SVG implementations. But this is a non-issue in most cases, because you are probably doing so heavy-handed your users won’t appreciate it. At least my browser doesn’t crash or tie up my processor when an SVG animation comes on.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
People like Smarmy fail to get the point entirely. 98% market penetration doesn’t tell you a product is “good”, it tells you a product is “used”. But hey, I guess he shows just how little he knows in the next sentence anyway, because if IE sucks and it’s got the best market penetration, it can’t suck either right? Grow up, Smarmy.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
“I’m not saying we need more than one spec. I’m saying I’d like the current spect to be open.”
Hey Mike, that’s what we call a “contradiction.”
I don’t want to have to develop for your 64-bit version of Flash Player, or John Smith’s “TURBO XPRESS” SWF Player that .8% of the market uses. Matter of fact, I think everyone’s Flash experience should be ubiquitous, or not at all.
Of course, there are more users than people who actually develop Flash content, so I’m not expecting everyone to understand that.
It would a whole different story if Adobe wasn’t taking huge, frequent steps in the right direction with this technology.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Evan, I really don’t see how I am contradicting myself. Adobe could change the licensing agreement for the SWF/FLV Specs and it would be a non-issue. If they allowed me to build, say, a flash player or FLV encoder, I’d be less concerned.
If the spec was open then there wouldn’t be so many inconsistencies in third-party implementations. The current third party players had to built using reverse engineering because of the licensing agreement. Implementing a spec is a lot easier than reverse engineering and reimplementing a player.
The 12,000+ people who signed the 64-bit player petition over at http://www.petitiononline.com/lin64swf/petition.html would probably not agree that Adobe is making frequent steps forward.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
As a web developer I would say that Flash 9 is much different than say 5. Beyond graphics etc it supports xml and all other data. To say something sucks is an overstatement.
Most of the time it is all about elegance, attention to details and providing at least some alternative content and/or information when flash may not be available.
Flash also, at least in my place, replaced Director and or Authorware. There are tons of uses of it.
For instance, recently we have used it for a Plazma monitor display to advertise department’s offering …
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
you know NOTHING of Flash and the way it’s ment to be used if you say ‘flash sucks’. I lack words to say more to such a narrow opinion.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Flash is good if you know how to use it.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
If I’m understanding you correctly, then you are wanting to create a new SWF player. Chances are your SWF player will not render a SWF in the exact same way that Adobe’s Flash Player does. Perhaps this doesn’t *technically* change the spec, but it will definitely change the way developers create Flash content for the worse.
The contradiction comes in when you say things like “Consistency is imperative for a UI.” How consistent is the xhtml/css experience for users with IE versus users with Firefox? Not at all in most cases. Now consider that with more than one Flash Player on the market, how consistency will drop considerably.
I’d hate to see the SWF spec go down like that…
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I’ll admit that the XHTML/CSS experience can be inconsistent for users on various browsers/platforms, but that’s mostly because Microsoft has fiercely resisted properly implementing the specifications that exist. That said, the experience from site to site on a single browser, using XHTML/CSS, is fairly consistent. Most people don’t use multiple browser/platforms, so as long as the UI is consistent for the user, things are mostly ok.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
What about developping the web’s next gen platform ?
Seriously.. why wait for the big corporations, open source gods or any other third party .. let’s do this ourself. right here, right now!
2.5 m$, 14 months… any angel investors here ? :)
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
[...] try to “fix” what they see as bad interface models by creating custom Flash crap. This sucks. [+] Explore posts in the same categories: [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Dude, stop saying this bullshit.
MICROSOFT SILVER LIGHT? Man, make we happy, kill yourself, please. The only stuff from MS that really works are Windows Server, MS Exchange and SQL Server. But just works, if you wanna use a fast application, forget it. Or if you want a stable software, forget it again.
So, I’ll make you a challange: try to make this site out using (X)HTML/CSS/JavaScript. Or even more simple to you, try using SilverLight. The URI is http://www.2advanced.com
There are the 2 sides of the coin. If you want interactivity, hard animations, and that kind of stuff Flash is the best way to solve the problem, and no matter what you or your friends think, or even the one who said this bullshit to you. Its the truth.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I had to laugh at your Win XP + IE comment.
The flash player 9 is cross platform, and is on 98% of web able computers. That’s a lot
More than 2% of people have java script turned off, so Ajax loses out on that one.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Sound like you’d enjoy reading http://hp.fuzzy76.net/archives/136-Why-Flash-websites-are-a-really,-really-bad-idea.html - a little piece I wrote nearly a year ago. :)
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
@mike
What makes you think that MS would not make their own version of the Flash player if they where allowed to?
It wouldn’t surprise me if they made it deviate from the spec on purpose to try to sell silverlight.
And I do think it’s quite few users who only ever use one browser.
What you fail to get is that Flash is consistent on different platforms and in different browsers because it is a closed spec.
That is IMO a bigger advantage than being able to write your own 64 bit version.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
You’re completely missing the point. I don’t want to have to develop my Flash content to look consistent on multiple browsers and platforms — it already does that. When you start making branches of the Player, you inevitably lose that benefit, tower of freaking Babel style.
Twelve-thousand people is a relatively small number, by the way.
“Adobe is working on Flash Player support for 64-bit platforms as part of our ongoing commitment to the cross-platform compatibility of Flash Player.” Via http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=6b3af6c9&sliceId=1
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Why do people keep linking to this stupid 2advanced.com website? Seriously, I’ve clicked through to it about 10 times now and my first reaction is oh my god this is gaudy and overdone and make it go away. I didn’t even go beyond the initial splash screen the first few times. After that I had to search just to figure out what the heck the site is about. The navigation sucks too… If you guys are trying to prove my point re: usability you’re doing a pretty good job.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
“The navigation sucks too… If you guys are trying to prove my point re: usability you’re doing a pretty good job.”
I don’t think this is a problem with Flash, more so a problem with the designer. The same menu could be created with dhtml, only it wouldn’t run correctly on as many computers, and it would take a LOT longer to develop (mainly because of the cross browser hacks).
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Dude, you are terribly misguided. Your thoughts on closed source/spec are merely your opinion of what you like/prefer but means/speaks nothing to the supposed “suckiness” of Flash. I’ll respond to certain remarks though:
“I’d argue that a tool that encourages suckiness is itself inherently sucky”
- How in the world does the Flash IDE encourage suckiness? It merely allows people to animation, draw, whatever, etc. When you see a site that sucks do you blame it on Photoshop, Fireworks, or whatever? Nope. Completely unmerited argument here.
I will agree that some Flash sites suck. That is evident. Ads suck too but no one is giving up on gif’s or the tool used to create them. Bottom line…Flash (Player) doesn’t suck and you have no way validating such claims (if this post is your argument) beyond an opinion (which this obviously is).
Usability/Accessibility
Usability is, again, the designer/creators responsibility. How in the world can you blame Flash for sucky usability experiences? I hate certain things about GMail. Should I blog “Javaacript Sucks”? Nope.
Accessibility isn’t used in tons of areas. Ajax apps? Nope. Just because their is an href doesn’t mean the screen reader can follow the link (if the href is javascript: stuff or a # with an onclick).
Again, I can go on all day about this but none of your claims are validated with anything more than opinion. You’re definitely entitled to it.
Now, I will say I’m a Flash Platform developer as well as other languages/platforms. This does not add any bias to my response. If you were talking about Silverlight I’d have the same exact arguments against your remarks.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Oh, one more thing:
You could’ve chosen a MUCH better accessibility link. Try this one: http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/flash/.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
@mike
LOL, 2advanced sucks?! LOL, that’s total jealously there man. First off, let me know when ONE (1) fortune 500 client let alone nearly most of them. YEAH they suck BAD! SO bad companies are standing in line just to give them more money per project than you make a year….guaranteed.
I have heard Eric Jordan speak at conferences before, along with Joshua Davis and others. So you have f-ing blog, and you know a little CSS and XML, and all of sudden you know usability and design. What’s your street cred? Certainly not anything close to REAL designers! Whats the saying, “Those who cant do, teach.”
What’s the last fortune 500 client have you had today? Those guys probably get a new client daily, worth tens of thousands of dollars. Don’t believe me, go check out their client list, if you can get past the opening you tard.
And quit trying to front like you are not a MS fanboy, you listed XP (ha), IE (HAHA) and SILVER LIGHT (once again a pathetic reverse engineered product brought to you by the plagiristic cohorts of microsoft) and parading them around as your best examples, the rest of the enlightened industry laughs at your audacious attempts of trying to hide your pathetic love of Microsoft.
Microsoft’s IE is the bame of web designers, they have failed at every turn to reach standards others browsers have done and insisted upon trying to push their own web standards with MS’s overwhelming monopoly. Do we really want ANY industry model to follow MS’s.
So blog on, you dumbass..good luck trying to figure out the internet, you certainly are being dragged behind it instead of leading the charge.
Once again your arguments are nearly a decade old, like when flash used actually numerology to separate its versions.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
that is let me know WHEN YOU get ONE(1) let alone nearly all of the Fortune 500 clients as yours…
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Dude, rhetoric assassin, first… chill out. Second, it has nothing to do with jealousy, I’m not even a designer. I really couldn’t care less. But, in my opinion, that site is nothing special. If I want crappy music and gaudy page layouts I’ll go to MySpace. Sorry, but that’s just how I feel. If they’re doing well, then more power to them. But spamming the link everywhere isn’t proving anything.
Re: the MS stuff… I have absolutely no idea where you got that. I said that SilverLight will probably “suck at least as much as Flash.” And nowhere did I mention IE or XP. In fact, if you read the comment thread, you’d see I completely agree with you about MS/IE’s failure to properly implement the W3C standards. MS absolutely sucks.
For what it’s worth, I’m writing this on a MacBook Pro. My workstation is a Sun Ultra 20 (which I’ve also already said). And the only Windows PC I have is an oldish XP box that I fire up from time to time to make sure sites work in IE. If you really think I’m an MS fanboy, I’d love for you to stick around for a while and tell all the people who come here and say I’m a Google/Apple fanboy.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
and ha, their video brought to you on the Silver Light website was made with Adobe Products….LOL….. a little more salt in the wound…
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Anyone who says that flash can;t be spidered and does not work with search engines is going on an old reputation. If you look into it there are tons of companies that have good flash seo (blitzagency for one) and you can link to anything in the flash file.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I had my say earlier (#152), but there is no reason to be a dick just because Mike has an opinion some of us don’t agree with. Changes in opinion occur from good conversations and discussions. Not from name calling and harassment.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:23 pm
[...] Flash Sucks - I’m Mike (tags: flash) [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
[...] that Flash sucks. It is the bane of the Internet, and it needs to go away. final fantasy ashe nuderead more | digg [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
So tell me more, how does Flash REALLY encourage suckiness. What specifically are you referring to?
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
[...] was called plainly “Flash Sucks” or in the Digg teaser version “Why Flash sucks?” and garnered over 2000 diggs in [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:04 pm
You are a whiner man, your complaining it is still not open source for a second time. What the hell is wrong with you. You are obviously lousy with flash.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Oh also for anybody saying you can’t read small fonts in flash you are now wrong. Ever since the release of flash 9 they have implemented a new text rendering engine so even the smallest fonts are impossible not to see.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Way to go rhetoric your absolute on the dot. IE is the bane of the internet. Not sticking to standards makes xhtml and css a pain in the ass. What the hell mike is not even a designer?? and your going of about flash. Are you a complete moron??
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:12 pm
You know what else, I would prefer to use flash of xhtml and css when developing because of IE. You have to use a shit load of hacks just to make it look correct.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Also, as a web designer and developer flash turns over better profit because of the high-impact. Not only high-impact but it brings in a new level of interactivity that your dhtml counterpart cannot give.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:50 pm
I agree completely. Flash is the cheap whore of Web design. Its not very clean, amature and its spreading like a disease to the darkest places of the web.
Theres a strong need for usability and simplicity out there and sooner or later many people (blind to design) are going to learn this the hard way.
Great post!
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
adobe have lost their way a long time ago - what doeas CS stand for? be honest - you all had those collections with the enticing cs jpegs - cs1, cs2, cs278… i can’t say it here, can i? what CS stands for… i mean…
livemotion was simple and elegant for artists
adobe are retarded idiots - following the merger/takeover they probably didn’t even lock up the macromedia programmers in secure accomodation! there should be compulsory lobotomy for certains kinds of mental illnesses! i am refering to whoever made flash what it is today!
having said that look at that levitated site - that’s clever!
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Just for the record, Flash doesn’t suck, it’s actually quite a powerful platform to leverage once you use it in an appropriate context. I think the Author needs to spend more time in soul searching to gauge and understand the merits of what Flash represents, the purpose it’s positioned towards and overall what actual problems can be solved with Flash or other technologies.
I’ve seen all too often people hit a point of contention when they are effectively looking towards Flash as a natural extension of a web page through to a desktop client replacement technology. Understand that both Flash and Silverlight sit within the middle tier of existence, they are effectively at the present moment bound by Browser technology and this then in turn raises an expectation in behavior associated to the browser. Depending on the context of use and problems being solved, this can be a bad notion to carry out as typically speaking a RIA is utilizing the browser as a payload.
Usability is important, but Flash has made a lot of positive improvements over the years in what is considered some fairly good practices. Is it perfect? nope but what is really?
RIA is still somewhat in its infancy, there is a delicate balance to be played between providing desktop rich experiences while adhering to security contexts associated with the internet. People kind of get freaked out when you have a plug-in that reaches into your hard drive, but that being said we all agree that we need a platform to rise up of some kind to replace the browser but adhere to the same principals the browser has. In that it’s a window into the internet.
As for Steve’s comments around Internet Explorer and Microsoft, I humbly disagree, I think the execution of Internet Explorer served a purpose, but the folks whom build websites around the world kept being fluid in not only their practices but also the implementation of such and as a result we are faced with the dilemma of what to change and what ripple effects are associated with it with change. It’s a knife edge play, and I’m glad that we held off for Internet Explorer 7 as it meant a fresh start and more possibilities… is it perfect? nope, but again, what really is. HTML the language we base a lot of our benchmarks against online is far from perfect, not to mention CSS implementations through technology agents around the world (Flash, Opera, IE, FireFox etc)..
Silverlight is a piece to the overall Microsoft puzzle, we aren’t out to kill Flash and it’s not as easy as saying “oh it’s the Silver bullet to the new way of life”, it’s going to be a great bet from our perspective but it’s overall purpose and intent is to provide a stepping platform to the overall three tiers of user experience. (Web/AJAX - Silverlight - WPF). You have three platforms to position your ideas & technology onto and the reason why is to empower the .NET community the ability to re-use not only the software development tools associated with these three tiers but also enable them the ability to naturally evolve upwards or downwards as there is a progressive way in both directions of the user experience tiers thanks to for example: XAML & C#.
There will be overlap between Flash and Silverlight but make no mistake we are on separate journeys and unless Adobe change course tomorrow to compete directly with Silverlight, it should be simply a matter of intersecting points of overlap (thus why the competition notion arises). Silverlight is looking to breach beyond the browser and enter new surfaces (maybe that crazy Microsoft Surface table will one day have an implementation of it).
We also have Service model (Live.com cloud etc) associated to it (I call this the bonus round)
Overall point is, whilst the author thinks Flash sucks and Silverlight is a likely alternative, i disagree, I think they both rock evenly and you can do quite a lot with what you have today. Tomorrow is going to be more fun, but labeling a technology as “sucky” because it doesn’t do a specific feature set is well… point blank… ignorant.
I’m glad Microsoft Silverlight exists, but equally I’m glad Flash exists and I think they both have their own set of merits associated to them, the job is to use them appropriately and not to force a round peg into a square whole… that dog just won’t hunt.
-
Scott Barnes
Developer Evangelist
Microsoft.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:39 pm
For those of you defending Mike for merely writing his own opinion, I agree that it is juvenile to stoop to name-calling. However, knowing that people sometimes take their technology arguments very personally, it would have been smarter for Mike not to have kicked off his argument thusly:
“What you might not know is that Flash sucks. It is the bane of the Internet, and it needs to go away.”
That’s not a call for reasoned discourse. It’s flamebait. To me it seems disingenuous that Mike has taken an “I’m just trying to be reasonable about this” tone in the follow-up comments. You wanted to take a radical position, because you knew it would drive traffic. While there are some well-reasoned comments, it shouldn’t be a surprise that so many of them are so virulent.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:42 pm
[...] Flash Sucks - I’m Mike (tags: accessibility adobe blog design flash programming tips tutorial sucks webdev usability web webdesign **) [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Infonaut: I still think Flash sucks. The problem is that 90% of the comments don’t even come close to addressing my primary reason for this belief. I’m reasoned because I agree with what a lot of people are saying — Flash can do cool pixel-perfect rendering cross-platform. But that’s not why it sucks.
And of course I worded the post to get people interested in reading it (i.e., drive traffic). What am I supposed to do, make it dry and boring just in case someone’s feelings are hurt. It’s naive to think that any news source, blog or otherwise, would choose not to word their copy/titles to increase readership.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
@Scott Barnes, well said. :)
@Infonaut, yeah it was flamebait. Absolutely. Having been a Flash developer for almost ten years now, I take Flash very seriously. I also take uninformed flamebait with a grain of salt.
The anonymousness that the web provides also seems to grow balls on developers and designers that face to face, they most likely would not have. The majority of folks who are the name callers won’t leave their web address so you could see who they were. So, while their comments may provoke some laughs, and they did, its never going to move someone to consider ‘why we are right’. What it does do is make the name caller appear cowardly and muddle the conversation.
If the name callers are as passionate about Flash as they claim to be, why be anonymous?
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:38 pm
[...] sucks. It is the bane of the Internet, and it needs to go away. X Men 3 after the movie creditsread more | digg story RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Cartoons Fans Lounge [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Use Firefox.By the way i haven’t seen anything on the web like flash is. If some developers put there heads in you can do awesome stuff. see http://www.goowy.com
and to disable flash. use firefox’s flashblock addon. its really cool. google can index flash, if you know how to. infact, if done well. the total loading time of anyweb page can be reduced by 60%. flash is for RIA, not stupid banners.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
I have flashy couch for youuuu. Visit me in Frankston and Foot-es-gray!!
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
It sucks until they can make decent pron games using it; until then I’ll keep going to Voteboob.com (google it)
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:05 pm
While I generally agree with you, one exception to this Flash Sucks rule is Virtual Ubiquity’s Buzzword. Buzzword is a flex/flash based online word processor; it is really amazing and works like a desktop app, complete with actual pages and beautiful licensed Adobe fonts. It lacks some features, but it is still in beta.
Why don’t you try it out, and see if it changes your feelings? If you send me an email (this includes all the commenters too), I will send you an invite. My email is ioannusdeverani at gmail dot com.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:23 pm
[...] Flash Sucks - I’m Mike (tags: accessibility adobe design flash usability) Published by ichen August 3rd, 2007 in General [...]
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Yeah FlashPlayer is used by MANY websites out there. The only problem I’ve had with the software is that it seems to stop working. I don’t know what happens but all of sudden I get the “Must have flash player to view” error messages. I just uninstall and reinstall the player until the next time it does this. What gives??
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Richard, the only thing that could be is a new version of the Flash Player. The creator(s) should’ve put a better message or used express install. This, again, points to how people don’t fully implement a Flash site like they should/could. Just another point that (copyright on this quote) “Flash doesn’t suck…stupid people using Flash suck!” :-D
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:02 am
[...] Mike writes how flash sucks. And he is right. The Adobe Flash Player is a multimedia application created by Macromedia (now a division of Adobe Systems). Flash Player features support for both vector and raster graphics, along with a scripting language and bidirectional streaming of video and audio content. The player is a virtual machine that runs Flash files, which are often embedded in websites to present animations, games, GUIs, or other visual interestingness. If you?re reading this website, you probably know all of this. What you might not know is that Flash sucks. It is the bane of the Internet, and it needs to go away. [...]
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:21 am
Saying Flash should be banned from the web is like saying snappy special effects should be banned from television because impaired people and others have a hard time coping with them.
Flash has great uses but as with everything else: with great power comes great responsability.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:07 am
flash rox ;) !!! honestly i don’t care about the w3c, all i want is to make nice looking stuff and have fun while i code ,i agree that flash isn’t always the best solution to display text on a web page but it certainly is a great tool that made the web change a lot too … in good or bad ways.
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:28 am
http://www.thefwa.com/
look at the award winning flash sites at http://www.thefwa.com/
tell me that they all suck?
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:34 am
Flash sucks? So tell me how you would have done this :
http//www.lazzizanni.fr
open your senses!
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:38 am
[...] Maybe I’m gonna disappoint many people with this point, but Flash/Flex web sites are not friendly for the search engines, unless there is a well organized html version laying beneath [...]
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:32 am
THE SVG REALLY WOULD TAKE TO MUCH TIME FOR A DESIGNER. I’M NOT TOO SURE ABOUT THAT.
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:11 am
One shouldn’t expect much from a company named after mud.
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:58 am
The biggest problem with flash for me is the search engine accessibility. If you bury your content in Flash, good luck getting any search engine traffic.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:25 am
As a flash developer I’d like to say first - stop bitching because you can’t figure out a proper way to use flash, and second, you’re going off specs of flash 5. If you had even taken a half hour look into flash 9 and its capabilities you would see and respect where it came from to what it is now.
Don’t blame the tool, blame yourself for being a retard…
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
After reading the article, I realize I was a little too hasty in not agreeing with title, it’s pretty well written and some really REALLY good points, and probably worthwhile for a good number of people who are going to use Flash.
but I think it’s not really the tool, but the person implementing. The article does mention this point but is really strongly negative…
http://www.nuff-respec.com/technology/flash-does-not-suck-people-do
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
All I can say is. Look at all of the big dogs, the heavy weight hitters, the cool web companies. There ditching most of what they know and doing all flash/hyrbid. Look at all of the fortune 500 cookies. They mostly only buy flash. Or a hybrid of some sort. I dunno about you but I’d rather be making large sums of money doing what I love to do and being able to use more creativity rather then stick to compliance for lack of a more boring easy to use interface. Someones stuck on the baby boomers and don’t realize the techno generation is up to swing next. It’s like saying hey, keep using tapes, they where bad ass one day. Plus they don’t scratch.
Rewind, “Ziiip”, Mike is obviously crying because he’s not number one making the big doe with his webby 2.0 wannablog skills of designing and coding.
Copy/paste modify. Oh, but the interface is so simple to use weeee. :D Hehehe.
Give me a break of that kit kat bar.
Dunno about you guys. But I’m not down for sticking to anything that resembles my grandpa. This is technology, its supposed to double and triple over itself. Stick with it, or fall behind.
Mike = rat near the end of the race.
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:38 pm
It makes me chuckle whenever I hear someone like you slag off Flash. You sound like my grandfather telling me mobile phones will never catch on.
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
[...] Flash Sucks - I’m Mike If you’re reading this website, you probably know all of this. What you might not know is that Flash sucks. (tags: flash internet usability webdesign) [...]
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:31 pm
[...] Flash Sucks - I’m Mike (tags: flash usability adobe web sucks) [...]
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Uh, those of you who think I’m just not “hip enough” to understand this new whiz-bang technology called Flash need a little history lesson. News flash — Flash has been around since the mid 90s. Flash 1.0 was released in 1996, about a year after Netscape 1.0. And as far as web standards go, the first HTML-related standards weren’t released until 1991, so Flash isn’t that “newer” than plain old HTML either.
And WTF? Who the heck can’t figure out how to create a Flash video? Is using an authoring tool that hard? Come on. More importantly, my complaints don’t have anything to do with development — I wrote from the perspective of a user of Flash. It’s true that I haven’t done much Flash development, but I’ve avoided the technology intentionally. If you don’t unerstand why I’ve avoided it, please scroll to the top of this page and read — make sure you read the important bits near the end, too.
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Dude, thats just rubbish..
Dont agree with either your points. Why? because you are partial and just want to write about something to create some waves.
better luck next time.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
[...] you might not know is that Flash sucks. It is the bane of the Internet, and it needs to go away.read more | digg [...]
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Mike, any tool can function poorly if the hand guiding the tool doesn’t know how to best use it. I’ve seen my fair share of terrible css/html websites with very poor usability, but i would never go as far as to say CSS or HTML sucks. It all depends on the way it is used. Yes, flash has been used terribly, and in those cases, I would say that the programmers and designers suck, not flash. As a flash programmer, I know for a fact that Flash is a very powerful tool and few of the point you have made in this post are valid if flash is implemented properly. And from a user standpoint, I fail to see a big difference in usability between flash interfaces and other web 2.0 sites.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:58 pm
You thrashed flash, I had debated on which was better, javascript or actionscript, you certainly settled the debate for me.
http://positionabsolute.net/blog/2007/04/actionscript-vs-javascript.php
Cheers,
Matt
August 4th, 2007 at 5:21 am
Mike,
You clearly have little or no knowledge of Flash as it is today. Maybe you had a play with it back in the 90’s (Thanks for the history lesson), but you obviously have not a clue about its features and performance in its present incarnation. Why not stop your ill-informed and frankly woefully outdated sensationalising and sit down with the trial version of Flash 9 for a couple of days. Even if you you don’t appreciate the quality, you will at least be able to offer your opinions with one foot in the realm of fact and first hand experience.
August 4th, 2007 at 8:00 am
[...] Now all I need to do is start a “Windows sucks” thread on Digg and shamelessly boost my traffic! [...]
August 4th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
You have no idea what you are talking about. This post should be removed from the internet. This is such a lame way of trying to increase traffic.
The flash player is one of the most popular and accessible plugins for all internet browsers, not taking advantage of it would be stupid. There will always be people who don’t know how to properly design a website or webapp NO MATTER what language they are using, kinda like the one the dipshit who wrote this retarded post is “currently working on”: http://www.vino2vino.com/
It kinda looks like everything else that has been created in CSS, doesn’t it? Create something original before you go bashing almost half of what the internet is built on.
August 4th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Ok, I guess it was wishful thinking on my part to think a reasoned debate would ever occur on the Internet, but before you Flash lackies post would you please make sure you actually have an argument? Ad hominem attacks and name calling doesn’t really prove anything — except that you’re really immature and can’t actually counter my arguments.
Simply repeating that Flash is available on lots of web browsers is a nonstarter for me. How is that even remotely related to my complaints? Or is the concept of accessibility so novel to Flash developers that they think it has to do with browser compatibility (it doesn’t). No shit Flash can be viewed in lots of browsers, but more browsers can display HTML than Flash, so why use Flash?
If you’re just trying to do some visually interesting stuff, then I guess I can see why you’d use it… but I still think it sucks, and I’ll probably find your site gaudy and hard to navigate. Personally, I think the most important aspect of a website is it’s ability to deliver a message to a user. If the message is buried in Flash movies that the user can’t understand/navigate/access then you’ve failed.
August 5th, 2007 at 3:43 am
Your post may have been relevant around 3-5 years ago… maybe. You have essentially defined the reason that flash is wonderful for *experienced* developers and capable corporations. Let’s look at the situation from a corporate perspective.
Give Joe and his next door neighbor the creative outlet so that from many will come few amazing and trail blazing ideas but remain focused on the goal. What goal? Build a new market of trail blazers to create a useful business product since business products are generally far more profitable than consumer products.
What do we learn from this? Use the consumer to build your product! Welcome to social engineering 101, hopefully there is enough ink in your pen. Thank me that I don’t start talking about open-source, though you seem to have touched upon it and let me say I am with you on the open ideal but Flash Player is not an open source product and almost rightly so. MacrAdobe have done an incredible job regarding developer relations and the product,in the right hands, is way ahead of its’ time.
So now we have years of attempted or delivered implementations of great and pretty horrible uses of the technology. Guess what, the most profitable implementations of flash are delivered by business heavyweights such as SAP or open-source superstars such as TYPO3. All of the junk that is leftover and still prevalent is within ad’s, and as you say, bad websites. An obvious side affect of truly powerful tools if you ask me. Take the c language, is it bad because only 1 of 1000 or so uses of it are actually usable? Is c++ bad because 10,000 script kiddies touch it before a single great developer finds it in his grasp? Get off it, seriously.
If Flash is not just a content delivery option for you then you are far behind the times. You say look to AJAX or some relevant technology but you are just talking about the same thing you are lambasting. AJAX is just another user-interactive tech just as Flash is, although Flash is very much so superior at the moment but lets hope the new Adobe and Mozilla agreement will bare immense fruit and a level playing ground. Flash is an implementation of a specification, in the same place as javascript and your favorite, magical pop-up. Please, find your place and quite playing expert.
Flash, as any other technology has a place that is best suited for it. In the case of Flash, its’ best place is not ads it just happens to fill that niche well enough at the moment, thus annoying all of us. Aloha, it is past my bedtime.
Aloha,
Johnny
August 5th, 2007 at 7:48 am
[...] I was reading through an article about the many problems associated with Flash. Although it is entitled “Flash Sucks,” the article is well-written, and makes many [...]
August 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
All though I think the header is a bit too conclusive I tend to think of Flash as a way to try to “steal” the web by eliminating open standardized solutions. My colleague wrote something similar to this some few months ago…
http://ajaxwidgets.com/Blogs/jan/ajax_is_dead__long_live_ajax__.bb
.t
August 5th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Most people aren’t running ancient browsers on archaic computers. Standards and usability are great, but they’re also something every fading crotchety web developer abuses while trying to hold the world hostage in 1995.
I could probably find as many blog aticles about why flash sucks, as I could blogs about why 640×480 is ’standard’ resolution target for usability, and the authors will even back it up with statistics! Probably from ages ago, and if not that, then purely from their own site where the target audience is other fading web developers who irrationally keep their monitor as 640×480 and run windows 95, because that’s the way it was in their time.
Standards change. People are more computer savvy than ever before, and like myself, probably have never been confounded by a flash menu/site where it’s done well, and don’t have flash disabled(why on earth would some one do this? I don’t know anyone who has).
Horse and buggy vs the motorized vehcile at a blog near you… FOREVER!
August 5th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
[...] Flash Sucks - I’m Mike This just needs to be repeated every once in a while. (tags: flash webdesign) [...]
August 5th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Yes theres loads of terrible flash sites out there, but theres loads of terrible html sites too. Its just a case of learning to use the tool properly.
August 6th, 2007 at 12:08 am
[...] Flash Sucks [...]
August 6th, 2007 at 1:41 am
I think a lot of people are making valid arguments on both sides of the fence. Mike I have read your follow up comments and it’s clear you do not hate flash, and as such you should have addressed your post more considerately and you definitely should have specified in your original post both views. On the plus side, there are a whole bunch of interesting facts to be found in the arguments that might not have surfaced so publicly without this post. Again to repeat what so many other wise men have stated, it’s not the tool, it’s the develop using the tool. Flash, like html are great tools and both have there place online.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:21 am
zZZzz.. oh wow, once again a Flash hater post..
Let me start off by checking your points:
1. Usability / Acccesability
Go have a look at professionally created websites and then tell me that those are bad. You can’t! because if a site isn’t usable/accessible then it’s not because of flash, it’s because of the designer/developer behind it which didn’t took enough time to make it right.
2. Closed specification
ok ok, that case you hate, everything MS related, everything Apple related AND soft/hardware from every company in the world which doesn’t work opensource.. Have a nice life hiding from those big bad people…
3. Alternatives
uuhhh.. Silverlight.. Isn’t it closed as well?
Finally, instead of writing “Flash Sucks” why don’t you testdrive everything which is available in the market and try to create a comparison table? That would make much more sense then everything else.. Why are you blaming Flash? Why aren’t you blaming the designers and developers in this world which are only working for the money with no passion behind their job.. That would also make sense.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:27 am
actionscript 3 has flipped the game. the new flash9/cs3 has a total lowlevel engine rewrite so its faster and more “flexable”. speaking of that, adobe flex builder makes creating framiliar gui’s a snap, using standard buttons, textboxes, radio/check boxes, etc. flash is here to stay. and with more and more mobile devices supporting flash light its even bigger. the flash game industry is blowing up with things like papervision3d.org.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Several years ago I might have tried to argue but….LOL @ saying the technology behind one of the most popular web sites ever sucks.
August 6th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
“I think the most important aspect of a website is it’s ability to deliver a message to a user. If the message is buried in Flash movies that the user can’t understand/navigate/access then you’ve failed.”
Why are making it seem that Flash can’t deliver that???? This is why you have no argument. You have zero understanding of Flash, and you are taking a small percentage of websites out there and using them as the basis of argument. Just like CSS and HTML, there are some people that will just butcher a website. And in case you havent noticed HTML is very limited in terms of layout and its slow as hell, so I ask you why use HTML? And dont say “cause not everyone has Flash player”, cause it has 98 percent pentration. And that last 2 percent would be pretty useless, because they are most likely still using a Pentium 1 with 128mb of ram on a 56k modem. They arent exactly your target audience.
The only argument you stated that may mean anything is your problem Adobe and it’s closed specifications. I only see that as personal preference. If you have issues with using a piece of software because its not open-source, then all I can say is don’t use it. And for your problem with Adobe implementing DRM capabilities, dont hate Adobe for it, hate the person that will implement it. And even then, what’s wrong with giving a person the option to prevent their work from being stolen?
In closing, stop looking at Flash as being this easy-to-use, visual tool that only creates annoying visuals and somewhat interesting GUI’s that doesn’t allow the user to get to the information right away. The internet is not just about a bland user experience anymore. People spend hours of their day browsing the internet looking for ways to waste their time but also feel like they’ve gotten something out of it. Now there are certain times that Flash should not be implemented, and thats where you come in. But know this, it is a very powerful piece of software that is only going to get stronger now that even hardcore-coders are starting to take it seriously with the implementation of AS3, and designers have it integrated into the Creative Suite package.
Oh, and if you looking for a “reasoned argument,” dont start a post with “Flash Sucks,” then totally bash it based on a biased opinion, and expect people to just come in and say “Oh, I am sorry you feel that way, let’s discuss.”
August 6th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
“Most AJAX sites degrade gracefully (at least most good ones)”
Actually most AJAX sites don’t degrade gracefully. Google apps included. By the same token I could say “Most Flash sites are really well developed (at least most good ones)” but that’s hardly saying much now, is it?
To be honest, this topic is as old as the hills and is getting increasingly boring. Any designer (particularly a little-known) who thinks they’re big enough to slate such a ubiquitous technology is completely deluded. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion of course but you know what they say about opinions? They’re like arseholes - everyone has one and most of them stink.
If you want to be taken seriously as a Web designer, learning Flash as an auxiliary skill is a good start. Moaning about how much you hate it simply makes you look like someone who’s too lazy to learn it - and employers tend not to like that.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Your a fucking idiot…
August 7th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Yeah, um, you are ranting based on seriously old information. Maybe you should read this press release from last November:
http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200611/110706Mozilla.html
You state in the comments that your main objection is that Flash does not have an open specification. As the linked press release states, Flash is being open sourced and Adobe and Mozilla have formed a group to manage additions to the code. You don’t clarify what “open specification” entails, but I imagine that qualifies.
Of course, since ActionScript is ECMAscript compliant, it may have qualified as “open spec” for years, depending on exactly what you mean by “open spec.” If you mean that Adobe has to open their spec themselves instead of being compliant with an open spec, then it will be an open spec soon. However, that’s a pretty strange usage of “open spec” since the spec to which it is compliant has always been open.
And no, I am not a Flash developer but I am informed. I think that all bloggers should be. Ahem.
Can we please move on now to some arguments based on current and thorough information?
August 7th, 2007 at 6:39 am
Everyone who like flash consider that accessibility is useless. Or maybe, don’t even know what is accessibility :)
Well to bad for blind people, but perhaps flash addict will say that their creation are not for those “sort” of people… If not everybody can’t have access to the content of a website, it’s a failure.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:54 am
flash is a quite useful software. i just love it.
but i agree it get obnoxious sometimes..
i also agree that ajax is replacing flash in some cases, but i simply love flash..
August 7th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Yes Flash ActionScipt 3.0 is very very capable. and the Flash platform has moved on so much from previous versions.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Why am I a ‘fucking idiot’ Chris? I made a point and argued my case. Unlike your baseless assertion with absolutely no explanation behind it… or even a link to your site for that matter. Fucking ‘tard.
August 8th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Beyond the element nature of flash, such as video players flash as an experience cannot compete with other forms of media people are accustomed to. The amount of processing power and other resource usage cost to achieve what is does means that it lags way behind. For example TV advertising uses a lot of cinematic special effects that were present in films such as the matrix( the gun selection routine at the end ) to if I remember correctly pick furniture so a lot of the market is numb to what is presented.
Compared to the gaming industry which moves more and more into effect based processing( shadows, particles, gravity etc) flash still can’t render doom at full resolution with modern technology that is a multitude more powerful than the technology required at the time of release. So how are flash web sites really an experience that hasn’t been seen before? Most resemble the gui of a game configuration page. The problem with using html as the comparison is that it is a completely wrong base as html’s aim is to try and be fluid, fast and friendly. HTML is magazine+. Why isn’t all of youtube in flash as lots of people cite youtube as the grand wizard of flash use?
If I wanted an ‘experience’ I’d choose something that gave me one. The idea that what has been created is an experience often comes from a sense of ego from the client and the designer. Is navigating a dvd option screen really the experience of watching a film (the content)?
For 10 years now I have heard how flash will take over the web. The actual ideal of people who believe they are individualists by using it often hamper it due to the creative psychology gives a false bias to the worth of what has been created. Modern art with unmade beds etc is only art due to the belief of a selected few that it is art. Why is my unmade bed not art? Web stuff has to be appreciated by the majority and be able to be used by the majority to be classed as effective, unless your aiming for a showcase to be appreciated by the selective few with low page impressions and low return for client investment. An exploration on every page on how to use it alienates a lot of people who can barely use a normal simple html site leading to frustration. Amazon looks cruddy, but everyone can use it.
I do think flash has it’s place, maybe with Adobe Air I will finally see something really interesting which I haven’t seen before a multitude times better when drawing parallels to technology outside of the web world.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
[...] you are a Web standards kind of person, you’ll know what I mean when I say AJAX is leaps ahead of Flash. I am still reluctant to learn action script for this reason, but that will depend on my future [...]
August 10th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
[...] you might not know is that Flash sucks. It is the bane of the Internet, and it needs to go away. Link » No [...]
August 11th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
So very very out of touch. It’s a cheap way to get traffic and all you’ve done is make yourself look like a muppet.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I hate flash
August 12th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
a lot
August 13th, 2007 at 5:54 am
[...] called Mike attempts his five seconds of Internet fame by claiming that Flash Sucks and Web Standards and accessibility guru Mike Davies counters with a post titled Growing momentum [...]
August 13th, 2007 at 9:16 am
[...] Flash apesta [...]
August 13th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Hey, we made 300 comments! Special cigar being sent to the mysterious “M” right now! :)
jd/adobe
August 14th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
“M” is probably Mike….whose lame attempt at having a current moot 8+ year old debate on expired programming…
What’s NEXT Mike? Let’s debate about the world not being round.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Nope, wasn’t me. But thanks for playing.
Do you mind me asking why you’re getting so worked up over an issue you think is moot and not worth discussing?
August 14th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
No I just like to watch uniformed people make uninformed comments and then piggyback on the hilarity that ensues by obviously more informed people…
oh wait were you trying to have an educated discussion… now that’s comedy…
August 15th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
[...] Flash Sucks [...]
August 16th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Flash just needs to go away. its only good for youtube and movies
http://www.astawerks.net
http://www.xtremedirectory.com
August 17th, 2007 at 1:57 am
my god i cant believe i got to the end of that… gratz on the most epic blog.
August 17th, 2007 at 4:11 am
Flash really isn’t that bad.
Complete flash websites is, yes, but some flash applications are really helpful.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:56 am
I love them all flash (as3 rocks), ajax, silverlight, all have their own use that allow us developpers to create great user experiences….What are you waiting for ! Learn and enjoy technologies in place of bashing them because you dont have enough experience with to see their potential. ++ && peace
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
[...] close to W3C compliance as is reasonably possible, to avoid gratuitous use of Flash (or better yet, just avoid Flash altogether), and to ensure that Javascript and CSS degrade gracefully, [...]
August 24th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Come. Join us in 2007. Many of us who design in Flash have decided that users who can’t figure out how to navigate a site with Flash in it or can’t be bothered to download anything newer than Flash Player 5 probably wouldn’t find anything of interest on our sites, anyway. I’m okay with that. It’s not a matter of being arrogant or pretentious. It’s a simple question of “how much hand holding should I have to do to get someone to look at my site?” How much design should I have to forego to accomodate someone who isn’t willing to get the free tool neccessary to view it. Furthermore, if this person isn’t willing to invest 10 or 20 seconds to understand some new fangled navigation design, then let them turn off their computers and take a break. I’m sure there’s an Agatha Christie movie on PBS that would be much more enjoyable for them.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:02 am
I resent that.I got all kinds of shits on YouTube, sucka.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:31 am
I’m using Flash only for apps running from CD. I find it very annoying when browsing the internet my IE7 is forced to download over and over the Adobe plug-in. Some settings in my Vista Ultimate & IE7 may be responsible for this but Adobe Flash is slowing down the access to real information big time. Adobe flash should be designed by webmasters as user’s choice for enhancement but it appears to act as an obstruction so far. Normally I gave up and Google for the next real info exchange website.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:03 am
You better leave me out of it too DeSouza!
August 30th, 2007 at 11:46 am
obstruction. please, Mike “I use flame-bait to get people to my web template blog” used this only for traffic.
Desouza, you are correct with saying how much hand holding should take place. These are the probably the same people that need warnings on labels so they do not swallow poison. The same people that need to be told not to smoke around flammable materials. The same people need countless state laws to protect themselves from themselves. The same people who should not be using computers, and probably could not figure out what and how to use an abacus.
These people have always existed throughout human civilization, and usually find out how low on the food chain they are when they are eaten by a bear, lion, a pack of wolves, sharks and other evolutionary-bred predators. since their own evolutionary instincts have been lacking.
I say stop designing, coding, and manufacturing for the lowest common denominator. There is only so much dumbing down, watering down, spoon-feeding, and sugar coating everything just to make it easier to digest for the hordes of idiot masses. These are the same people who need instructions for pop-tarts.
Not that I am trying to compare anyone to the great masters of art, but do you think Da Vinci, Raphael, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Picasso and etc., dumbed their work down….. Certainly these are apples and oranges. But it certainly stands to reason that there has always been critics. Critics who could not produce great works, but elevated themselves onto their own personal self-gratifying pedestals by critiquing others that have produced work.
Same as mike here, he is a loathsome critic who piggybacks on the success of others in hopes someone will take his side. If you are so good at pointing at the flaws of others widely popular use of technologies, why don’t you produce something of your own. Or is that too much to ask? You would not even have this lame blog site unless some one much brighter and intuitive than himself created the template for him. Otherwise he would have some poorly designed web space and probably bitching why the internet needs more design handouts, and debating 1000 year old topics the intellectual men have laid to rest long ago.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Like the man says: “Flash Sucks … what else do you need to know?” The last part of course being rhetorical … because the author is exactly right. Adobe is hugely overpriced and overused and Flash is already becoming as loathsome as the countless PDFs that turn up in your search results. Sure you can filter them out, but that’s like putting up mosquito netting. If we didn’t have the pests in the first place, we would have to suffer with the disease. No doubt the Flash cultists in the web design community will simply denouce those of us opposed to Flash as heretics and lump us all in with the unwashed masses who use PCs instead of Macs. But this is to be expected. Until someone invents a deprogramming camp for these people, we’ll just have to petend not to show any emotions when we are around them …
September 6th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I couldn’t agree MORE I have in fact STOPPED using Adobe Flex and switched over to a REALLY great RIA Framework;
PowerPoint
Read my conclusion so far here;
http://ajaxwidgets.com/Blogs/thomas/adobe_flex_sucks__use_powerpoi.bb
September 10th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Yeah, it realy is every browser apart from IE that supports SVG. We’re talking Mozilla Firefox, Camino, SeaMonkey, Safari, Opera, Amaya, etc, as well as most mobile phones!
Wikipedia have SVG as their prefered image format for diagrams, and you can’t get any more mainstream than that. Some taim fairly soon, as developer enthusiasm increases (remember folks, no expensive Macromedia/Adobe development packages!), the remaining IE users will realise what they are missing, and either switch browsers, or install a plugin from Adobe, Corel, Renesis or whoever.
September 10th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I only know PHP, it’s familiar. I don’t know Flash. It’s different. Flash sucks.
Here’s another baby bottle.
September 30th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
[...] read more | digg story [...]
September 30th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
October 6th, 2007 at 5:00 am
Flash doesn’t support FreeBSD or AMD64 builds of Linux, amongst others.
To all those who say Flash “is 2007″ and “new” and “has come a long way from Flash 6″, please get off your Windows machines and look around. As long as one company controls Flash, we’re completely at the mercy of what platforms Adobe chooses to support. Why do you think the internet with HTML has been so wildly successful, and services like CompuServe and AOL inevitably failed?
If you use Flash on your website, you’re literally giving the middle finger to platforms Adobe hasn’t “blessed” now, and don’t choose to in the future. Not my problem, I just won’t visit your site.
Cheers
October 11th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Yes - Flash sucks - and drains a lot of power from the internet and our environment.
If you have several of tabs running with flash, your processor will get really hot!
I want to get rid of flash for good, because it’s misused to sell more bandwidth, gigawatts, new computers …
What’s the best way to stop this flashing ( IE, FireFox,Safari)?
October 11th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
[...] Flash Sucks: It is the bane of the Internet, and it needs to go away. Word. [...]
October 24th, 2007 at 11:02 am
AJAX might suck almost as much, but its a hell of a lot faster to load (at the front end at LEAST), and keeps web standards within arms reach.
Hell, I’ve seen straight CSS examples that do what some people try to do with flash, better. Keep em coming, Mike.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
[...] de rendre accessible nos simple pages web. Il existe d’ailleurs des technologies pour remplacer Flash: SVG et SMIL, mais pour l’instant aucun navigateur ne les implémente à 100%. Comment faire [...]
November 1st, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I agree and disagree on certain parts. for one, flash is good for movie sites or band websites which require a unique interface with easy to use navigation. on the other hand, it can be bad if you aren’t that great in the flash program. once you get used to flash, you will enjoy it. I personally like to put flash objects on web pages and provide links to people who dont’ have flash installed and dont have time to install it.
but thats just me.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:58 am
[...] leído unos cuantos artículos a favor y en contra de Adobe (Macromedia) Flash. En mi opinión, se puede usar para algunas cosas muy específicas, [...]
November 6th, 2007 at 6:35 am
I hate flash, it lags my firefox up, I can’t create new tabs or switch tabs, open new tabbed windows from flash links and lately it has been freezing my mouse!!!! GRRRRRR Java never oh let me say that again NEVER did any of that
November 12th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
[...] d’abord pourquoi remplacer Flash ? Car, comme le dit Mike, Flash pue. Cet article et ses 327 commentaires résument très bien les principaux problèmes liés à cette [...]
November 15th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
couldn be more true..
greetingz from Brazil
November 23rd, 2007 at 6:41 pm
[...] “influential blogs have lots of comments”. True, but what would happen if that algorithms would segment all those comments with the unique users posting the actual comments. That list would fall apart like a house of cards, I’m sure. And still I don’t believe the number of comments is a good indicator. It’s so easy to pull of a shameless traffic/comment booster on Digg. [...]
December 11th, 2007 at 3:47 am
[...] you might not know is that Flash sucks. It is the bane of the Internet, and it needs to go away.read more | digg [...]
December 12th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Well done Mike, i’ve never read such an informative article before.. Though i’m not Flash user, i’m a Java Developer, but i will use this white paper as a refference for future,
thanks for a detailed comparision, it would’ve been better if you could provide us some BenchMarks..
Cool!!!
December 16th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
To the dude named rmf, stfu you fucking retard
January 12th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Mike,
I’ll add some of the points you make in my list of why Flash sucks in the FlashSucks.org site.
Thanks!
D’de
January 13th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Flash, Gnash or whatever burns your CPU until it dies.
That’s it. That’s all what matters to me.
I’m an artist I love art/cool design and stuff, but I hate, I absolutely hate a program taking my laptop up to 80°C just to see a youtube movie.
Content is great and used everywhere on the web, but the tech must have something terribly awful in the way it plays the animations, it’s been like that for years, and Adobe says up-front it’s “high-performance” and “leightweight” ? what a shame !
January 24th, 2008 at 2:16 am
I am not a website designer. I am not a computer savvy. Flash Player is “truly sucks”.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Personally I think flash sucks because Macromedia decided to ignore every programming convention for the macintosh when they created it thus making it a nightmare to use as a development environment. It’s buggy as hell and I’m sick of using it. I wish there was an alternative.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Silverlight rules!!!
Yeah, we block flash at the corporate firewall, as well as doublelick and a lot of other sites that spew adertisments at our users. It kind of funny when you see it, the website is fine, and you can get most everything you need, just a lot of holes where the ads are.
There are a few sites without a “no flash” version, and they dont work at all. I usually email the webmaster :p
February 13th, 2008 at 11:12 am
by the way, I use flashswitch at home, on my Vista Ultimate running IE7 and dreamscenes.
This machine is PURE microsoft with ONLY 32 bit logo compliant apps! no firefox, no realplayer! I have never even seen a crash! Do they still use a blue screen? This machine is 100% Microsoft standards compliant (not w3c standards) Microsoft standards!
February 13th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
HAHAH Microsoft standards? jeez thats not very hard to beat.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
If you are an architect building a house and you biuld it like shit then I really don’t think you should blame the hammer a nails man. Sure Flash has some downsides and so does every other technology out there. What you are saying sucks here is Adobe the company. I would agree sometimes, but I just really don’t think you should blame the hammer and nail gun when you built a shitty house to begin with. Now understanding the limitations and advantages upfront is necessary and a key to building something enjoyable to the user. If Flash doesn’t do what you need then don’t use it. I think the alternative is to use the tools we have to best of their ability and no when not to use something. Is Flash great for SEO? NOPE. Is Flash the magic bullet? Nope, never. But after reading your post it just seems to me you should say Adobe sucks as the title cuz that’s what you described.
Tommy: Let’s think about this for a sec, Ted, why do they put a guarantee on a box? Hmm, very interesting.
Ted: I’m listening.
Tommy: Here’s how I see it. A guy puts a guarantee on the box ’cause he wants you to fell all warm and toasty inside.
Ted: Yeah, makes a man feel good.
Tommy: ‘Course it does. Ya think if you leave that box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter.
Ted: What’s your point?
Tommy: The point is, how do you know the Guarantee Fairy isn’t a crazy glue sniffer? “Building model airplanes” says the little fairy, but we’re not buying it. Next thing you know, there’s money missing off the dresser and your daughter’s knocked up, I seen it a hundred times.
Ted: But why do they put a guarantee on the box then?
Tommy: Because they know all they solda ya was a guaranteed piece of shit. That’s all it is. Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for right now, for your sake, for your daughter’s sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality item from me.
Ted: Hmm. Okay, I’ll buy from you.
Tommy: Well I… What?
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:54 am
[...] your reputation continues to be marred by certain miscreants who abuse you and say all manner of insult against you. It’s not your fault that you’ve been mishandled and forced to do things [...]
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I have been a long time advocate of Flash and reading that Silverlight is a replacement of Flash is a major laugh, but that is not what was posted here.
For one thing, the Market for Flash will always be 80-90%+. Do you think Silverlight will take the market? It might penetrate the market like Linux vs. Windows, but really do you want to leave Silverlight in the hands of a company that provided IE? Certainly Silverlight will be available for other browsers, but my reservation with this is how it will be behave. Silverlight almost sounds like another AJAX or Javascript. IE will always run silverlight like clockwork leaving the other browsers behind.
That is why Flash has a niche, because it doesn’t build its own browsers. Flash intends to bridge the much needed discrepancy in development. I am sure we all can agree that web development is tough because of discrepancies in HTML, Javascript rendering.
That’s where Flash comes in. I can probably state the same fact with Silverlight that it will try to bridge this rendering gap, but you are restricting yourself to developing in .NET - which isn’t bad, but you leave out the other users of PHP, JSP.
I have used Flash in Version 4 and each version that comes out amazes me at how Flash has progressed. Flash 4 was very limited in what you can do, and so many people who built applications worked around this shortcoming. Then Flash 5 came along and the Designers complained that it was becoming a more a development platform, but the objects they created were amazing. The Actionscript language alone had significant overhauls between versions, which for me was hard to take, but needed to happen. I believe that it was to lure developers into using Actionscript. It moved from VB -> JavaScript (emca standards) -> Java -> .NET.
The main reason I liked Flash is because it was portable (300k footprint at first -> 800k in v8) so that you could even burn a CD and yet it would still look the same on a web browser as it would on your CD. The concept of Write Once is the key to why I like Flash so much.
Here are some of the pluses:
- Code Once
- Multi-tier Development
- Cross-platform
- Video/Raster/Vector capabilities
- Font Support
- Multi-Language Support
- XML Capabilities
- Small Footprint (Let’s hope this stays)
- Bidirectional calls to Javascript if required.
It’s a proven Plug-in. Yes, this fact will never die, that you have install a plug-in. But the same goes for Silverlight. If you have to choose, which one would you install?
I believe the perception of Flash as being a development environment has played second fiddle to Rich-Content, designers. This is also plays into what someone as a Flash Developer can be compensated compared to one who is an Application Developer developing in Java, for example.
There are certainly bad Flash programmers out there and there are certainly bad Web developers out there. You can never teach a developer good programming techniques, they will have to do that for themselves. I have seen a lot of bad code that I had to optimize and maintain. Sometimes, there isn’t money out there to do it right.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Your article takes a narrow perspective, which unfortunately does not accurately portray the Flash / Flex tool set. You are certainly entitled to your generalized opinion about the quality of projects created from the flash/flex user community, however there are undeniable point that you have excluded:
Ubiquity of the flash player is king.
There is more potential for developers to build useful applications and communication tools in Flash/Flex. Usefulness is determining factor of usability.
Many parts of the Flash/Flex/Data (BlaseDS) Frameworks are Open source.
Adobe is leveraging eclipse for many current/future IDE’s, so you will have the ability to contribute and improve upon what they provide as tools.
How else can you can decode a broadcasted stream of 1080P Video to the mainstream population?
March 1st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Thanks this discussion made me think. I love Flash and I am good at it. But maybe its time to rethink this love affair. Maybe its Adobe that sucks. Their incompetence is the stuff of legends. I could write a boot about their ineptitude. I think I will.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:38 am
I can easily prove to anyone at any time that Flash is severily deviating from its documentation specifications, regardless of the computer’s hardware and software configuration. According to Adobe’s End User License Agreement, If the Software does not perform substantially in accordance with the Documentation, the entire liability of Adobe and its affiliates and the customer’s exclusive remedy will be limited to either, at Adobe’s option, replacement of the Software or refund of the license fee the customer paid for the Software.
Just visit my site for details: http://www.flash-bug.com/
March 5th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Bravo! Flash is HIDEOUS. It means I can’t view pages with slow computers, among all the other problems you cite. If you’ve ever tried to watch a Flash animation or a YouTube video on a slow computer, forget it. Whereas a standard mpg or QuickTime file can play just fine even on a 10 year old machine, with a Flash video, man, you better have a FAST machine or you can forget any hope of lip sync and smooth motion.
And who doesn’t DESPISE going to a web site only to find that it is utterly unusable without Flash 9.12.18.latest_version.came_out_last_week.beta
- “Sorry, you must install the latest version of Flash Player to use this site.”
Guess what? I DO NOT. I will happily not use that site ever again (Keep this in mind, people, if you want visitors to go to your site.)
Regarding the licensing bind… I don’t know.
This product:
http://www.swf-mac.com/swfplayer.html
can play flash animations on a Mac, is free, and does not require you to even have the stock Flash player on your machine. So they have definitely engineered a player.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Yes, I’m getting tired of flash sites, they have, in most cases, serious usability problems. I’m a web designer and I’m becoming very disapointed with the way flash is used, mainly in Portugal where every company uses flash for the most simple site just for the sake of using it and look cool to clients that don’t know sh*t about seo and other disavantages of flash based sites. I’m sticking with (x)html/css.
Regards
March 13th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I’m tired of crappy flash video sites too. Youtube rocks and it runs well if you have a computer made in this millenium, but take a crappy player and also add a bunch of flash-based ads on the site and see what you get. Such as this one: http://glumbert.com/media/baddayoffice
I have a Core Duo based main computer, but as a portable i use a Toshiba Portege 4010 with a 933MHz PIII and 512MB RAM, running Puppy Linux. I have no reason to change it coz it gets 4-5 hours of runtime with the extended battery, and it’s got awesome connectivity. This thing handles DVD-quality movies perfectly, and does it at around 50%-60% CPU. Really nice.
Now go to a heavily loaded flash site such as the one mentioned above. Even if the video eventually plays without hiccups, the browser freezes till all the crappy flash ads are loaded, and as the video tries to play even before the whole page is rendered, the freeze can last for a good couple minutes. Flash isn’t THAT bad, but the way it hogs up the CPU when improperly used is ridiculous. And wait, did you say DRM????? Oh god. Why? Coz you’d still be able to record it with a screen capture program. This is pointless.
Stage6 was a great initiative, too bad it went down. I wish more sites would migrate to DivX and ditch this flash junk.
It’s disgusting what money can do. Adobe once was a nice company making good graphics programs. Now… Just look at Photoshop CS3. Slow as hell and crashed every 30 minutes on my laptop when i was running XP. Now on Linux i have switched to GIMP and it does the trick. I still have to use Photoshop sometimes, but i do that on my main computer.
Don’t get me started on Corel too, they RUINED Paint Shop Pro. I preferred PSP over Photoshop any day, but now i have no choice.
What’s next, putting DRM hardware in our MP3 players and speakers so that we can only listen to copyrighted music?
March 16th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Flash is evolved. The compiler is open source. The programming language is advanced. The install-base is large. You can download open-source third party vector and code-writing software and develop for it without having to shell out for the IDE. It also has more consistent rendering than XHTML/CSS. Granted, there are some bad flash sites out there - but there are also bad HTML pages with animated GIFs as the background image. You do have a valid point about DRM. Jump on the band wagon, or don’t, but quit whining.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:10 am
The only reason they hate flash is “BECAUSE THEY DON’T KNOW HOW TO CODE/DESIGN IN FLASH” nyahahahahaah!
March 26th, 2008 at 7:12 am
The only reason I think that they hate flash is because they don’t know to design/code in flash
March 28th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
It is the users who are the abusers, and not Flash, by any sort of means. You know, all of this ignorance will continue to inflict pain on to those who are ignorant, unless the ignorant start using intellect. You even learn from that, or you remain in the dark… simple as. Any way, the fag who wrote this yik-yak sounds like one of those sad, naive, little punks, who probably suffers from an extreme case of sexual frustration, so therefore he focuses most of his worthless time and energy on some thing so inferior, that it doesn’t even promote any thing productive, what so ever! Seriously, just face the music, people. Flash looks like it will be around for quite some time, so either sit on your candy asses and whine about it, or get on your bloody feet, be a frickin’ man, grow a nice, big set of shiny balls, and do god-damn some thing about it!
April 12th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I am in agreement that Flash players suck. I was blown away a few months ago when I stumbled across MoveMedia’s player on ABC and FOX. I went to their home page and discovered they are at a few other network sites. Int it’s purest form, it blows away the standard flash player–even on older systems with a basic broadband connection. If I am not mistaken, ABC did something with the player and mucked it up with wrapping it in flash player (if I am describing that correctly), now I can’t view stuff on their site smoothly. I recently came across Hulu which is pretty neat content-wise, but they have a crappy flash player again….Hulu would rock with a movemedia player.
I’m all for new technology, but don’t go backwards–particularly when MoveMedia has already shown that you can get awesome streaming quality on an older system (i.e., no super computer/mega-broadband required).
K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid!)
April 16th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I can’t agree more
this blog post was made pretty long ago… but these feelings still hold true for me.
Sure, flash can be useful… but a majority of sites that use it turn out crappy and unusable… and in the end that’s kind of the main point of a website, to be able to use it.
I think that people should just stick with HTML and stuff…
I’m also a little scared about what Adobe might do…
I liked Macromedia and trusted them with their products. Now that adobe’s pulling the shots, I’m not sure what they’re thinking
April 16th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
I have to say that DeSouza and “rhetoric assassin” are the worst kind of example of tech geeks - elitist, arrogant narcissists who have literally no clue what the average computer user prefers in a website. Clowns like these design web content for their own amusement, and to impress their buddies in the IT community, ignoring the 95% of of the population who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about useless bells & whistles like Flash. I’m going to go out on a limb here and make a broad, sweeping generalization about these 350+ comments, which may just turn out to be true:
.
.
.
.
[ready for it?]
.
.
.
100% of the people defending Flash on this blog-post are either webmasters, software designers, IT geeks, or have some hand in the website development field. Literally 0% of the Flash designers are your typical, average, everyday computer users. Read that sentence again, and try to keep in mind WHO VISITS WEBSITES on a daily basis. Is it exclusively other website designers? No! It’s your mom, or your dad - who might not even know what Flash is, much less how to navigate through it. It’s your babysitter, who connects to the internet on a dialup modem. It’s your carpenter, whose entire working knowledge of the internet is knowing how to Google his own name.
Try this experiment if you don’t believe me. Go to a mall, any shopping mall in America, and choose 100 people at random. Sit them down and show them a website–any website at all–in a standard HTML version (easy to navigate, straight-forward, fast-loading, WYSIWYG) and then show them the same website in a Flash version (awkward, bells & whistles, show-off graphics that don’t accomplish a damn thing) and see which they prefer. Easily 80-90% of REGULAR COMPUTER USERS will prefer the basic, traditional HTML version. Flash is just the epitome of “style over substance”. It is the worst thing to happen to web design since the advent of the internet. And the fools on this blog-post who are defending it by taking cheap shots at Mike should be ashamed of themselves for their short-sightedness and elite “let them eat cake” mentality of alienating their audience and cramming useless gaudy crap like Flash elements down the throat of the average typical internet user.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Flash USED to suck and I used to loathe it intensely.
But with the advent of Flex 2, AVM2 and AS3, I LURV IT! It is *finally* what Java has always promised but could never deliver satisfactorily. A lean and mean cross-platform set of APIs that can be used for full-fledged development running the gamut from Unix to Windows to handheld devices.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Wow - this debate is still raging and yet I still feel compelled to chuck my tuppence into the pile. I hate myself for wasting time on it but I can’t resist.
Let’s get real here - Flash is an incredible technology that has helped shape the internet into what it is today. By breaking the constrictive document-based paradigm of the web, it’s allowed all sorts of interactivity and multimedia simply not possible by HTML/CSS/JS alone. It’s the enabling technology for a raft of video sites like YouTube. It’s given us games to play, music on your favorite band’s website, product configurators and much much more.
With the advent of Flex, Flash still keeps giving. We now have a mature programming language that puts the spaghetti mix of CSS and javascript to shame, a robust security model for RIAs, simple and fast server interoperability, a more complete set of UI components that work consistently across platforms/browsers.
Flash is tremendously useful and relevant when properly applied (both as a complement to HTML/CSS and on it’s own for rich internet applications).
Sure, it could be more accessible but (sad to say) there will never be a huge impetus for this. Until we have proper integrated support in browsers for screen readers, with a common API, then it’s a bad argument. HTML wins out here because it’s text. The fact that Flash is at least able to script against some screen readers is admirable. So this is not solely Adobe’s fault IMO, all browser and plugin vendors should be lobbying for a common accessibility scripting interface.
If you get annoyed by the odd “zap the fly” advert, think back to the blink tag. Same deal. Just because an annoyance is easy to create in a technology we shouldn’t state that technology “sucks.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:07 pm
DJ MichaelAngelo took out his thesaurus and took the time to find some big words to describe me:
- elitist
- arrogant
- narcissist
I’m also a Tech Geek and a clown for using Flash.
I appreciate all the special attention but your time might be better spent downloading Flash Player or learning some new technology.
Maybe you could get caught up on your angry letters to Thomas Edison.
People like this are afraid of anything they can’t code. They like board games and the original cast of Saturday Night Live.
You are the Pong of web design.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I do agree with DJ MichaelAngelo’s stand against animal testing though.
April 26th, 2008 at 1:04 am
I’m a little surprised no one has mentioned one of the worst web-standards issues with Flash: no context menu. When I right-click on something in a page, I want to see a menu that allows me to open a link in a new window, save an element of the webpage to somewhere, view the source code of a page or object, view an image by itself, copy/paste some text, etc, NOT a “zoom/properties/about” menu from the Flash plugin…..every one of these things consists of very basic, standard, works-everywhere technology that fail in *nothing* short of a text-only web browser (which is sometimes very nice to have, actually) and also every one of these are things that have absolutely no inherent support in Flash. Any similar functionality in a Flash presentation must be explicitly designed-in with custom code. Perhaps that’s one of Flash’s greatest downfalls, there are no real GUI conventions or built-in GUI elements that can be called….*everything* must be explicitly coded in. That’s just asking for abuse and non-standardization.
Is the general concept of Flash good? Yes. Is its extended use in presenting GUI’s and navigational content a good idea? NO. And separate from this issue, the software Adobe has created to present Flash is just terrible. It’s slower in Mac and Windows than traditional HTML and Javascript (a serious issue with power-users) and bug-ridden, and horribly broken in Linux (the Flash 9 browser plugin is, in fact, completely unusable for most Linux users).
Flash-styled content doesn’t need to go away, it just needs to be done by someone better than Adobe, and the spec needs to be opened (closed-source players are fine, but at least with an open spec people can also make open-source players and/or plug-ins….which opens up the technology to pretty much any platform on the planet, without the original developer of the spec having to be involved).
And before the “pro” webmasters here poke fun at my webpage, as they seem to enjoy doing to Mike (and appear to have been doing since the 90’s, judging by a similar discussion I just read from 1999)…save your keystrokes. My page is ultra-basic and old school, I know that. I build + fix computers for a living, program Python and OpenGL for fun, and work on classic cars when I don’t feel like doing that…the webpage is just a little time-killer project I do on the side for my own amusement, and to (hopefully) keep friends and family updated.
April 26th, 2008 at 3:10 am
I just stumbled upon this accidentally, but I whole heartedly agree. Flash sucks. It can be used for cool things, but web design isn’t one of them. Seriously, why would I want to wait 6 times as long for a page to load that was designed entirely in flash when the same thing done in simple html works better and loads faster.
I’ve done some web design and I know for certain that some of the same features people commonly use flash for can be achieved with clever dhtml. The thing is that people who make these fancy animated user interfaces are lazy artsy types who don’t know jack about programming.
The worst is the sites that are done entirely in flash. I’ve waited almost three minutes on a DSL connection for a flash website to finish loading. Do these people think that just because their 50mb website file loads instantly from their hard drives it will do the same for people browsing from the internet? Then when it finally does load, there is so much animation going on that my computer grinds to a halt. Flash is horrible about requiring intense processing power if you ever have multiple things moving on screen at the same time.
Flash should be restricted to video player applications like youtube, stand alone animated web cartoons, and chat applications, but never as the sole user interface or the method for displaying content.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
eído unos cuantos artículos a favor y en contra de Adobe (Macromedia) Flash. En mi opinión, se puede usar para algunas cosas muy específicas,
April 28th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
I was ready to kill my laptop, but i knew the web slowed after a recent software update. After uninstalling some things and nothing working, i uninstalled Flash and its spyware junk and now my web is lightning fast. I might re-install later, but i can’t sacrifice the speed.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Listen to you people. The ONLY people that like flash are the flash programmers. It is so hard to navigate, due to the fact that people want to reinvent the internet. have you ever seen an internet form that didnt ask for your name before your email or website? No, the reason is because its consistent.
Now we are hearing ‘but its high tech’. ok fine, its high tech, why would you want to limit the amount of people going to your website that arent ‘high tech’?
How many millions of users out there dont have the latest version of flash on their computers? how many millions of users out there are on slow connections?
Flash makes me physically ill. All you flash programmers think its such a marvel, yet, your gods over at adobe learned that no important information should be in flash. There website is xml and all the links are clickable, you can open them in new tabs, you can copy and paste them.
“The only reason they hate flash is “BECAUSE THEY DON’T KNOW HOW TO CODE/DESIGN IN FLASH” nyahahahahaah!”
my favorite quote ever.
Can you flash programmers READ?
There are so many reasons people posted in here on why flash sucks, and you simply refuse to listen to it.
When you guys realize that limiting access to your website is not the smartest thing to do, youll come back to non flash.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Lol, wow, do you nerds have a life? You’re petty idiots who just argue about somthing as retarded as adobe flash player all day in your basement. No one gives a fuck about Javascript or Adobe, be thankful you have either instead of complaining like the tools that you are.
You’re Nothing but Marks, Fanboys. Do somthing usefel with your lives instead of fighting over the internet like children, oh wait, you are children.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I think those, who hate flash or silverlight, simply doesn’t know how to use it, having poor knowledge about AS, javascript, .net, and so on.
But the world is going on, these techonology won’t go away, especially Flash, which will remain as an majority of interactive dynamic web sites’ tool.
learn it hard or just accept your own lerning avility.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:13 am
I wouldn’t say flash sucks as such, but it does suck when it’s used to build an entire website. Your entire article is very similar to point 11 of my “Top 13 things not to do when designing a website” (click my name).
Flash is good to make animations, because that’s exactly what it was originally designed for. But I don’t see the point of encapsulating an entire website with mostly text and still graphics in a single chunk of binary junk, just to be able to make some fancy buttons and transitions. That’s like writing a book and selling it as scrolling text on a VHS tape glued into a dedicated VCR which can only be connected to a TV set of a certain manufacturer.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I find that there are 2 groups of people. One group says “the web would be boring without flash?” and “did you ever see how cool the nike plus site is?”.
The other group says “I just want to read an article on one of my news sites and the dang browser keeps crashing”. I myself just want my content without being annoyed by crashes, flashy graphics and 10 second load times.
It’s a shame that both of these groups can’t coexist, but as long as there is the “Look how cool this site looks even though I can’t even find what I originally came here for” all of us in the group who just want our content efficiently will just have to deal with the annoyances.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
To all of you morons that are sucking flash’s penis and swallowing it’s semen like good little bitches, just shut up, your opinions are less than worthless. Adobe used to be my favorite company and macromedia was my worst hated. Then Adobe went and bought crapromedia and now they’ve caught crapromedia’s disease. All new versions of their software now suck HARD (even photoshop) and flash just keeps getting worse and worse. Here’s an example of how adobe has screwed the pooch. Go to their site and try to download the flash player. If you have any kind of active security features AT ALL, you have to disable them to download this piece of shit, leaving you vulnerable for that time, which is unacceptable. Adobe has gotten this big-headed attitude over time and it’s turned their company and products into shit.
Now, to address all you toiletheads who will tell me to either like it or shut up, FUCK you. I’ll say WHAT I want, WHEN I want and HOWEVER I want to say it. You can call it whining, just don’t call it whining to my face or you’ll be choking down your own teeth in short order. It’s not whining, it’s speaking out against corporate BULLSHIT. I didn’t post stuff like this when Adobe did things right. I only started “whining” when they started fucking up, plain and simple. If the rest of you geeky faggots want me to stop “whining”, then stop defending software that doesn’t work. Mike and the others are right: Flash sucks. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact and there’s nothing left to debate. End of story.
P.S. Don’t bother responding because I won’t be back. ;)
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I just stubbed my toe. Is it Flash’s fault?
July 8th, 2008 at 11:02 am
This has totally screwed up a program i used on windows xp! Now it won’t run unless I install Micromedia Flash Player! Which I already had until these ass wipes covered it up with this updated version, Adobe Flash Player 9 Active X! I am pissed! Do I need to go buy a new hard drive and a new windows program now? Or chunk my computer in the trash and spend about the same amount of money on a new PC!!!!!! F###! I need to get this resolved? I agree with you mike!
July 9th, 2008 at 1:39 am
flash sucks, you losers! you brainwashed morons!
July 14th, 2008 at 6:14 am
http://www.flashmagazine.com/news/detail/flash_disambiguation/
for a slightly mopre informed repost to this blog
July 16th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Seems to me Adobe is a big part of the problem. I remember when SWF came out years ago and worked wonderfully for simple animations and games. Now that the pdf-pig company has their mitts in it, it’s a busted-ass, oversized, incompatible, slow POS! And yet the masses seem to flock to it. Just like Microsoft and Budweiser I guess… It doesn’t matter if your product IS shit, as long as your marketing dept. can convince sheep-like consumers that it is THE shit, they’ll buy and swallow it whole.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Flash sucks indeed. It is a chicken shit and a jackass to install sometimes for browsing purposes. Poor product support. Sometimes it installs like a charm, sometimes it doesn’t. The dodo birds adobe has for support teams are even bigger chicken shits with titles like “senior support engineer” and other psuedo titles. Spare me the fancy high tech job titles.
One user posted a help request saying that when he tries to install adobe flash 9 from the active download website by clicking on the download link, he’s getting a message after 5 minutes of clicking saying “unable to authenticate installation, Try Again or Cancel.” This happens even after a fresh installation of winxp pro s2 and pop-ups disabled.The dodo bird senior engineer is to say in response that the user should relate the problem in more detailed words (he means like about 200 words or more) and then they’ll get back to him. What the fox? Who are these dumb asses.
I would want to believe that they have testing labs for discovering bugs and fixes and hence have an inkling of a list of conceivable circumventing scenarios for failed installations.
As you may have deciphered by now, I was having the same problem when I stumbled upon the thread.
It turns out that countless others were having the same problem too.
Anyway, the problem was due most likely to adobe’s server issues since after personally trying with multiple pc’s for about 6 hours with no progress. On the 7th hour after normal installation procedures for about the 1,000th time, voila, it installed and worked just fine with no special tricks.
Thats my comment from a consumer point of view.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Stephen is absolutely correct, and a ton of things have happened since the “Early days” of Flash…
Flash (SWF files) are developed using the ActionScript 3 (AS3) programming language (sometimes within the Flash or Flex authoring tools but all you really need is a text editor and the free Flex SDK). AS3 is 100% standards compliant (based on the same EcmaScript standard as, e.g., JavaScript). The Flex SDK is also 100% open source, and BTW: congratulations to Adobe for Flex just winning the Best of Open Source Software Awards! So… there is no longer anything proprietary or non-standard about Flash!
I’m by no means affiliated with Adobe but have > 20 years of S/W development experience. At the risk of making this sound like an ad; let me assure you that there is no other web technology that comes close to the sophistication and speed-of-execution/interpretation of Flex/Flash/AS33 content. I suspect any of its bad reputation may have come from the “Flash-banner days”. What’s available to developers today is a real high-performing, standards compliant, open-source, and free-of-charge programming language that is literally orders of magnitude more capable than any competing “standard”.