Flash Sucks
Web Development July 31st, 2007 - 99,264 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 th