3 ms·

I should not have to install Adobe Flash player just to view images.

• tedunangst 11y ago
  Use an iPhone...
  • nicklaf 11y ago
    That's an oddly ironic suggestion, seeing that Apple's decision not to include Flash support in the original iPhone was probably our best hope for killing the damn thing. I don't see any excuse for lazy web designers using Flash just for a static image gallery. My browser is perfectly capable of rendering images without a proprietary plugin.
    • frozenport 11y ago
      Oh humbug! I don't see any excuse for lazy users not be using Flash.
      • nicklaf 11y ago
        That's not the point. Installing Flash player is, of course, very easy to do; it's just that doing so comes only at the cost of slightly decreased security and stability. Of course, Adobe could have avoided these issues, had they only chosen to release Flash player under an open source license. At this point it's simply legacy software being phased out in favor of HTML5, and is mostly just a nuisance. Thankfully, ever since Youtube released their HTML5 player, I can't think of a single time in which I was denied access to critically important content because it was locked inside a SWF.
• Raphmedia 11y ago
  It's not images but videos wrapped in an old flash player. Still, they should have alternatives by now.
  • nicklaf 11y ago
    Ah. That's a lot more forgivable, so, my mistake. You certainly are correct that alternatives for Flash video exist too. Youtube is a great exemplar of this, but sadly, even their competitors (such as Vimeo or Dailymotion) seem to bother.