3 ms·

Doesn't flash have an install base of something ridiculous, like 96% of end users? Saying flash reminds you of the plugin wars is pretty off track, the war is

by walesmd 20y ago

Doesn't flash have an install base of something ridiculous, like 96% of end users? Saying flash reminds you of the plugin wars is pretty off track, the war is over and a winner has been announced.

bootload 20y ago
'... install base of something ridiculous, like 96% of end users? ...' Yeah but non-flash apps hit 100%. So are you 100% sure that all your users have flash usability all the time? So you have factored in the extra code to detect browsers with & without and covered the 4% or portions of the 96% that may have a buggy flash install? '... Saying flash reminds you of the plugin wars is pretty off track, the war is over and a winner has been announced. ...' in the sense that you still have to download, install & hope they work. Now there is another layer on top to get in the way albeit with less choice. Flash has it's place. But in moderation. It's just another form of vendor lock-in for developers and cannot always guarantee anything approaching usable results when it fails. '... About 99% of the time, the presence of Flash on a website constitutes a usability disease ...' [0] It doesn't have to be that way when most of the time there are alternatives. Neilson recognised using flash as a problem in 2000 [1] and despite what he says in 2002 it's still the choice of developers, designers who want to limit their users interactions. [2] Reference [0] Jakob Nielsen, Useit.com, 'Flash: 99% Bad' http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html [1] Jakob Nielsen, Useit.com, 'Flash: 99% Bad, Update Added June 3, 2002: Flash Now Improved', Ibid. [2] Flickr makes good use of flash in their set & collection tool. But I had the case last year where a bug in the Flash version for Fox scrubbed all the text in all Flash rendered screens leaving me to guess the manipulation process.

by walesmd 20y ago

Doesn't flash have an install base of something ridiculous, like 96% of end users? Saying flash reminds you of the plugin wars is pretty off track, the war is over and a winner has been announced.

bootload 20y ago

'... install base of something ridiculous, like 96% of end users? ...' Yeah but non-flash apps hit 100%. So are you 100% sure that all your users have flash usability all the time? So you have factored in the extra code to detect browsers with & without and covered the 4% or portions of the 96% that may have a buggy flash install? '... Saying flash reminds you of the plugin wars is pretty off track, the war is over and a winner has been announced. ...' in the sense that you still have to download, install & hope they work. Now there is another layer on top to get in the way albeit with less choice. Flash has it's place. But in moderation. It's just another form of vendor lock-in for developers and cannot always guarantee anything approaching usable results when it fails. '... About 99% of the time, the presence of Flash on a website constitutes a usability disease ...' [0] It doesn't have to be that way when most of the time there are alternatives. Neilson recognised using flash as a problem in 2000 [1] and despite what he says in 2002 it's still the choice of developers, designers who want to limit their users interactions. [2] Reference [0] Jakob Nielsen, Useit.com, 'Flash: 99% Bad' http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html [1] Jakob Nielsen, Useit.com, 'Flash: 99% Bad, Update Added June 3, 2002: Flash Now Improved', Ibid. [2] Flickr makes good use of flash in their set & collection tool. But I had the case last year where a bug in the Flash version for Fox scrubbed all the text in all Flash rendered screens leaving me to guess the manipulation process.