5 ms·

...it will only be a matter of time before the percent of Flash enabled browsers falls enough that web developers need to start using more appropriate standards

by chroma 16y ago

...it will only be a matter of time before the percent of Flash enabled browsers falls enough that web developers need to start using more appropriate standards-based techniques. I agree with your prediction, but I'm not sure it will be a good thing. With the exception of a few popular domains, I'd say 90% of flash content serves to annoy me and waste my computer's resources. I love using clicktoflash because it filters so much. Imagine if band websites started using HTML5 instead of flash. Instead of a big gray box with a "skip intro" link below it, you'd get bombarded with loud noises and stuff flashing on your screen. I say this half-jokingly: How long until someone makes clicktoHTML5?

jpravetz 16y ago
This last comment is exactly right. People are quick to blame Flash, but it's what Flash enables and what runs on Flash that is the problem, which is 90% ads. And that can just as easily become annoying in HTML5/javascript, minus the sandboxing of Flash.
- terrym 16y ago
  Moving from "click to enable technology that usually contains annoying video and sound" to "click to enable video and/or sound" is a better approach, in my opinion. That way if someone wants videos to play, but require permission to play sound, or wants sounds on one site but no videos, they can do that. We move from an all or none solution to something customizable. Also embedded audio and gifs aren't covered by flash-blockers, though in some cases there isn't much of a difference between that and a video ad. If we have to filter content by type and/or by html tag instead of "wrapper that normally contains type", we'd get better coverage overall.
malandrew 16y ago
Good point. Although this doesn't solve the issue you raised, one change I would like to see made on the browser side is sandboxed tabs. As far as I know only Chrome is sandboxing tabs at the moment. I'd like to see Firefox and Safari do the same so one bad javascript doesn't kill the browser entirely. One way those issues could be addressed is by Google page ranking. If certain abusive practices were highlighted as universally obnoxious, I'm sure Google could create filters to reduce the search ranking of those pages using obnoxious HTML5 and JS. My reasoning here is that the same executives and elements of corporate culture responsible for obnoxious uses of Flash and other technologies today are the same ones that push the hardest for SEO. At least at the HTML5 and JS level, Google could parse for obnoxious code, which AFAIK is something they can't do today with Flash. It's a bit of a stretch but certainly a possible solution.

by chroma 16y ago

jpravetz 16y ago

This last comment is exactly right. People are quick to blame Flash, but it's what Flash enables and what runs on Flash that is the problem, which is 90% ads. And that can just as easily become annoying in HTML5/javascript, minus the sandboxing of Flash.

terrym 16y ago
Moving from "click to enable technology that usually contains annoying video and sound" to "click to enable video and/or sound" is a better approach, in my opinion. That way if someone wants videos to play, but require permission to play sound, or wants sounds on one site but no videos, they can do that. We move from an all or none solution to something customizable. Also embedded audio and gifs aren't covered by flash-blockers, though in some cases there isn't much of a difference between that and a video ad. If we have to filter content by type and/or by html tag instead of "wrapper that normally contains type", we'd get better coverage overall.

malandrew 16y ago

Good point. Although this doesn't solve the issue you raised, one change I would like to see made on the browser side is sandboxed tabs. As far as I know only Chrome is sandboxing tabs at the moment. I'd like to see Firefox and Safari do the same so one bad javascript doesn't kill the browser entirely. One way those issues could be addressed is by Google page ranking. If certain abusive practices were highlighted as universally obnoxious, I'm sure Google could create filters to reduce the search ranking of those pages using obnoxious HTML5 and JS. My reasoning here is that the same executives and elements of corporate culture responsible for obnoxious uses of Flash and other technologies today are the same ones that push the hardest for SEO. At least at the HTML5 and JS level, Google could parse for obnoxious code, which AFAIK is something they can't do today with Flash. It's a bit of a stretch but certainly a possible solution.