3 ms·
"I think the Flash-based restaurant example has had it's time. Let's try and move past the fallacy that most Flash-based sites are restaurant sites. They're not
by tomkarlo 15y ago
"I think the Flash-based restaurant example has had it's time. Let's try and move past the fallacy that most Flash-based sites are restaurant sites. They're not. YouTube, Grooveshark, blog.tv, etc. are all possible because of Flash."
I'll stop using that example as soon as I stop having that problem once a week. It's even worse in fashion, where designers for tiny brands continually get suckered into making flash-only sites that are essentially useless beyond being brochureware.
Are there sites that use Flash to great benefit? I have no doubt, although it seems to me the examples you're using are just using it as a way to deliver media. But for 99% of web sites, Flash is a bad idea and provides little benefit. I use Flashblock on my browsers, and the only time I seem to need to unblock anything is to watch a video. That's a bad sign for folks looking for a long-term use of Flash outside of players and video games.
- tomlin 15y agoMy point with Flash reaches a few thoughts into the future, while most are perfectly happy to have their ignorance contemporary. Let's just say that tomorrow Flash DIES. It's gone. No more Flash. Do you think those same shitty restaurant sites are suddenly going to become standards-loving, keyboard-jockeying HTML 5 + JS sites? Again. The issue isn't Flash. It's the industry. The same restaurants are going to call up the same vendors and ask them to provide them with, what they consider, the new hotness. We place the blame on the customer, or the user, or in this case, the technology. Perhaps all along it's just us. And our uncanny ability to misinform the client and leave them without information on accessibility, mobility, scalability.