4 ms·
The UX of Flash and Flash-dependent sites was often bad, too. Late in its life, full-Flash sites were the only ones that I had to sit and watch a progress bar t
by kitsunesoba 4y ago
The UX of Flash and Flash-dependent sites was often bad, too. Late in its life, full-Flash sites were the only ones that I had to sit and watch a progress bar to load… regular HTML/CSS/JS sites, especially with an adblocker, loaded instantly.
For sites that used a Flash component (e.g. YouTube), the plug-in was fussy and flaky and would sometimes not work for any discernible reason, sometimes requiring an update to fix it. HTML5 replacements have been far less cantankerous.
- rchaud 4y ago> Late in its life, full-Flash sites were the only ones that I had to sit and watch a progress bar to load… regular HTML/CSS/JS sites, especially with an adblocker, loaded instantly. Well...yeah. Flash sites usually make use of graphics, fonts and videos, all of which use bandwidth. They serve an entirely different purpose than regular HTML/CSS/JS pages. Flash loaded everything at once, so that the experience was instantaneous and fluid, once it loaded. It would continue to work if you disconnected. There wouldn't be any buffering or lag due to network issues.