3 ms·

"HTML5" publicity helps marginalize those few who still argue that images, animation, audio/video and rich interactivity have no place on the web I don't under

by Ennis 17y ago

"HTML5" publicity helps marginalize those few who still argue that images, animation, audio/video and rich interactivity have no place on the web I don't understand what he means by this. I'm assuming he isn't articulating his thoughts well. For as long as I remember there were images, cheesy animations and background music on pages around the web - long before flash and shockwave. Does he mean that some people argue Flash is bad for the web because it's contents can't be indexed by search engines? Now that is a different story and a losing arguement since Adobe itself has admitted it's an issue.

johnnybgoode 17y ago
No, he's using a common PR tactic. HTML5 has been getting some good press, and he's scared about it hurting Flash. So he's highlighting what HTML5 and Flash have in common by essentially inventing a fictional common enemy[1], and using that to say, "Hey, if you like HTML5, you'll love Flash!" [1] I'm sure there are people who actually take the invented position, but it doesn't really matter here.
jdowdell 17y ago
[ Original poster here ] The stance that "images have no place on the Web" is the oldest of the lot, dating back to Netscape 2.0 days... it's hard to remember or even believe now, but people did rail against the IMG tag. Back in the late 90s there was much argumentation that "things shouldn't move on webpages". This has died down as people have realized how motion can help clarify interfaces (iPhone's intertial drag helped lots), but we're still not at the point of universal acceptance that animation helps increase the total number of people who find the message accessible. My point was that the arguments against richer interfaces have died down, as the browsers slowly advance to bring such abilities within reach. There will always be criticism of the leading edge, but Silverlight, iPhone, and "HTML5" have each helped convert camps away from the belief that only permissible medium is lengthy English text. (SEO has had the gosh-darnedest amount of misinfo spread about... search engines have reached inside SWF for years and years, as the old Slashdot example query of "'contrary evidence' filetype:swf" showed. Start by visualizing the terms on which people will likely seek your services... research the competition you have for the first ten Google hits on the term... then optimize your pages for those terms in the usual way, as recommended by the search engines' guidelines. The "every little bit of dynamic text" fascination is starting to bite Ajax now too, so I have hope it will soon go away. ;-) jd/adobe
- Ennis 17y ago
  Well thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate both of the comments of feedback. You are right about the IMG tag. I'm not old enough to remember if there was actually a community with positions or if Netscape was single-handedly deciding how HTML should look like.

by Ennis 17y ago

johnnybgoode 17y ago

No, he's using a common PR tactic. HTML5 has been getting some good press, and he's scared about it hurting Flash. So he's highlighting what HTML5 and Flash have in common by essentially inventing a fictional common enemy[1], and using that to say, "Hey, if you like HTML5, you'll love Flash!" [1] I'm sure there are people who actually take the invented position, but it doesn't really matter here.

jdowdell 17y ago

[ Original poster here ] The stance that "images have no place on the Web" is the oldest of the lot, dating back to Netscape 2.0 days... it's hard to remember or even believe now, but people did rail against the IMG tag. Back in the late 90s there was much argumentation that "things shouldn't move on webpages". This has died down as people have realized how motion can help clarify interfaces (iPhone's intertial drag helped lots), but we're still not at the point of universal acceptance that animation helps increase the total number of people who find the message accessible. My point was that the arguments against richer interfaces have died down, as the browsers slowly advance to bring such abilities within reach. There will always be criticism of the leading edge, but Silverlight, iPhone, and "HTML5" have each helped convert camps away from the belief that only permissible medium is lengthy English text. (SEO has had the gosh-darnedest amount of misinfo spread about... search engines have reached inside SWF for years and years, as the old Slashdot example query of "'contrary evidence' filetype:swf" showed. Start by visualizing the terms on which people will likely seek your services... research the competition you have for the first ten Google hits on the term... then optimize your pages for those terms in the usual way, as recommended by the search engines' guidelines. The "every little bit of dynamic text" fascination is starting to bite Ajax now too, so I have hope it will soon go away. ;-) jd/adobe

Ennis 17y ago
Well thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate both of the comments of feedback. You are right about the IMG tag. I'm not old enough to remember if there was actually a community with positions or if Netscape was single-handedly deciding how HTML should look like.