6 ms·

Sure, but so does this: http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html

blowski 12y ago
Even on iPhones (unlike the OP).
- NicoJuicy 12y ago
  The OP doesn't work no more because Apple blocked Flash. Otherwhise, it would probably still be supported :)
  - randomblast 12y ago
    Blocked is the wrong word. It implies that Apple had to take some action to stop Flash from working, which would otherwise be the natural way of things.
    - tfinniga 12y ago
      I think it's fair to say that Apple blocked flash. They didn't implement flash in Safari, which is where you're right. But they also disallowed any interpreter on iOS, so even if Adobe wanted to make a flash player on iOS (there was a rumored prototype), it wouldn't be allowed in the app store anyway.
      - blowski 12y ago
        And I, for one, am glad that they did. I understand why stuff like this had to be made in Flash in 1999, but in 2014, client-side web development is in a much better place. When Apple blocked Flash on iPhones, we were forced to adopt and improve open standards instead of relying on proprietary software.
        CmonDev 12y ago
        Now we are doomed to use idea-monopolic closed ecosystem of legacy languages (HTML, JS, CSS). I miss the truly open web of the past, the one where I could choose my client-side technology and my client-side programming language. I hope Google NaCl will save us.
        innguest 12y ago
        How is it that having to code in three different languages, all designed by committee, is "a much better place" than designing the graphical aspects of a website in an integrated environment that uses intuitive vector concepts that can be picked up by anyone? Maybe you're only considering one aspect of it, namely if it runs everywhere or drains certain batteries faster? I certainly had a lot more fun coding GUI on Flash than I've ever had with the three donkeyman of the apocalypse. It was a much higher level of abstraction than what can be provided by current tools.
        blowski 12y ago
        As a developer: * Because I can use any editor I like - free, open-source, paid, whatever. * Because I can build and use tools which are themselves built on top of the standards, and choose which tools I want (SASS, LESS, CoffeeScript, etc). * Because I can build responsive websites that work on screen sizes from watches to 60" TV screens. As IT support: * Because my users don't have to frequently upgrade a bit of software which most of the time offered little benefit, but big security risks. As a user: * Because I can use just about any browser I like, and (usually, at least) get at least some experience of the website more than "Sorry, you don't have Flash installed, so bugger off." * Because the user experience has become a lot more consistent. Weird navigation controls have become outliers rather than standard. I have no ideological opposition to Flash, more to the way it was used. While Flash was popular, the progress of open standards was slow because it was less urgent.
        robmcm 12y ago
        >As a developer: >* Because I can use any editor I like - free, open-source, paid, whatever. You can write .as files in any editor and compile via the command line... >* Because I can build and use tools which are themselves built on top of the standards, and choose which tools I want (SASS, LESS, >CoffeeScript, etc). There was a very active OS community, lots of frameworks, tools and libs. >* Because I can build responsive websites that work on screen sizes from watches to 60" TV screens. I'll give you watches, but responsive design is a concept that can be carried out in any language. Flash apps actually responded quite well to screen resizing, more so than the table layout HTML that was the alternative for most of it's life. >As IT support: * Because my users don't have to frequently upgrade a bit of software which most of the time offered little benefit, but big security risks. Could make the same argument for most software at the time, even now most browser and OS updates are security based. >As a user: * Because I can use just about any browser I like, and (usually, at least) get at least some experience of the website more than "Sorry, you don't have Flash installed, so bugger off." This is a good point, but these days people are only developing for <your browser> version x and above. So no real change. >* Because the user experience has become a lot more consistent. Weird navigation controls have become outliers rather than standard. The same people that designed flash websites are now designing HTML ones, the technology hasn't dictated that change, I expect it is down to the prevalence of UX. >I have no ideological opposition to Flash, more to the way it was used. While Flash was popular, the progress of open standards was slow because it was less urgent. Indeed, but the progress of Flash was very fast as it didn't need a commity, without it the web would likley be very far behind.
  - nailer 12y ago
    I used Flash on Android for three years and Playbook OS for one. Apple blocks Flash but that won't stop it being horrible on mobile devices.

blowski 12y ago

Even on iPhones (unlike the OP).

NicoJuicy 12y ago
The OP doesn't work no more because Apple blocked Flash. Otherwhise, it would probably still be supported :)
- randomblast 12y ago
  Blocked is the wrong word. It implies that Apple had to take some action to stop Flash from working, which would otherwise be the natural way of things.
  - tfinniga 12y ago
    I think it's fair to say that Apple blocked flash. They didn't implement flash in Safari, which is where you're right. But they also disallowed any interpreter on iOS, so even if Adobe wanted to make a flash player on iOS (there was a rumored prototype), it wouldn't be allowed in the app store anyway.
    - blowski 12y ago
      And I, for one, am glad that they did. I understand why stuff like this had to be made in Flash in 1999, but in 2014, client-side web development is in a much better place. When Apple blocked Flash on iPhones, we were forced to adopt and improve open standards instead of relying on proprietary software.
      - CmonDev 12y ago
        Now we are doomed to use idea-monopolic closed ecosystem of legacy languages (HTML, JS, CSS). I miss the truly open web of the past, the one where I could choose my client-side technology and my client-side programming language. I hope Google NaCl will save us.
      - innguest 12y ago
        How is it that having to code in three different languages, all designed by committee, is "a much better place" than designing the graphical aspects of a website in an integrated environment that uses intuitive vector concepts that can be picked up by anyone? Maybe you're only considering one aspect of it, namely if it runs everywhere or drains certain batteries faster? I certainly had a lot more fun coding GUI on Flash than I've ever had with the three donkeyman of the apocalypse. It was a much higher level of abstraction than what can be provided by current tools.
        blowski 12y ago
        As a developer: * Because I can use any editor I like - free, open-source, paid, whatever. * Because I can build and use tools which are themselves built on top of the standards, and choose which tools I want (SASS, LESS, CoffeeScript, etc). * Because I can build responsive websites that work on screen sizes from watches to 60" TV screens. As IT support: * Because my users don't have to frequently upgrade a bit of software which most of the time offered little benefit, but big security risks. As a user: * Because I can use just about any browser I like, and (usually, at least) get at least some experience of the website more than "Sorry, you don't have Flash installed, so bugger off." * Because the user experience has become a lot more consistent. Weird navigation controls have become outliers rather than standard. I have no ideological opposition to Flash, more to the way it was used. While Flash was popular, the progress of open standards was slow because it was less urgent.
        robmcm 12y ago
        >As a developer: >* Because I can use any editor I like - free, open-source, paid, whatever. You can write .as files in any editor and compile via the command line... >* Because I can build and use tools which are themselves built on top of the standards, and choose which tools I want (SASS, LESS, >CoffeeScript, etc). There was a very active OS community, lots of frameworks, tools and libs. >* Because I can build responsive websites that work on screen sizes from watches to 60" TV screens. I'll give you watches, but responsive design is a concept that can be carried out in any language. Flash apps actually responded quite well to screen resizing, more so than the table layout HTML that was the alternative for most of it's life. >As IT support: * Because my users don't have to frequently upgrade a bit of software which most of the time offered little benefit, but big security risks. Could make the same argument for most software at the time, even now most browser and OS updates are security based. >As a user: * Because I can use just about any browser I like, and (usually, at least) get at least some experience of the website more than "Sorry, you don't have Flash installed, so bugger off." This is a good point, but these days people are only developing for <your browser> version x and above. So no real change. >* Because the user experience has become a lot more consistent. Weird navigation controls have become outliers rather than standard. The same people that designed flash websites are now designing HTML ones, the technology hasn't dictated that change, I expect it is down to the prevalence of UX. >I have no ideological opposition to Flash, more to the way it was used. While Flash was popular, the progress of open standards was slow because it was less urgent. Indeed, but the progress of Flash was very fast as it didn't need a commity, without it the web would likley be very far behind.
- nailer 12y ago
  I used Flash on Android for three years and Playbook OS for one. Apple blocks Flash but that won't stop it being horrible on mobile devices.