[Resolved] Flash is evil ?????

Just wonderd if anyone had got a responce to dack.com's comments on flash. There are some very interesting arguments made...... have a look....

http://www.dack.com/web/flash_evil.html


- Jon................

that guy suffers from


LACK O' VISION

The upfront splash screens will soon disapear (huray!!!) I dont need to know that a new era of the web is about to begin everytime I enter a site. People who do that are already in the past. They are anoying, but the power of flash is its scaleability and footprint. Dack or no one else will thwart the track the web is taking and its going to be a swf and svg based world soon. and thats the facts jack. Just my thoughts on the matter. Regards, Bill

I'm probably opening myself up for lots of flaming, but here goes. A few months ago, (February I think)I felt the exact same way as this guy. I had tried using Flash maybe about 2 times, and as most of you probably already know, you can't possibly produce anything worth while after using it two times. So, I deleted Flash off my computer and hoped I'd never have to use it again. April came and I graduated from college. I received a job as a web designer and little did I know, I would have to learn Flash to keep this job. So, I moaned, I groaned, I didn't want to learn it. A couple of weeks later though, I found myself being pulled over to the Flash side as I began to learn more about it. I love Flash now and everything about it, using it, viewing it... But once upon a time I was just as ignorant as this other guy. Maybe someone should lock him in a room and make him learn Flash.

yeah i read this article a while ago. this guy has no clue whatsoever about what he's talking about. how narrow-minded can you actually be? i emailed him with my thoughts and no response. i guess he really can't defend it.
laters.
e.

i AGREE with him. though flash is a new and parasitic technology, it will SOOn die out and replaced by more powerful applications. splashscreens on old ford.com were cool but too long. overall i guess he kind of doesn't know what he talks about but he's kind of right. guys, please, PLEASE do NOT forget that flash is just a program and a plug-in like QuickTime or RealPlayer. you're taking it as serious as HTML. and HTML would never die out. HTML CONTAINS flash movies. so it'd NEVER die out. and having the whole WEB in flash is stupid. bandwidth will decrease faster than a
"fat b**ch who sat down too fast"
(c)1999 Eminem a.k.a Marshall Mathers

A while back I meet these two web designer guys at this party, we got to talking about Flash (does this earn me my official geek status?), and they reconed that Flash was a crappy cut down version of Director. And im some ways I suppose they were right, it's like anything else, eventually something better will come along. (and no- not live motion thats just Flash with some photoshop plugins).

Anyhow, an another kinda related subject, does anyone know when the new G3 mobile phones will be out? I get quite a lot of junk mail and phone calles from companies who want to sell me one of those crappy WAP phones. Isn't this an idea that will be dead before it's really started?

my opinion is it's not the name of the software but what you can do with it.

Some people can afford Director but that don't mean they can do anything great with it.The same goes for Flash.

How many people do you all think have the money to spend on Director?

Flash at 300 bucks is a killer app.

When Flash 5 and even 6 comes along it will replace Director.

From what i heard Flash is about the same as Director except
Director has it's own Scripting lingo.


Flash is great and no one can take that away.

If you don't agree then go to
http://www.stanlee.net

and check out the 7th portal


As far as HTML goes Flash is not trying to replace HTML
HTML simply give instruction to the browser on what to display like text,a .jpg or wow maybe even a .swf file.

Hey all,

I began my interactive web career using Director then later migrated to Flash, and have to say that not once have I regretted the change. To point out some of the differences: Price is definately a concern. Director is a more robust program, but you pay for what you get. It is also geared towards interactive CD production and that sort of task, whereas, as many people on these boards have pointed out, Flash was designed from the ground up as a web app. This can clearly be seen in the installed base of browser plugins by the typical user.

While the two programs share many similarites, both are uniquely suited to specific tasks and styles of design, I believe. Director has the power of Lingo, an object-oriented scripting language similar to Java, which is greatly beneficial to someone who has had programming experience (whereas actionscript can seem clumsy until one gets used to the method of inputting commands). Flash is still the best at what it does in terms of vector graphics (personal bias, perhaps, but I try to avoid using bitmapped images at all costs in Flash), and is the natural choice for clean, scaleable design, and, IMHO, anything which will be presented on the web.

To try to reel this post back on topic, I think it is clear that with over 3/4 of browsers today having some form of the Flash plugin installed, it is not a flash-in-the-pan technology (pardon the bad pun). And every day we are seeing the community which embraces Flash push this program to amazing new limits, greatly benefitted by Flash being open source, as well as its ability to interact with other web standards (ASP, Javascript, VBscript), crucial to its expandability and future.

There seems to be somewhat of a backlash against Flash as of late, probably bandwagon jumpers taking a "me-too" attitude to the first person brave enough to write an article critical of the unimaginative Flash interfaces now flooding sites because corporations are demanding the newest bleeding-edge technology, whether it is appropriate or not. There's lots of Javascript or DHTML mothods of achieving effects done in Flash, and they don't require a plugin. Still, so long as the community stays strong as it has been, and Macromedia remains committed to creating a program to fill their needs, Flash is going to be around for a long time to come, and the Web will only be a better place for it.

*phew!*
Thanks for letting me rant,
--Chris

I agree that a program is only as good as the person using it, but surly we can't expect Flash to be around for ever? Don't get me wrong, I love flash, but isn't it possible that people who communicate on the bbs at a site called Flashkit may be a little biased?

The author's review was horrible. He blames somebody's poor design skills on the software. That's dumb (for lack of a stronger word in the presence of brilliant 11-year-olds LOL).

All I can say to this guy is: "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

-fishee

Well...tell you the truth in my opinion...I can't really say I have ever seen a really good flash site (that had a purpose at least). It seems that pretty much every flash site has somethin to do with a design company and I wouldnt say TOO many people are using their internet to look for web dedigns companies. I mean there is nothing more boring than looking at a web design site if your not even intrested in it. I think the only GOOD use of flash would probaly be shockwave.com. But then there are people who make sites just to show that theyre the badest mother flowers at flash like praystation and cleopatra (even though they are also a design company). But seriously, usually the sites that I always go back to because of content are html sites. I mean yeah Mono1 has a cool site but just how many times have you gone there? If there is somethin I wanna look up for like a school project or if I just want to learn somethin new in math so I could use it in flash, I am goin to find that info on a html site. Usually its just the amount of info factor...you just cant show alot of info on a flash site and thats considering scroll bars.

So in the end I feel that the only sites that should use flash are the sites that want to sell web designs...but then thats kind of like a paradox isnt it?

And in respone to the beginning of this thread...I agree with dack.com

Ahab raises a decent point, but I think that the real paradox facing the web and the hinderance to Flash is the need to create for the lowest common denominator. Just because I make a DHTML menubar on a corporate website doesn't mean that I plan on doing the entire site in DHTML, and more often than not, I will have a plain HTML navigation system to fall back on in case a browser is not DHTML enabled.

Its this sort of dillema that faces all design on the web right now, and leaves us stuck in a cycle of boring designs. How many tabbed-folder e-commerce sites can we stand? The reason that these designs are used is because they set a prescedent which makes it easy for the user to interact with a site. It is familiar. Therefore, the only place we are going to see innovative design is on the art and design sites, where expression is more important than instant recognizability and bowing to corporate pressure.

It *is* important to remember that content is king. Flash is but one tool in any number available to web designers, and definately one of the more robust ones. Even this site isn't done entirely in Flash. (I, too, have seen way too many "WOW! Zooming text and thumping techno intro! Now I know the future of the web has arrived!" sites).

I apologize for being long-winded in my posts, but I think that this topic is as good as any to perhaps make a call to all of the great designers and content creators to continue "evangelizing" Flash, but also to show what can be done by putting out outstanding sites. I think its good to have a dialogue open to both sides of the debate (of course a site like Flashkit will have a lot more pro-Flashers), and only through a debate like this will we begin to see what needs to be done come into a clearer focus. So, while we don't necessarily have to agree with dack.com, I'd say that the opinion is important, if onlt to create this sort of debate among the people who are making the goods.

--Chris

I agree and disagree with the article...

To start with he was dissin' flash! Thats never a good thing!

But Flash DOES have to become more browser friendly, using the back buttons etc... Perhaps this will happen in future versions... Flash 5 etc...

Anyone know if this will happen?

Will the flash programming bit (don't know if it has a name?) :¬) become more powerful? Perhaps refelcting some of the features in Directors Lingo?

If anyone knows, please let me know!

Markp.com
http://www.mp3.com/markp
http://www.markp.com
http://www.arcade4.co.uk
http://www.arcade4.co.uk/markp

Although Macromedia could make more money selling 3 programs which they'll probably keep doing, they should just make Director, Flash, and Authorware into one program since they do so many of the same things in different ways.

Reading that d00d's review... harsh stuff about the splashscreens. I think that splash screen are cool when

* they are quickly skippable,
* is cookied so that it only comes up once automatically (ie people can go back and look at it),
* and is of a somewhat good quality.

Think about this:

Some people's web sites are CRAP. I mean this. Wrongly antialiased transparent GIFs are a biggy. Each technology has its downfalls, and Flash sure may have a few (the ActionScript entry system, for a bad example).

But the way I look at things: "I could do that in Flash"

Flash is cool - I love it. Roll on Flash 5!

Quote from Dack.Com:

"dack.com is the 2¢ of Dack Ragus, a guy living in Minneapolis, MN who likes to golf, cocktail, and watch movies ... in that order."

Ragus - a dork from dack.com

Regis - a wein-ere from 'who wants to be a million-are?'

I apologise... :) That last one wasn't THAT good... :)

Okay, I think we can finnaly put this one to bed, all I can say is - Flash is cool in it's own way, but if you can do things in more than one way, then thats....err...good. Hmmm, I get the feeling that this thread has reached the end of it's life. Thanks for posting everybody.

i figure i might as well put my 2 cents in as well.

1) flash is not the future of the web. flash is a useful technology of today. In the future it will be replaced, possibly by something else, possibly by an evolved version of flash.

2)any splash screen with a loading bar should cause that designer to have their flash license revoked. If i design a splash screen, i make it very small in size, and use the time that it's playing to preload the graphics that make the interface for the rest of the site.

3) flash, in my opinion, is primarily useful for 3 things: animated web cartoons, web games, and navigation bars. Anything beyond this, you should ask "Am I able to do this ONLY in flash?" If you can do it with HTML, why not? There is a reason why amazon.com isn't a flash site: accessibility.

4) HTML is on it's way out as well: DHTML, XHTML, and XMLto are but a few of it's up-and-coming replacements.

5) for the record, flash can be smaller than it's html, gif and jpeg counterpart IF YOU ARE CAREFUL AND KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

ok, i think that's enough ranting for now.

hehe that guy is retarted grrr omg.

what the crap.

flash is the best tool out their.

oh .....closed as really old thread and old news, what did you bring this back from the dead for?



david p.