Ajax vs Flash

[aversion]

I know this is long and boring to read and I did post it in the app forum already but I really wanted to start a discussion about this. The boardroom is the next best forum because this is as much about methodology and approach as it is about the technologies used. I hope there are professional developers in here who are interested in ajax and perhaps concerned about the implications for flash in the long run.

thanks.

_____________________

If you're interested in web application development I'm sure that you've heard of Ajax (Asynchronous JavaScript And XML).

This new approach to creating interfaces and interaction on the web is based on:

- using standards XHTML/CSS,
- manipulation of page elements using the DOM
- updated content and data exchange using XML and XMLHttpRequest

Although the advocates of this system are promoting it as a collection of technologies working together, the key to ajax is XMLHttpRequest. This little fella allows the web page to exchange data with the server without reloading the page, all of this happens in the background, and the page can 'react' using javascript to alter page content utilising the DOM.

I'm not going to go into a long-winded explanation of Ajax here, enough to say if you haven't heard of it you should do some research because it is the 'next big thing'. Take a look at google maps for the best example of Ajax in use today.

What I'm interested in hearing from people here is how Ajax will effect the use of flash by web application developers.

Take a look at this.

That is the power of Ajax.

Now, you might say well flash can do that, has been able to do that for a long time. And you'd be right. As far as I can see there's nothing Ajax can do that flash can't, and flash is certainly a 'cleaner' development environment, being a single technology with a purpose built development application.

Some early examples of Ajax use flash as part of the toolbox, until recently flickr used flash on almost every page, alongside some nifty DOM tricks that enabled you to create/edit content on a page without reloading it, while XMLHttpRequest inserted your new data into the database invisibly to the client. I always loved flickr for their use of technology and page widgets that neither insult the user's intelligence, nor confuse them.

But.

Due to user demands Flickr (now owned by yahoo) is removing as much flash from the site as possible and replacing it all with javascript/DOM techniques instead.

Why is this? Is it because flash wasn't working properly? Is it because people didn't have the flash plugin? No, none of this, people just didn't like flash. As one photographer/developer recently told me:

I personally don't like it either. Actually, I believe the thing with Flash is all psychological. I <b>hate</b> seeing the loading screens. Reminds me back to the 32-bit videogame days or something.

We're all used to JPG's scrolling down r 'unpixelate' themselves rather than seeing a loading countdown which seems to take forever, but really doesn't when compared to JPGs. It's all psychological. I hated having to check out that damn Flickr loading panel everytime I wanted to see a photo. Now I'm happy.

The lead developer at Flickr, Eric Costello, said at a recent Ajax gathering that they had made the change because of user demand, and that replacing all the flash function with javascript had been difficult, especially with cross browser problems. They have succeeded admirably in doing so but to my eyes the javascript just isn't as 'cool' as the flash, it flickers and jumps about a bit, where flash was just smooth.

This raises a couple of questions.

Firstly, is Ajax what users, who really do seem to have a continuing dislike of flash (*), have been waiting for? A way to say that flash just isn't necessary any more, even if programming in javascript is messier and more problematic for browsers?

And secondly, isn't the very concept of Ajax, getting away from the browser reloading page model, just recreating all those same criticisms of flash? Where people complain they can't bookmark anything, or that interfaces don't behave as they expect them to? Derek Powazek, a developer at the Ajax meeting said this on his blog:

Stop thinking about the web in terms of pages that go from a server to a browser, and instead think of pages as collections of chunks that can each go to and from a server as needed.

I understand the excitement that this is all now possible within a traditional browser page, as long as it's a modern browser, but hello, hasn't this been flash's functional model for the last few years? Hasn't this been the concept that has had all flash application developers excited since the coining of the term Rich Internet Application (RIA), since we first saw that MM pet store application example?

The answer is yes, it is. So what's so much better about Ajax? A collection of technologies (that may or may not include flash) that are thrown together and made to jump through hoops to work together in a way that flash, as a single technology, was designed to do.

Well, there are advantages to the XMLHttpRequest/javascript/DOM/css/xhtml way of doing things.

- more consistent interface elements with the rest of the browser, whatever browser it may be (**)
- a standard/free HTTP server backend
- more support for the tools, which aren't commercial protected as the SWF format is.
- data also seems to move faster using XMLHttpRequest than it does trafficking through flash, no matter what method you're using.

Mainly though, what I think we're seeing is developers who have always been hacking away at the browser/html model, doing cool things and neat tricks, finally able to bring everything they've been learning together and create this new paradigm for web applications, a paradigm that takes nothing away from their validating XHTML and CSS. I can understand this, I love standards design and will never create another table-based layout again, and I will no doubt be using an Ajax foundation for a project soon. But I can't help but think that none of this is new. The way it's being done is different, but flash has been the answer to all of the problems Ajax is being hailed as overcoming for years.

What has held flash back from being accepted is a prejudice on the part of certain developers and on the part of the user. I can understand this prejudice, and I even share some of the concerns about the flash RIA way, such as bookmarking pages, accessibility of design and code - remember that with Ajax everything is laid bare to be examined by anyone, but isn't the Ajax way subject to all these same problems and shortcomings? How will users react to Ajax-driven sites? I guess time will tell. My bet is that the lack of flash on the page, reasonable or not, will make users far more likely to accept this 'new' way of doing things, of their form submission being validated as they type it, etc.

Is it fair? Hell no, flash has everything to offer the developer, a single technology and working environment with no browser difficulties at all. But its proprietary/commercial leanings and it's lack of transparency haven't endeared it to many web developers who are now embracing Ajax as a new and fascinating concept.





*although there are less crappy flashturbation sites around these days, many users equate flash with all those stupid overlaid web ads, one of the most popular firefox plugins blocks all flash on a page.

**so many flash developers seem to have little understanding or appreciation of how important this factor is to many of the end users.

[Adixx]

That was super interesting. The demo with the draggable panels is amazing, but like you said nothing flash can't do.

Is there an IDE for this technology. How do you develop apps with this?

It appears it's only plus to flash is people's phsycological glitch with preloaders.

I'm gonna read more about this. Thanks for sharing.

[aversion]

No IDE, it's just a combination of technologies, you would use whatever you normally use to write HTML, XML, Javascript, etc.

There are other advantages over flash, such as the fact that an ajax interface uses the browser/platform page elements (such as form buttons). This is more important to users than most people think.

Ajax also retains more of a page to page system, even if some of the functions of the page take place without it reloading. With an all-flash site there tends not to be pages at all.

The main advantages of flash; it works cross-browser, it has a single, proven development environment, and it includes smoother animation/interaction in a vector format.

I think if there was more acceptance of flash without prejuduce it would certainly be the better solution to most web aplications, but since this prejudice is very real, and people seem to be so much more confortable with apps that work within the context of the browser, I think ajax is here to stay, and flash as an application platform has some stiff competition. At least it should put the nail in the coffin of java applet style apps.

Hopefully flash will gain acceptance as part of the ajax system, being used for widgets and the like, but the experience of flickr, where flash was used seamlessly with the page, seems to suggest the jury is very much out.

[Vincent26381]

Too bad that no experiences are posted.
I have little experience with xml-http-requests. I made some webbased software with javascript/php/mysql but it was IE (pc) only.

I always have problems getting advanced javascript working properly. (50% of my clients work on a Mac, some of them use IE on the mac)

I think Flash can be a professional tool for webbased software. I find it fast enough for loading sets of data on demand. When you don't tell it's flash, some clients (/visitors) wil not even know it's flash. Flash is still seen as animation software i'm afraid.


nobody with much ajax experience?

[FlashKid105]

Personally, I don't have anything against Flash now that I've got a faster internet connection. I mean, when I had dial-up a long time ago, some Flash movies took forever to load. But now that most people are on broadband, I think there shouldn't really be any problem. But yeah, like it was pointed out earlier, Flash seems to be more of an animation tool moreso than anything else so I can see why this whole thing with Ajax is coming about.

[aversion]

Too bad that no experiences are posted.
I have little experience with xml-http-requests. I made some webbased software with javascript/php/mysql but it was IE (pc) only.

I always have problems getting advanced javascript working properly. (50% of my clients work on a Mac, some of them use IE on the mac)

I don't think it's so hard to produce cross-browser JS for this stuff, most of the problems are heavily documented and there are already new resources springing up to deal with this kind of thing based around ajax. It is something for modern browsers only though, we're talking IE 6 and up.

I've used httpRequest for some simple form validations and search tools within a web application for government, where it was warranted. Like flash the worst thing you can do with ajax is use it for the sake of it. Developing with ajax isn't any harder than advanced javascripting, if you know what you're doing with JS and the DOM it should be quite straightforward. Server side I don't deal with, someone else does that, I send and wait to receive. Which is an interesting side of ajax, it's putting more development duties on the shoulders of the front-end designer/coder. Previously you just let the PHP wrap your page and insert content on reload. Now you're inserting content with JS/DOM scripting, it's a new layer for the front-end and an easing for the back-end guy, who doesn't have to wrap up your precious code anymore.

Here is a good list of examples, some are a little gratuitous but they're experimental at this stage.

http://www.fiftyfoureleven.com/resou...quest/examples

[Frets]

Preloaders....forget em.
If you manage your timeline and content properly you don't need them.
Simply because you can do something in flash doesn't mean you have to.

There will always be a group whom for one reason or another rejects flash.
Most of the time it's a designer whom may be good at source code scripting but
lost when it comes to an swf authoring environment.

[aversion]

I agree, but it's not really the preloaders that people get annoyed at, they're just a symptom as it were. On flickr, where flash was so roundly rejected by the users, they still use the same loading animation with the photographs, in fact nothing is different, all the functionality has been replaced with js/dom scripting and visually it's identical, but now people are happy.

It really is something irrational and I think hard for us to understand, but you can't blame the user for what they feel, you have to adapt or try an approach that attempts to win them over. It's hard to do with flash continuing to be abused by designers and exploited advertisers. It's not as bad as it was a few years ago when almost every flash site I looked at was a nightmare to use, overloaded with effects that only appealed to other '1337' flash designers, but it seems like the effect of all that bad design is lasting. It was the same with all the bad html sites of course, but flash is such a handy package it's much easier to pick on it than html.

Most web users probably don't give a fig one way or another, as long as it does what they need it to do effectively. Ajax gives interactive web development a new chance of changing user's expectations, by providing usable dynamic pages, which in turn helps with flash's acceptance in the long run.

[Frets]

Excellent read and analysis btw

[gerbick]

All I can say is... about time we talked about Ajax...

For years, I've been using XMLHTTPRequest via .NET and MSXML projects for clients in the past for US Government contracts. They shunned Flash - which a lot of times would have been easier to develop instead of the code and code and code method that I had to use for what's now being called Ajax; Flash was seen as just a presentational layer and code was seen as "the way to go"...

Without a single IDE, Ajax will have an uphill battle. I mean, all it is DHTML that's using a different model for accessing data from what I've seen. I can remember drag and drop menus via straight DHTML - albeit working only in IE 5+ - over 3 years ago.

But I still find this a cool way to do some things, as long as you don't have to bookmark... a fault that's within Flash.

More and more, I find myself actually liking Flash - more importantly, Flex actually - and see it finally moving away from the "Flash for the hell of it" type of mentality that pretty much made it look like a gussied up PowerPoint at times to the masses, but to something that's data-driven and could give Ajax a run for it's money.

But there's always the "code is god" crowd, and they're gonna still come up with methods like Ruby on Rails or other ways to use code without an IDE to get stuff done.

[dlowe93]

Personally, I don't have anything against Flash now that I've got a faster internet connection. I mean, when I had dial-up a long time ago, some Flash movies took forever to load. But now that most people are on broadband, I think there shouldn't really be any problem. But yeah, like it was pointed out earlier, Flash seems to be more of an animation tool moreso than anything else so I can see why this whole thing with Ajax is coming about.

These, to me, are two of the great myths of Flash:

That Flash files are inherently large, and that Flash is primarily an animation tool.

Myth the first:
As Frets pointed out, it's all about timeline and content management. In fact, a .swf can even be smaller than an equivalent amount of content in html/css. We recently built a site where most of the content was css, but we built the navigation in Flash. The .swf for the navigation was a total of 7.2 kb. The javascript, dhtml, and on/off images for the rollovers topped out at almost 20 kb. Plus, once the .swf caches, it's available for all future page loads. Additionally, it cut our QA time significantly, since our site spec covers IE and Firefox for both Windows and Mac, as well as Safari. I know that DHTML for Safari drives our developers nuts, but with Flash, if it works, it works.

Myth the second:
I don't think i've done timeline based animation in over two years. Flash, especially when combined with Remoting or other webfront/backend technology, is an amazing application tool. Personally, if i never see another Flash intro it will be just fine by me.

I think that Flash is becoming more acceptable in the big leagues because it's starting to be used more seamlessly with the user experience, not with doing Flash for the sake of doing Flash. I find a lot of this is client education, that Flash intros are usually pointless and do nothing for the user experience or the business goals of the website, and that Flash should be used where and when it makes sense to use Flash.

We recently built a series of Flash-based content management tools, that use a Flash interface to allow our clients to create slideshows that are then presented on the front-end, and are currently working on a Flash-based shopping cart. These are some pretty rich and robust Internet applications, that have nothing to do with animation.

But that's just my opinion.

d.

[dlowe93]

Although this is interesting:

Flash/Javascript Integration Kit

d.

[The Scotsman]

I do find this very very interested indeed.


With regards to Flash and the photographer you mentioned...


I share his view. I have been developing in flash for 3 years at a personal level around University and have become good mates with it over time. However i chose this because i missed out HTML as i didnt like it.

So javascript etc was never an issue for the work i have had to do.

Personally i hate flash sites. I feel very uncomfortable using them. The preloaders, the way the entire site is usually contained makes me feel claustrophobic (?never had to spell that before?). I just finsihed reading the article on Ajax. The speed to which the google sites load up is instant. None of the commadore 64 loading bars. If there is alot of text and i have to "thumb" through sections it offends me.

The same in my opinion goes for adobe PDF. Although completely different subject, i still feel like i have lost alot of freedom. give me a CHM over a PDF any day of the week! Its just the way it feels like someone has capped my freedom again.

Im not very good at explaining but as soon as i seen personalised google the other day or the way Gmail is instant when looking at conversations i had to find out what was doing this.

Maybe Flash does have the upper hand. Just personally the way i browse the web at what resolution i enjoy much embraces this new technology (well you know what i mean, this gathering..).

Sorry if im off topic here. Im just really interested in this. I was a big fan on flash version 5 and since then i have gradually become more and more confused with keeping upto date on its latest features and what can be done with the latest versions of MX never mind actionscript 2.0.

So maybe im just bitter about not being so bright to keep up :P

At the end of the day i do need to look at all the technologies Ajax use on their own but for once i feel like i have a goal to do so.

So I a big fan

my 2 cents (im tired so please dont abuse me for this post)

[aversion]

I don't think there's really any debate that flash does this kind of thing better, with more panache and with less messing around than ajax can, but ajax works with the browser, not against it, something that is vital for many users to be onboard. The fact that search engines can still spider and link to primary content with ajax is going to be the icing on the cake.

There are myths about flash out there and, even if they're aren't based on fact, they're very real problems when it comes to getting users to accept flash. You have to remember that we're not dealing with logically behaviour, we're dealing with human behaviour. They don't necessarily have to have a reason to dislike something, and no matter how many advantages you spell out for them they may not be won over.

I think that ajax will allow developers to do a lot of interactive functions with these users on a web page that would never have been accepted in the past. And the advantages of linkable, searchable content that uses browser aesthetics is hard to turn down for the developer or informed client.

I do think flash will have a place within ajax, creating widgets, and I really hope it gains more acceptance that way because it's so much nicer to develop with flash, and man those vectors can't be beat. In the meantime flash is still the tool of choice for your typical flashy applications, night club sites, online games etc, so it's not going away anytime soon, but I just wish that MM had spent a little more time thinking about how they could have integrated flash with the browser more successfully. Personally I don't know how that could have happened, the ability to work with the browser and link effectively (ie, not those anchors...) to content within flash would have been nice, but it's hard to see how that would have worked out.