HTML5 or Flash?

Question

I have to write a web application for a client soon. Looking at the specs, there is no reason why the project couldn't be an HTML5/CSS/Javascript project, but the client is arguing that it has to be Flash.

The project has a number of dynamic elements and is web-based. It'll only be used in-house by a small number of people and all of those people use either Google Chrome or Safari 4. They are all pretty tech-savvy to boot.

My question is this: what are some of the reasons (preferably technical since this is Stack Overflow) I can present to my client as to why HTML5 is better than Flash (that's assuming I'm right and it is in this case)?

Is it OK to use HTML5 even though it's still a draft spec (I'm assuming it is after checking out all those Apple HTML5 demos a few days ago)?

Also, would a hybrid approach be preferable for now? Something that uses Flash wherever the canvas object would've been used in the HTML5 approach and that conforms to a normal XHTML approach.

Help!

Answer 1

As you've limited the scope of the problem to two browsers that both support HTML5 quite well, performance would be my first concern. Flash does some things better than Canvas (et al) manage (and yes, it falls short in a lot of other places) but if all the users are webkit-based (which Crome and Safari both are), HTML5 should fly along.

Just going back to spec support, you do need to make sure you respect that each browser might implement things in different ways for now.

I certainly wouldn't suggest going with a hybrid solution. If you're in a controlled environment, where you can control the presence of Flash or a HTML5 browser, you'd really just be wasting time by reimplementing in the other tech.

But some of the core benefits of HTML5 over Flash:

• Better video performance on low end systems
• Much cheaper to maintain as you won't need Flash licenses (unless you're building this with the new Flash HTML5 exporter - is that even out yet?)
• Support for iPhone and other platforms with no or broken Flash support

But if you need proper streaming video or webcam broadcast support, Flash is probably your best bet for the near future. HTML5 doesn't have a fix for everything.

If there's even the smallest chance that an old browser (IE6 or even 7 or Firefox 2) is going to use the system -- and you have to be honest with your client and yourself -- you have to hold off and stick with the lowest common denominator.

Answer 2

There's the old tune that Flash is inaccessible. You might think "whatever; this is only used in-house" but in my opinion it makes accessibility more relevant; building an inaccessible web site means you don't cater customers with disabilities - bad for business; your choice - while deliberately building your in-house tools like this could be argued as impeding employment opportunities for people with disabilities.

On a public site, accessibility is important because it results in higher visibility; on an internal site accessibility covers your a** in the event that all those accessibility initiatives crack out the big guns :P

Answer 3

You mentioned a key point in the beginning of your question:

but the client is arguing that it has to be Flash.

The client is always right ;)

Are you sure that this application will be limited to this core set of users? It will never expand to anybody else that doesn't have an HTML5 compatible browser installed?

I can't exactly argue in favor of HTML5 since I'm not entirely familiar with it. Since you say that the requirements fall within the domain of HTML5 you can argue that you can develop it in an open standard.

If you think your client is malleable enough to accept this, then go for it....it may not be worth the hassle to simply make it in Flash though!

Answer 4

Non-technically: I would go with Flash, unless there's a reason not to use Flash that you will actually convince your client. If they have their mind set to Flash, and you use HTML5 after all, chances are that most if not all problems will be attributed to your using HTML5. It doesn't matter if the problem has nothing to do with HTML5, or if the problem would also occur in Flash, it's a mind set your client may have or get, that you risk bumping into. I've seen it happen a few times myself, and usually I end up wishing that I had taken the approach the client prefers, even if the product is as good (or better) as it would've been using the clients preference. Of course, again: if Flash doesn't suffice, there's no argument, but that doesn't seem to be an issue here.

Besides, Flash currently enjoys much wider browser support. If the deadline is in the near future, it'll be a difficult choice of taking away so many browsers that don't support HTML5.

Answer 5

If you really wanted to make a pitch, I would say this: will the front-end always be flash, or does it seem like something that would some day be converted to HTML5. The conditions you describe would be a perfect way of having a low risk way of getting your (and your client's) feet wet with the technology. If that isn't really on the horizon at all, then it's probably not worth the risk. Flash is a known, HTML5 is not. There is already an existing body of flash in the front-end.

As for the HTML5 pro/con thing, I think the argument really comes down to one of two things - reach (devices that flash can't go) and the future (will HTML5 become the dominant method of have rich web experiences). Personally, I think that HTML5 will likely fill a lot of areas that flash currently occupies in the near future and is a good bet for the long run, but flash is much safer right now.

Answer 6

Despite a lot of propaganda saying otherwise, HTML5 and Flash are not equivalents — they do not do the same job.

Furthermore HTML5 does not add anything to HTML that we didn't already have, it is merely a cleanup (or corruption, depending on your interpretation).

That said, Flash is not needed to accomplish any particular feat — it has never been needed.

Clients should not ever dictate how a particular feature is implemented, only what it should do — the implementation should always be up to the developer. You should, of course know why not using Flash is better than using Flash, but you should not have to explain this to a client, ever.

Answer 7

Since this is going to be a video application, I would suggest a HTML5 solution with a Flash video for fallback. Since your target is Safari and Chrome, you probably only want to encode in H.264 (sigh), and then you can throw in a Flash video player for those platforms that do not support HTML5 H.264 video. You don't need to encode the video in 2 different formats to support both HTML5 video and Adobe Flash video, since Adobe also support MP4 H.264.

So, just tell your customer you will do both, Flash and HTML5 with the appropriate technology on a platform auto-executed. I think that's a nice sales pitch.

(I would always want to go for open codecs, but in your situation it really doesn't seem appropriate).

Answer 8

Do you need Linux support? The Flash player for Linux is horrible. It's very slow, even on very fast computers.

Also, I think the 64 bits player for Flash is still is alpha after all these year.