I have the feeling that Flash-based ( or Silverlight-based) websites are generally frowned upon, except when you are creating games or multimedia-content rich applications. Why this is so?

+115  A: 

Flash is infamous for its poor accessibility.

Keyboard navigation does not usually work, and Flash (up until recently) did not have search engine support.

Flash applications does not work in mobile phones and other portable devices.

Flash is not there in the iPhone!!!

Flash is controlled by a single company (Adobe) and so it is not following any well defined standards for the Internet.

The beauty of Internet lies in the fact that you can always view the source code of any website you are in. This way you can use the same programming/design techniques in your website or you can find security flaws in the web application. This is not possible in Flash. In Flash, source code is closed.

The big question is, why should you use Flash "except when you are creating games or multimedia-content rich applications"?

jtyost2 says, "I would also add that you can't directly link to any content inside of a Flash site, thus breaking one of the major factors that makes the Internet, the Internet, links."

It's not a matter of flash having search engine support, it's the search engines having Flash support. But it still sucks, even as it is.
I would also add that you can't directly link to any content inside of a Flash site, thus breaking one of the major factors that makes the Internet, the Internet, links.
@OP deep linking is available and works well -- developers just aren't using it, presumably because it requires a bit more work.
Christian Nunciato
i'd also say that no flash on the iphone is a fault of the iphone, not flash.
@nickf - strongly disagree with that. Flash isn't an actual standard. Should the iPhone support every proprietary plugin which comes along?
@anna - No and yet they support their own standard for video over the web.
Jamie Love
@Jamie - so that's a little anti-competitive, but that's nothing new
The "can't link directly to content" is not true. It just takes extra work to implement it and most Flash developers don't.
Rex M
@Rex M, We cannot blame developers for not using a feature if the feature is difficult to use. The "extra work" is exactly the problem.
"well defined standards for the internet" Makes me laugh!
Talk of "well-defined standards" is always a chortle. Considering that content made in Flash 2 still plays the same way in all browsers, and HTML content I made five years ago no longer works in any browser.
@fenoramas: What standards-based code did you write five years ago that no longer works in any browser? I haven't seen any such phenomenon where suddenly browsers have stopped supporting standards.
@fenoramas: Flash 2 doesn't play the same in browsers that don't have the Flash plugin ;) And yeah, Chuck's right - if you followed the standards (even a HTML3 standard AFAIK) it will look the same in all browsers.
Flash is the ONLY web standard as far as I'm concerned. As fenomas said, stuff made in flash 2 still runs on the latest plugin! URLs linking directly to Flash SWF files can be loaded in the browser, effectively functioning as a full-replacement for the browsers rendering engine altogether. It blows HTML away and beats its ass when it comes to displaying and interacting with content, and doing so almost perfectly across all the browsers it run in. Deep links are easy to implement in flash, because the SWF accepts URL parameters; its easier than writing cross-browser HTML anyway.
... but you CAN deep-link and bookmark a full-flash site. It's called SWFAddress and it has been around for years, although people just repeat the same mantra over and over. And afaik, ajax content itself can't be deep-linked and bookmarked, unless you use the same work-around. And noone here is complaining that Ajax broke the Internets... I smell a bias?
When there is HTML5, SVG, and Javascript, why do you need anything else? And also I'd like to add that Flash has a horrible track record for security exploits. And also, why don't I have a good flash plugin for my browser in OpenBSD? Cause Adobe is dumb? Yea, probably.
David Thornley
I think saying 'you can always view the source code of any website you are in' is a bit inaccurate; sure, you can see the HTML and the JavaScript (presuming it's not obfuscated) but the vast majority of code, the server side code, is not accessible to the public. If you want to view Flash code int he same way as HTML/JS, you can actually decompile it and see essentially the original source.
Alex JL
+1 to make it to 100. Enjoy your first gold badge :-)
David Johnstone
The reason Flash isn't on the iPhone is because Apple doesn't want people making pretty-looking apps without paying then $99 for a development kit that only runs on a proprietary OS made by Apple that's only legally available on a $700-plus computer manufactured by... well, guess whom.
+36  A: 

Hi, to name a few:

  1. content weight
  2. usability
  3. crawlability of search engine bots
  4. accessibility
  5. ease of use (disputable)
  6. technology encumbrance (added software required to access the site)
  7. security issues (needing to add software comes with issues involved with installing or running that software/player of the content)

[Edit] Why I place usability and ease of use separate is best explained in this link


  • a result – software that is usable;
  • a process, also called user-centered design, for creating usable software;
  • a set of techniques, such as contextual observation and usability testing, used to achieve that result; or
  • a philosophy of designing to meet user needs?

Ease of use:

  • Effective
  • Efficient
  • Engaging
  • Error Tolerant
  • Easy to Learn

I agree with the comments on that site, but this is all debatable...could be a good stackoverflow question: is usability and ease of use the same? IMO part of usability is ease of use and vice versa, but they are not necessarily the same.

I hope I don't enfuriate the more semantical sensitive with this edit :-)

Ric Tokyo
2, 4 and 5 are essentially the same point. With #7, it's not like IE/FF don't have enough issue themselves.
Jamie Love
2 and 5 are the same point, but 4 is a whole different thing
Hmm, well I'm out of my depth debating it at an academic level.
Jamie Love
"Content weight"? Flash content is (normally) compressed, so it's no heavier (and usually lighter) than the same content would have been without Flash. What you mean to say is that Flash content is usually multimedia, and multimedia is usually heavier than text.
+1  A: 

Flash sucks and I refuse to visit Flash-based web sites. Why? Because I can't. Why? Because Adobe is too ignorant to write a plugin for a 64-bit browser.

Josh Stodola
I haven't had this problem on my 64-bit machines. Windows 64-bit works, and Linux also has a 64-bit version. What OS/browser do you have issues with specifically? I know in the past Adobe hadn't made a 64-bit Linux flash player but they fixed that months ago.
Dan Herbert
"Q: What is evil about flash sites? A: because it sucks. Why? Because I can't use it." I fail to see the value in that answer
Bryan Oakley
@Bryan Oakley. I fail to see the value in your comment. I made my point clear: Flash does not work on 64-bit browsers. Therefore, it sucks.
Josh Stodola
@DanHerbert You must be running a 32-bit browser on a 64-bit operating system. Which I consider to be a shame.Trust me, the lamers over at Adobe don't support it because they are too busy making shiny things for dumbass Mac users:
Josh Stodola
@Josh Stodola: 5 seconds on google for "flash player 64-bit" =
Ant P.
so you don't visit youtube? btw we have a couple of 64bit laptops at home and flash works on all of them, what exactly is your problem?
hasen j
@Ant P Congratulations brainiac, you can use Google. But evidently you can't read. First of all, it's ALPHA (lol). Second of all, it only works on Linux (lol). Accept the fact: Flash can not run on 64-bits at this time.
Josh Stodola
@hasen j Flash can run on a 64-bit operating system, but only within 32-bit applications. In other words, it does not run on 64-bits. I use a 64-bit browser, and I certainly am not willing to change just for Flash.
Josh Stodola
what functionality precisely does your 64 bit browser have that a 3bit browser doesn't?we're in a transition period and they have other priorities.
Dustin Getz
A 64 bits browser can use more than 4GB of memory, which we'll soon need given the quality of both webdevelopers and browser developers.
Adobe has 64-bit browser support planned for the next version of flash (11?). I think of Flash as a browser-rendering-engine replacement, that's actually consistent across browsers... replaces HTML/Javascript with a proprietary but BETTER standard, with a nice IDE and the plugin is installed on almost every machine I've ever encountered, even on game consoles like the Wii.
"that's actually consistent across browsers" It does not work on my browser. How do you call this consistent?
Josh Stodola
+3  A: 

I think it's a matter of selecting the lowest cost medium to reach your target audience, be it Flash or Silverlight or JavaScript or plain text.

You can have text-only, JavaScript-only, etc. versions of your site if you have the money, and your target audience come with different prioritizes.

So my question to you would be: does your website has people who frown on Flash as its target audience? If yes, you need to stay away from it. If not, use anything to give your visitors a good experience.

Vardhan Varma
A reasonable response IMHO
Robert Gould
+1  A: 

All the above answers are focusing on Flash, Silverlight is just as bad or worse. If you are running Firefox with NoScript (you should be) then you have to click on every script that you wish to allow to run.

So build your websites with scripts, Flash and Silverlight. Just make sure that they still work with them disabled. Many of us will simply move on when we open a site and see nothing.

You can enable flash for the site, I tend not to do this if there is only one thing on the page that requires it, or I won't be there long anyway.
Yes, but if you have upgraded to the newest version of noScripts, and have not changed the placeholder icon thing-a-ma-bob, then you still have to click the placeholder icon to even get flash to work on a trusted site. I like this, it allows me to chose what falsh I see even on trusted sites.
why would anyone use no-script? we're not in the crazy geocities/lycos age anymore. I hardly ever run across sites with bad/evil javascript. I used to use YesScript (which allows all by default, and blocks certain ones), but I don't use it anymore.
hasen j
The best clearing house of security information on the web is the SANS Internet Storm Center. Their basic recommendation is FireFox stacked with no-scripts and adBlock. It seems that every week they pinpoint a new scripting attack. In fact there are more now than in the geocities era.
+22  A: 

Flash and Silverlight based sites typically go against basic Internet conventions with their closed models.

For example, most Flash & Silverlight based sites:

  • Ignore the back/fwd button.
  • Don't allow you to send anyone a URL to a specific place on the site, or bookmark a specific spot for later via your browser
  • Place the internet in a fixed size box. No dynamic sizing for wider monitors or higher resolutions.
Cory House
check it kill your third bullet big time
Not sure who "they" is, but if you mean "most Flash devs," then I'd agree. If "they" means Flash, though, all three points are wrong; facilities exist for back/forward navigation and deep linking, and object resizing is easily handled. Developers just have to implement these features.
Christian Nunciato
News to me Christian. Qualifier added accordingly. :)
Cory House
Third point is spurious. Flash can be made to resize or not, the same way HTML can be made to flow or not. Second point is valid, but also true of DHTML and many sites with backends. It's hard to call it a reason not to use Flash...
All three of those are the developer's choice, not limitations of Flash.
@Mk12 - Note the qualifier "typically" in my first sentence. Flash, regardless of whether or not it was/remains a technical limitation, has a reputation for the issues I've mentioned.
Cory House
Your first two points used to be true. But for 5(?) years or so now, Flash has supported deep linking with anchors. This also allows back/forward functionality. And Flash has always been able to stretch to its container. You just have to specify a percentage for your width and height.
Steve Wortham
+3  A: 

Flash adds another heavyweight component that's required to properly view a web page. The flash plugins are often buggy and can crash a browser. Flash pages often are used to make cutesy animations and other things that make it harder to quickly navigate a site.

Mr Fooz
Those 'cutesy' animations can easily be the reason for some (many) users to stay on the site.
Jamie Love
In some sites, they're actually useful, add value, and don't get in the way of the user. In those cases, go for it.
Mr Fooz
This kind of thinking mystifies me. HTML is often used to make sites that are difficult to navigate. The GIF format is often used for frivolous animations. So these are reasons not to use them?
I much prefer websites that use flash than animated GIFs.
+8  A: 

In this next rant s/Flash/Flash or Silverlight/g

  1. The Flash application/plugin is a closed source pot of serious undisclosed security holes that expose private data, allow modification of arbitrary files on your hard disk, etc.
  2. Flash files are enormous for basic content. There are more efficient ways of doing things
  3. Flash is slow. The plugin on my Windows PC can hog 100% of the CPU time to play some shitty websites.
  4. Flash is non-standard. There isn't a supported flash plugin installed everywhere. Linux users can't run it without jumping through package management hoops. Firefox users on Windows don't get it by default (well didn't last I checked).
  5. Flash is annoying; your users don't want to be bombarded by animations and jingles and junk just to get some basic information.
  6. No back/forward functions unless the Flash designer wanted to implement them in
  7. Can't view a single page without waiting for all the content/scripts that make up that "page" to load. That's really quite painful if all your user wants is a slice of text and you force the multimedia down their throat.
  8. Most Flash-only sites are really bad; the designers seem more concerned with using all of the features of the flash engine rather than presenting something that's concise and useful to the user.
Adam Hawes
8: Subjective. Many flash sites I've used are great.7: True. Remember your audience.6: RIA based on javascript has same problem.5: Depends on the users now doesn't it?4: 99% penetration's pretty damn good. 3: As can bad javascript.2: True. may be irrelevant.1: As do browsers themselves.
Jamie Love
Um. 1. It's closed, but has been the source of far fewer exploits than any browser. 2. Blatantly untrue. What you mean to say is that Flash often contains multimedia content, which is heavier than non-multimedia content (obviously). 7. Is also untrue; unlike HTML Flash can intelligently preload any way the designer chooses. 8. Most WEB sites are bad, for the same reason. Nothing to do with Flash.
@fenomas: 1. Let's refer to the current unpatched arbitrary code exploit. Flash has dozens of such exploits. 7. "designer chooses" is quite subjective, and I've yet to meet a designer who would make intelligent choices re: that. 8. No argument there, but at least with basic HTML I can munge out what I need, even if I need to use scripts to do it. Can't do that with flash.
Adam Hawes
+3  A: 

SEO is the prime issue. Still Flash is not crawlable. But Adobe is working on it. for better swf indexing.

Agree, but "a prime" not "the prime"
+7  A: 

"I was about to click checkout but I wanted to change something so I hit the back button"

Flex has native browser navigation support, and there are other ways to get around this issue in Flash.
+28  A: 

Interestingly everyone here blasts Flash/Silverlight and you would do well to recognise that this is only one side of the coin.

Flash (and Flex) allow web site designers significantly more flexibility and richer content for their site and this works in a variety of situations - e.g. sites relating to movies, or bands, sites for kids, sites for games etc.

Certainly, there are many reasons to not choose Flash/Flex/Silverlight, but one can do sites just as inaccessible in JavaScript these days. I have previously worked with JavaScript products that have no reasonable usability by blind people, or web crawlers.

Flash penetration (from a biased source to be sure) is 99%+ (, which means that those that say "would never visit a Flash site" are in the 1% of the population that do no install Flash, do not watch YouTube or movie trailers online.

So, you need to be mindful of your audience. Certain audiences and situations would definitely be better off with plain HTML pages and a minimum of JavaScript (government websites, programming websites are two areas that spring to mind). Other times it is because the audience are office workers that are not allowed to install Flash in the browsers.

Rich Internet Applications (RIA) is one area where there is a distinct clash/struggle between the Flex/Silverlight and JavaScript/CSS/HTML sides. I've worked with both, and I'm now of the opinion that requiring Flex/Silverlight plug-ins is fairly reasonable, though you can still lose some visitors if the application is public.

In summary - you're best to identify your audience, identify what they're willing/able to use and then based on such limitations decide on your technology.

Jamie Love
Steve Wortham
When my boss found out how much Flash development I've done he was surprised because as he put it, most of the developers he's hired haven't even touched Flash. It tends to draw more designers than developers apparently. As such, I don't think Flash is getting a fair shake here. I guess my point is that if you know what you're doing, in many cases Flash (or Silverlight) can be leveraged to create a better experience without hurting SEO, usability, or many of the other things listed on this page.
Steve Wortham
+2  A: 

In its defence, most of the issues raised here about how people have implemented Flash in their websites, not about Flash itself. Flash does support accessibility it's just that most people don't consider it when building their sites. Flash does work on mobile phones - it's Flash Lite, although the ActionScript is limited in earlier versions.

Why should anyone have an automatic right to view the source code of a website? A web author has spent time and effort dreaming up their code to share their ideas through the medium of the web. If you want to know how something works, why not put a bit of effort in yourself, and work it out? The beauty of the web is the message, not the medium.

So what if Flash is owned by a single company - Adobe bought it for a reason, and that's because it's a fantastic bit of kit. The problem comes from web authors not using it properly, trying to make it do things it was never intended to, or simply not applying standards to their sites when developing using Flash.

What is so evil about a Flash based website? Absolutely nothing. It's like asking what is so evil about a gun. Nothing. It's the idiot wielding it that has the problem.

+5  A: 

Let us not forget that Flash allows web sites to display video, animation, user interaction, etc., and it allows this to be a simple process or a geeky techie one, depending on what you want to do. Many bad Flash sites are down to the author.

If YOU don't like Flash then the answer is simple, don't use it. Don't install the Flash plug-in, or install a browser plug-in such as Flashblock on Firefox. This replaces any Flash movie with a play button, preventing and download until it is clicked.

Better than that though, if you don't like the solution that Adobe or Microsoft are giving you, then come up with a better one, or at least let them know what you don't like, they do take feedback seriously. Support some of the people who campaign for accessibility improvements in Flash, for example visit

Accessibility is an ongoing issue and not one that will go away, Flash accessibility is improving for people with physical disabilities. In in some cases the use of Flash enhances the experience for people with cognitive and learning disabilities, when an concept or idea is better explained when presented as an animation rather than a page of words and static images.

+4  A: 

Does anybody know a site called YouTube? It wouldn't exist without flash. Flash has great video/multimedia capabilities that simply cannot be ignored.

Flash is amazing when used in the proper way, in appropriate circumstances and when the designer/coder has taken care to embed basic accessibility features.

The thing is, like all good things, there's a lot of abusive use (flashturbation). Especially in the beginning, when people just want to slap Flash wherever they can just to show off.

But I strongly disagree that Flash sites are bad: When made properly, and with good UI design and accessibility, they bring a whole new dimension to the web.

Sure it would.Silverlight! :P
.. and what's the penetration rate for the silverlight plugin?
YouTube is actually toying with moving to standards-based movies now, so clearly it can exist without Flash.
Wow, crazy stuff. But then again, i guess that's what's coming up. Personally, I'd love to see HTML5 Video tag and OGG win the game.
Joachim Sauer
You can view Youtube in HTML5 now. Joachim's link works, or you can use the Youtube HTML5-ifier extension ( I'm guess there's a firefox extension as well as Chrome, but I just use Chrome.
@sthg - 50% and rising 3% per month.
Richard Szalay
+3  A: 

All of the above is true for the wild wild web.

However, for internal business applications, Flash and Silverlight allow the user to have something close to a fully-fledged application in their browser. Accessibility, SEO, and closed source are not very important in an internal application. All that matters is making the user's life easier.

Accessibility and SEO (or rather searchability) can become very important once your business reaches a certain size.
Joachim Sauer
+7  A: 

Flash has its uses. It's good for content, not webpages.

Mike Christiansen
+5  A: 

I am a Flash developer. The firm I work for has no difficulty finding clients who want us to build Flash-based products for them. There is a certain set of applications which it is much easier to develop in Flash than in other environments I have used.

But Flash has its problems. Some above have complained that Flash apps do not include keyboard support. Others say it is because the developers are too lazy to implement it. The truth is that many of the components that come standard with Flash are buggy. At my firm we have had to write our own replacements. One feature that is problematic is keyboard support. I implemented my own support for keyboard interaction. It works well, but required effort. If I were writing a Windows VB app, the keyboard navigation would be provided and would work well out of the box.

The same is true for deep-linking, back-button support, etc. A clever developer will be able to make a Flash app behave well. Some open source libraries are indispensable here.

As for flowing layouts, I just completed a proof-of-concept for this (in AS3) as well. It is possible, but requires much effort. Why do I make the effort? Because of the other things that Flash does well.

Paul Chernoch
+1  A: 

Look at any major car maker's website, they are ALL in Flash. It depends on what you are doing. If your goal is to provide a rich, sexy website Flash/Silverlight will give you a huge advantage in terms of development time. IF you are providing content/data HTML and JavaScript (jQuery for example) can give you a lot of whizbang without requiring additional software plug-ins (Flash/Silverlight).

Nate Bross
Too true, I went to the audi website to look for the R8, and I spent 10 minutes waiting for a series of increasingly complex loader movies to play before giving up, without ever seeing the car.
Alex Brown
+1  A: 

I am a Flash developer.. and I have found that although Flash requires more effort in coding, the potential is enormous. You can create very simple sites with simple transitions, so subtle it would seem to be a normal HTML page, while still being just as light.

At the same time, you can use OOP with ActionScript to create a website that is as complex and as inclusive, as well as feels and acts like a desktop application. WHILE ALSO REMAINING VERY LIGHT! (only the content required is loaded on demand, as apposed to 4 column HTML sites with far too much information.)

Nowadays, and this is still without migrating to ActionScript 3, but still using ActionScript 2, MY flash files contain simply 2 or 3 lines of ActionScript, only one frame, and an empty stage. Everything else is dynamically created or added at runtime.

Flash's problems are not about Flash, but about lazy development.

+1  A: 

I dislike Flash based websites because what happens if your browser crash or your connection dies for a bit? You have to load it again and go back to the menu, and select the item you wanted to read about, and so on and so forth.

Just don't do it. :S

Sergio Tapia
+5  A: 

Printing is often poorly supported and the backbutton does not work.

Henrik Jepsen
A good point. I'm surprised that no one else mentioned printing. This is a big deal for sites that include flash charts and similar content.
+2  A: 

Probably for the same reason C programmers shied away from Win32 API, Win32 programmers from MFC and MFC programmers from Windows Forms. It's tricky to use and understand - I have tried programming in Flex and am getting along pretty well but it is not inherently designed for typical web application design e.g. there is no native (at least until Flex 3) support for databases or cookies or sessions - you need to put all 3 in PHP or another server-side page and call that from ActionScript.

Try making a simple register/login page with PHP and then again with Flex/Flash and you will see that all the server side crunching is done by someone else - again, this is probably by design since we have HTML/JavaScript for the front-end mixed with ColdFusion or PHP etc. for back-end in "traditional" web applications.

Like started by other people, Flash is bad with the keyboard - try pressing Ctrl-T in Firefox when a Flash object embedded in an HTML page has focus (mouse-over) - so that can be frustrating for the user...

Having said all that, I would still rather make a web application front-end in Flash/Flex than HTML/JavaScript/CSS since the latter needs a sharp learning curve that gets quite bewildering after a while since you have to account for the "good" design aspects of CSS and JavaScript and the bad ones too - and also the peccadilloes that JavaScript/CSS inherently have and those which are introduced by the JavaScript library vendor (Yahoo's YUI, Google's Ajax API,, etc.

If you are already a web programmer who knows CSS/HTML/JavaScript very well and have a good development environment set up on your PC with all required code inspectors and runtime debuggers etc. etc. then it's easy to keep on working in that (not taking into account end-user preferences) but if you are like me and want to make a web application ready and available for use quickly and want to add features to it quickly while making it pretty all the time, then Flash/Flex is a better option, IMHO.

+6  A: 

My biggest gripe with Flash is that it takes you "out of the browser" into its own totally separate application. This breaks "browser standards" - i.e. the functions I can do in my browser:

  • Right click
  • Middle click (for opening links in other tabs)
  • Selecting text
  • Copy & paste
  • Printing
  • Keyboard shortcuts (since Flash steals keyboard focus)
  • Back/Forward buttons and the whole "page" concept
  • Javascript interaction with other elements on the page (I don't think this is possible).
  • "Inspect element" in Firebug or Chrome, if I wanted to see the source of a particular part of the Flash file, or find the image being used.
+1  A: 

I don't install Flash on my browsers, mainly to escape the nuisance of animated ads, but also for all the security and privacy reasons mentioned by others.

So sites done completely in Flash are nonexistent as far as I'm concerned. (W.r.t. Youtube, I download videos directly into Miro.)


Flash Player is the culprit behind more Mac OS X crashes than anything else. It's not exactly well-known for its stability.

Jeff Kelley

Many of us have had bad experiences with Flash based websites which has propagated the idea that flash is "evil". I don't really think it's fair to apply the label of evil to any technology or framework, they are each designed to cater to specific scenarios and many of them do well in those scenarios, for example, I have no problem with websites that use flash video.

A few other responses have touched on the fact that the use of flash contradicts many of the standard metaphors we use on the internet (e.g. links and navigation buttons), I hate this as much as the next web user but this doesn't really make flash evil either.

While it has been said that there are mechanisms within Flash/Flex to add support for these things, in my experience these are rarely implemented, which is not directly the fault of Flash per se, but is very annoying for the user.

Perhaps the evil is not Flash/Flex but Adobe for not making many of these things easier or more visible to developers.

For the record I have never developed in Flash


Flash isn't evil, it's what people do with it that's evil.

For goofy vector animations and maybe even for example a 360 product view or interactive diagram, yes. Flash can do beautiful Full HD animation on my ancient box @ 60 fps using ~15 % cpu.

For web video, if you have no other choice, I suppose.

But for entire websites and these things called 'RIA's, no.

So shockingly a technology works better for the thing that it was designed to do.

Dear me, what is Flex based on? What is Flex if not RIA? Performance _is_ an issue, but hey, _Silverlight_ isn't any better.One more thing: AS3 is powerful!
Albus Dumbledore
+3  A: 

See Steve Jobs' Thoughts on Flash:

Shaun Chapman
Pretty nice, thanks! :-)
Albus Dumbledore