tags:

views:

281

answers:

12

From this tweet: http://twitter.com/azaaza/status/6508524118 I reach a website which is made completely in Flash http://bit.ly/7VdNlY ( at least the front end )

alt text

It looks fantastic and it could have been written with HTML + Ajax, but I guess ( because I don't know much flash my self ) they site owners felt more comfortable with Flash and thought it would be easier ( once again, I guess this happens when you have thousands of flight hours with flash )

Judging by the status bar, it seems that most of the images and text are downloaded dynamically ( otherwise the flash file would've been too heavy )

Question(s):

What type of webapps should consider do all the frontend in flash?

Would it be easier? Yes/No, only if you suck at HTML+Ajax but you excel at Flash?

Is that for everyone?

When it should not be used?

I guess that an extra benefit is that you don't have IE+FF+Opera+Chrome+Safari compatibility problems

Would this be the next programming model for webapps front end?

+3  A: 

The main problem with flash sites is that people without flash installed can't use your site! This instantly rules pretty much all mobile users (although arguably you should have a different site design for mobile users anyway).

It does depend (to a certain extent) on your audience, however if you want to reach a wide audience then you should provide an alternative html based site for those people who don't use flash. My view is that if your going to produce a html version anyway, why do the same work twice?

Kragen
According to Adobe, 99.7% of people have Flash 9 installed, so many people wouldn't see this as a problem.
David Kemp
I guarantee my iPod doesn't, David Kemp. I'd say Adobe has their stats skewed a bit.
Amber
Those without flash can't use youtube either, which nowadays seems like... well just not happening right?
OscarRyz
Although it will never work on iPhone
David Kemp
Sorry - it's 99.6%: http://bit.ly/rwXU
David Kemp
I believe the figure is above 90% but there is no way it's 99.7%.
cletus
"Respondents must be Adults 18+ and have access to an Internet connected computer." Somehow I doubt they included mobile devices... and I doubt they included any handicapped users.
Amber
Every now and then I find myself on a site that uses flash with a machine that doesn't have it installed (work computer, fresh install etc...) and I usually find myself just skipping that site.
Kragen
I don't think we can trust Adobe to be unbiased when it comes to reporting the reach of their platform.
David Dorward
Also, that statistic is for "Mature Markets" (US, Canada, UK, Germany, France, Japan, Australia, New Zealand)
Skilldrick
+8  A: 

Personally, I hate websites that are nothing but a page with a flash movie on it. They degrade TERRIBLY for things like mobile browsers, not to mention a lot of the time they either a) use Flash for no good reason, just pointless visual effects, or b) violate UI standards by implementing custom UI widgets that don't behave as one would expect, et cetera.

Amber
Me too. Actually 10 yrs ago there was an excessive use and abuse of flash to create a whole site ( they use to put everything in a single file ), but just to make a point I've added an screenshot and you can see the website for your self. It is very very html+ajax like ( but I guess without the hassle )
OscarRyz
+1 for non-standard UIs (and everything else, but non-standard UIs especially)
David Dorward
+5  A: 

I would say this is never a good idea. 100% flash sites impair usability (no browser-provided text resizing, can't use tools that automatically read text) and you need extra work to make your site be well positioned on search engines (altough Google has done some work to solve this).

Konamiman
+14  A: 

Short answer: Don't create 100% flash websites. There are many compatibility and user experience problems.

To elaborate on this....

What type of webapps should consider do all the frontend in flash?

  • Portfolio, temporary websites linked to an event... In my opinion it's ok to create a "full flash website" if the aim of the website is not to provide any information but more impress the user.

Would it be easier? Yes/No, only if you suck at HTML+Ajax but you excel at Flash?

  • Well if you're good at flash it'd be easier to develop

Is that for everyone?

  • No. As a web developer I can do flash, but I don't like flash.

When it should not be used?

  • Imho, never. It always bother me when I reach a Flash website as it's annoying to find anything. It is also not accessible at all from devices like iPhone.

I guess that an extra benefit is that you don't have IE+FF+Opera+Chrome+Safari compatibility problems

  • You have cross platform compatibility instead. Also people without flash can't access your website.

Would this be the next programming model for webapps front end?

  • I highly doubt it. The new uses of html+javascript allows to create dynamic website without using flash.
marcgg
I would +2 if I could for I answer the same way you did, quoting the answer :P Thanks
OscarRyz
I wouldn't say never to use flash, but use it wisely.
Guillaume Flandre
The advice not "never use Flash", it's "never use 100% Flash".
Rik
+13  A: 

Reasons to hate pure Flash sites:

  • Doesn't work with mobiles / cell phones
  • With most Flash sites it's impossible to bookmark a page or share a link to a page in the site.
  • Keyboard shortcuts almost never work as expected.
  • Weird scrollbars and other clever interface elements.
  • Bad for SEO. I think Google has just started to index Flash content.
  • Any visitor with a disability is going to have a hard time using a pure Flash site.

That's it for now.

pygorex1
Like I said on another comment, it is clear that you are not a Flash developer so I wish you had at least read a little bit more into it before stating your reasons to "hate" pure flash sites. It is not "impossible" at all to bookmark or deeplink a full flash site, come on SWFAddress has been around for years!!! I'll summon Keith Peters' help from Bit101 (one of the best-est flash blogs out there): http://www.bit-101.com/blog/?p=2381to rebate your points, and more. And as for mobiles -> flashlite. Iphone? just wait for Flash CS5 and you might be very surprised ;)
danii
pygorex1
I'll continue here, if you let me... Accesibility? http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/flash/tutorial/index.html If a flash site is not accesible, the blame is 100% on the developer, not the technology. Google has been indexing flash content for a long while, and recently have improved it. Also, (again) SWFAddress has been helping in this too. Who says a pure Flash site can't degrade to XHTML for people who don't have access to the flash player?? And as for "keyboard shortcuts" and "weird scrollbars" and other "cleverness"... I can write shitty interfaces on any language or technology
danii
@pygorex sorry but that is hardly an argument aganist flash sites, it is an argument aganist bad developers, to which I totally agree...
danii
@danii: half of the battle of making a site accessible is allowing the user to view it on their own terms. Far too many people think "compatible with screen readers = accessible site" - but that's not even chipping the surface. How about being able to recolor the content so that a colorblind person can read it? With regular content, it's as simple as applying a custom stylesheet. With flash? Not so simple. That's one example, there are plenty of others as well.
Amber
A: 

All Flash is bad because of:

  • Difficulties when using mobile
  • Difficulties for visually impaired users (Text resizing or screen readers)
  • Difficulties with search engine indexing
Rik
Flash not being accesible is just another myth abuot Flash that is just so not true. The blame on difficulties for visually impaired users should fall on the developers always, not on the technology!! (like so many other things, not only flash related eh)http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/flash/tutorial/index.html
danii
See my comment on pygorex's answer replying to you, danii. It's not as accessible as you think relative to HTML.
Amber
Rik, saying all Flash is bad is rather narrow-minded. As everyone here points out, Flash is not well suited for building web sites (which is what the question is about). But for online apps, - say games or video players, it absolutely rules.
Tor Haugen
+3  A: 

With a vast number of users accessing the web via 4 square inches of mobile phone screen or 20 square inches of netbook, assuming your user is sitting in front of a large screen with a powerful graphics processor installed is just plain silly. (I know you can customise flash for small screens but in practice it seldom happens or works as expected!).

TO say nothing of any sight impaired customers you may have been trying to reach!

Stick with standard html and css and let the browser handle any unexpected presentation issues.

James Anderson
+2  A: 

Flash is kind of breaking the way the web works. People use it for a number of reasons:

  • They're doing something that would be impossible or prohibitively expensive without Flash (like 3D or some games, video)
  • They don't know how to do it with Ajax/JS, or they don't know how to do it.
  • A client says that it needs to be done in Flash.

You do see a lot of cases where the Flash adds nothing to the User Experience of the site, but some sites genuinely do something inventive with it.

You need to make an extra effort when you use Flash to provide access to people with disabilities/site problems, and for search engines (but this can also be a problem with ajax sites too), as well as enabling the back button and allowing bookmarks. Most sites that have a frivolous use of Flash usually don't make this effort.

If you identify an area of your site where you decide Flash provides the best solution, then use it, but just be aware of all the drawbacks.

David Kemp
+2  A: 

To me, this is less about a particular technology and more about how accessible you want to be. I had built a website around 5 years back which ran only on the latest version of IE, required JavaScript, and ran only on certain resolution and window sizes. While it looked snazzy on my desktop, it fell flat on its face at a potential job interview where I wanted to showcase my work because the interviewer was running it on a laptop.

The learning I took from that experience was that if you want to build anything that might have to work outside of a very well-tailored environment (which is all web apps and company/personal portfolios), you have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

When you are debating the Flash vs. HTML route in your mind, ask yourself what benefits you will potentially gain out of going the Flash way and whether those benefits are worth losing potential customers over when they cannot view your content. In some cases it might be worth it (video or graphics-intensive games come to mind). But most of the time, you'll find that HTML suits your needs just fine.

Pranav Negandhi
A: 

In my eyes the number one reason not to do Flash only sites:

You are going to reproduce a lot of the functionality the browser (and your OS's standard UI elements) already provide and you are never going to do this correctly:

  • text selection will not work
  • therefore copy & paste will not work
  • text search will not work
  • page up / page down / the mouse wheel / clicking into scroll bars will not work
  • the browser history will not work
  • users will not be able to create deep links

These problems above affect every single user of your website, even if they're not visually impaired, don't use an iPhone and have Flash installed.

Use Flash for single elements on the website that cannot be done any other way.

Sebastian
danii
I'm not saying it cannot be done, only that in my humble experience, most people don't get it right.
Sebastian
And it seems to be a waste of time to implement the behavior of native UI elements in another environment. It's the Java UI problem, you will never get it right on every platform at the same time.
Sebastian
danii, text selection in Flash does not work in the same way as a browser. It is only supported within selectable elements so you cannot, for example, drag from top to bottom and select the text of all selectable elements on the page.
Richard Szalay
What a crock, I mean appreciate that some people just have a knee-jerk "I hate flash" reaction but it is really silly when they obviously don't know anything about it.
Myk
+3  A: 

Everyone here seems to agree that Flash is the worst thing you can do when it comes to developing something for the web. I have to disagree a bit.

Of course, Flash is almost always the wrong choice, when it comes to standard websites, which can be quite easily done in standard HTML and CSS. But when it comes to applications just being accessible via the web, its quite a bit different.

So, my recommendation would be, that if you are going to develop an application, which just happens to be accessible via the web, Flash is probably the better way to do this (and Silverlight or JavaFX would be too, if they were available on most browsers out there). Of course, most of what can be done using Flash, can also be done using HTML/CSS/JS, but they are just not made for that purpose.

Simon Lehmann
The internet is more than just HTTP. If you need an application and HTML isn't going to cut it perhaps you shouldn't be doing it in a web browser in the first place.
Kristof Provost
Spot on, Simon!
Tor Haugen
Must agree with Kristof here... how can you say that something built with Flash IS an application and a website built on web standards is NOT?
Peter Lillevold
@Kristof I wholeheartedly agree with that, but even would go as far as to say that HTML et al. shows its limits pretty fast. The web is used for things today which it was never made for and which are just a pain implement with its technologies. But then, if I want some app to be usable in a web-browser, flash et al. are *probably* the better way. @Peter I did not say that. I said it's probably better to use flash for applications, *not* that stuff made with flash is automatically is an application and vice versa.
Simon Lehmann
ChrisF
@ChrisF, actually official SL Chrome supports starts with SL4 (currently in beta).
Richard Szalay
+7  A: 

Most of the answers here seem to be people stating that they "hate" 100% Flash sites (not only dislike or not recommend, just HATE like "omg flash sux lolz" kind of hate) and then providing a list of some really weak (and sometimes just untrue) arguments as reasons for that. Although I've addressed some of them in the comments, let me write here a recap of what seem to be here the biggest arguments against full Flash sites and why I don't agree at all with them:

- SEO and Deep linking/Bookmark Problem

SWFAddress. 'Nuff said. It has been around for years, but people still believe that it's impossible to deeplink or bookmark flash content, obviously because they have NEVER bothered to check it, or developed a Flash site and faced the problem (which has been solved for years, like I said). What I find funny is that most of the people seem to recommend/favor Ajax/javascript+XHTML to build dynamic websites... But Ajax content ALSO can't be deep linked, or bookmarked, or indexed by google, unless you use a workaround... which works for Flash content too!

Then, why many full flash sites out there don't implement it? I don't know, maybe is not necessary (like for a game site, an advertisment site... most of The FWA sites) or it could be just a lazy developer (see below).

- Accesibility:

First of all, Flash is very friendly to users with disabilities. You can check the adobe Flash accesibility page but I'll explain: Flash excels at presenting visual and audio content. It is really easy to build controls that change the font size, the contrast of the page, etc. for users that need it. I won't go as far as to say it's as easy to implement as applying custom stylesheets but it's really not a burden/hassle... if you need your site accesible, put your mind into it and implement things right (which is true for all technologies).

Also, disabilities don't only mean short-sighted or color-blindness, for example in my work we provide video on the web in sign language with syncronized text (not subtitles, a full wall-of-text) for deaf people and I really don't think it would be easier to implement using any other technology (and bear in mind I don't say it would be impossible).

- Mobile/Iphone:

To make things clear, it is just not true that Flash content does not run on mobile (that's what flashlite is there for, isn't it?). It is however true that, as for today, many systems (including the iphone) do not support Flash. Is this such a big problem? I don't think so, and please let me elaborate. If I build an awesome XHTML website optimized for 1024x720, with great javascript effects and pretty pictures, I assure you its going to show up horrible on a mobile device (if it even does). I attended a mobile web conference where it was said that the size of a website for mobile should never exceed 20kb... so good luck with that.

Most important websites implement an special site only for mobile, obviously in plain HTML... which is exactly the same you should do for a full Flash site. As for Flash on the iphone, when Flash CS5 comes out and suddenly Flash movies can be compiled into iphone applications, I really see no reason for apple to hold down the iphone flash player any longer. Although it doesn't really bother me, as I said, because I believe the way to go is a mobile-specific version of the web (or even iphone-specific).

To summarize: I find that most arguments aganist Flash are just grudges people hold aganist Flash, which are based on myths that have been around for years but really don't hold true anymore. Many of the arguments apply just the same to bad XHTML/Ajax sites, so most of the time, critics refer to just complains aganist poorly-built Flash sites, so sucky/lazy Flash developers are the ones to blame, not the technology (and the fact that there are many Flash developers out there that come from design and/or don't have a programming background doesn't help at all).

I'll now answer the proposed questions from my perspective (that of a Flash developer):

  • What type of webapps should consider do all the frontend in flash?

From the top of my head:

  • Sites to showcase or advertise a spectacular product, like a car, clothing etc. When you want to impact the user with awesome views and interactivity, Flash is by far the best.

  • Artists porfolios: webs for photographers, musicians, etc. where the artist's work has to be integrated in the site.

  • If you are a Flash developer/work for a Flash developing company, building a full Flash portfolio site makes a lot of sense doesn't it? ;)

  • In general, any site that is more about user experience than data. Please refer to the master Keith Peters from bit101: Flash, what is it good for?

  • Would it be easier? Yes/No, only if you suck at HTML+Ajax but you excel at Flash?

Depending on your needs, Flash very well could be the only tool. Some of the things that are not complicated to build in Flash would be a nightmare to develop in XHTML. Anyways, if you suck at HTML+Ajax, you shouldn't be developing web apps, should you?

  • Is that for everyone?

Hell no. Even I agree that a web consisting of only full Flash sites would be a horror for everyone (except for adobe, I guess).

  • When it should not be used?

I would say that when the site you're building is none of the above :P Absolutely not when text (information) is the most important part of the site.

  • I guess that an extra benefit is that you don't have IE+FF+Opera+Chrome+Safari compatibility problems

Yes, it really is, not only an "extra" benefit but a really huge one.

  • Would this be the next programming model for webapps front end?

This is a tricky question. I really don't see this is a war between 100% Flash/Flex vs 100% XHTML+Ajax sites. Flash/Flex is not there to substitute HTML, but it is a great complement to it. Always use the right tool for the job, and use any technology (or mix) you need as long as you use it wisely. I find it would be equally foolish to implement the wikipedia or your personal blog in Flash, as to build some really spectacular theFWA-style site using XHTML+Ajax.

Sorry for the huge text, and thanks for reading! Looking forward hate comments ;)

danii
"Flash/Flex is not there to substitute HTML" aka pure Flash is not the best idea. You are disagreeing with yourself, and so focused on proving that Flash is equal you fail to show any ways that it is superior, the cost of another kind of technology puts Flash behind IMO if you have to do HTML.In either case this seems less like an answer and more like a blog post.
Guvante
"Flash/Flex is not there to substitute HTML" is not equal in any way to "pure Flash is not the best idea". I guess I have failed miserably, since my whole point was "Really, pure Flash is SOMETIMES the right idea" and "People hate Flash for a biased list of reasons that apply to XHTML as well". In web programming, doing some HTML is almost impossible to avoid, as well as other things like a server side language, a db... I don't understand why would that rule out Flash. Check TheFWA and tell me how many of these sites you could build using XHTML... that is one way Flash is superior.
danii
Well spoken, Danii. I get really irritated at the way this site tends to be a breeding-ground for flash haters - people asking innocent questions about the platform get an earful of vitriol and half-truths and that doesn't do anyone any good. Thanks for providing a balanced look!
Myk