What are your views on websites that use Flash?

[ComplexNumber]

Why does Flash continue its pointless existence?

it occurred to me many moons ago, but after reading this (http://www.webcopyplus.com/content/view/142/62/)website, i decided that i wanted to find out what other people thought.

from what i understand, every web designer seems to want to make his/her website as beautiful as possible. but almost all of them are entirely missing the point and have no clue whatsover about what makes people want to visit their website. the reason why they use flash is more to do with showing off their web design skills than it has to do with making their website friendly, navigable, and usable.

the general rule that i heard donkey's years ago is that if a website takes more than about 3 seconds to load, then people will just go somewhere elsewhere. they won't stick around, even if your website is the epitome of beauty and the information that they are seeking to find on the website is ultra important.

and after reading the above website, it seems that the stance that people have about usability hasn't changed in the last 7 or 8 years.
personally, i find flash to be slow, irritating, totally impractical, utterly annoying, utterly pointless, often crash inducing, useless, pathetic,........i mean, why does it still exist? it has no point whatsoever.

message to any web developers: do yourself and the general internet viewing public a masssive favour and get rid of flash entirely and totally from your websites....please.

so what are your views on flash? do you think that websites shouldn't use it so heavily, do you appreciate the use of websites that use flash, or do you not care one way or the other?

[RandomJoe]

I voted they'd be better without, although I'm not completely against it. There are a very few occasions where I don't mind it. But just about no situations I can think of that would require it.

As long as they don't go overboard with it, it's tolerable to me. But when the site is nothing BUT Flash, even navigation, I just go elsewhere. I use FlashBlock in Firefox, so it's rather humorous to hit some sites that are nothing but empty boxes with "F"s in the middle...

[KiwiNZ]

As long as they provide a link to a non flash version at the very start its cool.

If they dont I tend to exit and go elsewhere. I have broadband so its not a speed issue, well it is , I am impatient , I want it now , not in 20 seconds

[ComplexNumber]

As long as they don't go overboard with ityes, they're the websites that i'm having a go at. those websites that start with music and a flash intro, and that means that when i load such a website at 3am and i've earlier forgotten to turn the sound down after listening to AC/DC loud, it doesn't exactly endear me to others in my house. the navigation is another aspect which completely overlooks an emphasis on usability principles, and sometimes needs people to have a Degree in Orienteering. when i go to a website, i really don't want to marvel at other people's web design skills. i just want to go to the website, get the information that i want, then leave.




I am impatient , I want it now , not in 20 secondsapparently, you are no more impatient than anyone else. thats the way the general public tends to feel, it seems.

[EdThaSlayer]

I don't really mind flash sites too much only if it is really needed.

[mech7]

Flash / Flex is great in the right hands :)

[LookTJ]

I don't like the use of flash at all. Why? Because My computer/OS goes slow.

[Pobega]

I've been without flash for a while, mainly because it's non-free, and I have to say I'm liking the internet a lot more. I don't get any annoying ads, and I can still watch YouTube (Using a Javascript hack), so everything ended up working out in my favor.

Still, sometimes I long to watch videos on random websites using flash; But that's not enough to make me want to ruin my whole flash-free experience, and to go against my Debianistic standards. I'm a free software zealot :)

[raublekick]

Flash is good for sites like youtube. Flas is not good for corporate sites or any other site where text information is what is being served. Websites are for information. Flash hinders the search for information in most cases.

[picpak]

Good for presentation...bad for presenting content.

What I mean is, when it's just used for a logo or something it's nice, but when your entire site DEPENDS on it and shows all its information through it, then it's just annoying.

[Happy_Man]

Flash is good for only about two things:

1. Games
2. Videos

Other than that, it's pretty pointless, IMHO.

[sunexplodes]

I would more or less agree with Happy_Man.

It can be used well for CONTENT or APPLICATIONS but I think it tends to hurt USABILITY. I quite like being able to right click or ctrl-click on a link to get it in a new tab. Sometimes I like to save images to my hard drive. I think it's perfectly possible (and hell, EASY) to design great looking websites without sacrificing usability.

With that said, I love the implementation of flash as the streaming video standard, as opposed to quicktime or wmv or real. Also, I've seen great music jukeboxes done with it (like imeem for example).

[macogw]

Flash is good for sites like youtube. Flas is not good for corporate sites or any other site where text information is what is being served. Websites are for information. Flash hinders the search for information in most cases.

Exactly. If you have text and I can't see the text because I'm blind and my screenreader can't read images of text, you are a BAD web designer and NOT doing your job. If you have text and I can't see the text because I'm using Lynx to browse the web, you are a BAD web designer and NOT doing your job. If your site EVER displays a "loading" bar for something that's not a streaming video, you are a BAD webdesigner and NOT doing your job. I will NEVER use Flash on a site I designed. XHTML + CSS + PHP are all you ever need (and PHP is really just so I don't have to retype too much with site maintenance...of course, it can interface with MySQL in the backend).

Javascript is pretty bad too. It's slow-loading. Javascript shouldn't be used for drop-down menus. CSS can do it (okay, CSS can do it on any good browser or IE7....IE6 requires you include 1 extra file on your server that will run in their browser and make it do the right thing anyway), and CSS takes almost no time to load.

[Hex_Mandos]

I hate Flash with a passion. I hate it because I can't see what it's doing or how it works. I hate it because it powers abusive ads that float on top of what I'm reading. I hate it because it's not transparent, and limits my ability to copy/paste/interact regularly with webpages. But I like it as a technology for streaming video and games. So I use Flashblock. As soon as Gnash works with Youtube, I'm leaving the proprietary plugin.

[saulgoode]

Why should I be interested in a non-standard web interface that takes away my ability to bookmark, navigate a history, use URL macros, abort operations, or track status? Why should I wish to promote the idea that every web page I visit has a unique design and navigation implementation?

No, thank you. If your website is Flash-based, you will have to find some other guinea pig to test out your theories on how W3 standards can be improved. I prefer not to enjoy the "experience" of a new navigation methodology with every website I visit.

With regards to Flash-based content on a webpage: again, no thanks. People are certainly permitted to share files in whatever "members-only", proprietary format they want, however, publishing such content is contradictory to the very concept of "publishing". Proprietary publishing formats are by their very nature doomed to extinction and the sooner they are eliminated, the better. Even Adobe recognizes this fact as part of their philosophy (the following excerpt is from http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp/pdfs/whitepaper.pdf):


The advantage of the proprietary system is the ability to exclude any application or solution vendor from doing any extensions. This narrow and exclusionary philosophy has never been part of the Adobe business philosophy.

The advantage of the semi-proprietary system is that developers "in the family" can have access, but Adobe still controls. The disadvantage is that Adobe has to "reinvent the wheel" and compete with World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards.

Perhaps what tips the balance towards the semantic system developed by the W3C is the leverage it provides. Adobe, its developer partners and its users benefit from hundreds of man-years development, testing and refinement by the experts in the World Wide Web Consortium. The technology is complete, not beta. There are already a variety of toolsets for extension developers available on all platforms.

[Nikron]

Since flash support on linux is minimal, I pretty much hate it.

[dasunst3r]

If Flash is used correctly, then it is a good thing. Indeed, YouTube is a great application of Flash. However, if a site is pure-Flash, then I don't think it's a very good idea. Finally, if an ad takes up all my processing power, then I highly despise it. I have FlashBlock installed in Firefox. Everyone should have it. :)

[kevinlyfellow]

Sites that feature video content should have flash, but for informational sites, flash is annoying. I especially hate how every band's website now is all in flash. I also don't like the hybrid sites, where all the links are in flash for some mysterious reason. Anyways, I find the ff extension flashblock very very helpful.

Whats even worse is that I find flash9 for linux to be unstable (no I'm not using the beta) and uses a lot of processor resources. I hate going to a website that offers one piece of flash content that I'd like to see, and then hit the back button and crash firefox...

Unless a website needs to (like makingfiends.com for instance) an entire website should never be designed completely in flash.

[teet]

I think you need to add another option to the pole.

"I like flash for games or videos, but nothing else"

Flash works great for sites like you tube or google video...it's annoying everywhere else. Luckily, most of the annoying stuff gets filtered out by adblock plus.

-teet

[ComplexNumber]

I think you need to add another option to the pole.

"I like flash for games or videos, but nothing else"

Flash works great for sites like you tube or google video...it's annoying everywhere else. Luckily, most of the annoying stuff gets filtered out by adblock plus.

-teet
i'm not really that keen on adding another option at this stage because it will muddy the result. i guess it would have been ok to add another option during the first 3 or 4 votes, but nobody mentioned it. the 4th option could have been something like: "I like flash for specific types of websites and specific applications only".

[Kernel Sanders]

I HATE flash websites with a passion!

Here's a good example. The official website of Chelsea Football Club in London. They are a massive club, very high profile, and their website is a disgrace. Worst of all, they actually think its awesome, and that their layout and design is forward thinking, and something that others will copy soon enough!

http://www.chelseafc.com/xxchelsea180706/index.html#/page/Homepage

Horrible, horrible website :(

[Tomosaur]

I appreciate good use of Flash - which in my view means it must be minimal and unintrusive (unless of course, I'm watching a Flash movie or playing a game or whatever). I also don't like it when a site is broken just because whatever browser I'm using does not have a flash plugin, or has some other stupid compatibility issue.

Depending on the nature of the website too, Flash can make it difficult to get at content.

I wouldn't miss Flash much if it dissappeared, basically. I would prefer an open alternative to be used, but I'd hold it to the same standards of not getting in my way.

EDIT: Haha, the chelsea website really is awful. Any website which has a 'Learn how to use this website' page clearly has something wrong with it.

[ComplexNumber]

well, it seems like the general consensus so far here at ubuntuforums about what priorities websites should adhere to is pretty much in line with every single survey that i've ever seen, to date. notably that
a) flash definitely should not be used to an extreme in websites. at most, it should be used minimally and with purpose.
b) that navigability, accessibility, clear and clean design with good use of colour to make the site easy on the eye, and loading speed are the number 1 priorities for websites.
c) flash is tolerable/good if it adds to any of the attributes mentioned in b).


take note web designers ;)

[Spr0k3t]

I think it's okay to use flash on a web site, but not used as an intricate portion of the navigation or design. I'm cool with flash adverts and videos as I can block the adverts and download the vids all I want.

[aysiu]

I think Magnatunes makes good use of Flash and so does Google Video.

That's about it.

Frankly, I think even images are overused.

I go to websites for information, not pretty buttons.

[roachk71]

In most respects I have to agree with ComplexNumber: Reliance upon Flash to beautify a website is annoying at least, irritating at most. The practice is resource-intensive, causing slowdowns and crashes.

My only exception has to do with streaming video media: using Flash for that is (in most cases) more compatible with open source browsers [YouTube, Google Video.]
:guitar:

[zubrug]

My kids would not know how to use linux if it was not for flash games.

[jerrylamos]

Flashplayer is easy to install, just copy the flashplayer.so to firefox plugins, small amount of code, and nice and fast on things like YouTube for me. I wouldn't mind if Linux "out of the box" supported internet videos but I can put up with flashplayer installs. I haven't found any Linux media players that will work on all those internet sites.

Missing in Linux is video support for things like ABC News and CNN News so I crank up an XP machine for those. Depending on the Linux reincarnation occasionally CNN news works for a while but ABC news never. Interestingly, BBC News Videos and Australian ABC use reaplayer which works on Linux.

Cheers, Jerry

[Compucore]

When I took programming myself a number of years ago we had a little bit of flash to do as an assignment for our web pages.. I never really liked it even on a web page. I can understand using flash as a medium like creating cartoons like Homestar runner or something similar. Even when I do some updates on my own web page. I keep it out entirely because I have no realy use. Some links here and there and maybe some java here and there for some little effect that are needed. But that is about it.

Compucore

[BWF89]

I hate flash based websites. Most of the time websites that use flash have little or no content. Plus flash makes the website load slower.

[FiggyG]

I hate flash, however it's needed since HTML has been stagnant for a good while.

[Pikestaff]

I'm not a huge fan of websites that use huge, copious amounts of flash for no reason...

But I definitely don't hate flash either, because flash games and cartoons are among my favorite internet hobbies! ;)

[Nonno Bassotto]

The only thing I dislike more than Flash in web sites is the use of Java applets. Quite rare today, but you can still find some.

[Bloodfen Razormaw]

I think Magnatunes makes good use of Flash and so does Google Video.
I'm not a regular user of Google Video, so I don't know if it does anything special, but how exactly is Google's use of Flash good? As far as the video display goes, they could easily distribute video using the HTML standards for embedding multimedia in a site and not use proprietary and non-portable solutions like Flash.

[PartisanEntity]

You should have added a 'Depends on the Content' poll option.

I think Flash can be quite well implemented for artistic web content. For displaying portfolios, certain galleries and such content.

It really depends what you do with it, I don't have a problem with minimalistic use of Flash.

[RichPeter]

I read the article at Webcopyplus and agree with most of you, flash is pretty, but at the end of the day, it's a pretty big waste of time. Some designers and developers believe in it only because that's the only program they know. Or they just don't give a crap about their customers and results...for them appearance is everything.

[compmodder26]

I don't have a problem with Flash itself. I do have a problem with webmasters who use it exclusively, thus breaking any ADA compliance and usability for those without javascript.

[bobbocanfly]

I dont have a problem with Flash sites as long as they have a HTML Version and if they dont go overboard. I hate going to flash only sites because normally if the developer is rubbish enough not to include a HTML Version the rest of the site will be awful.

[Paul820]

I voted against it. I don't like images flashing around all over the page i'm trying to read it. It's distracting. I have the firefox flashblock plugin installed so if i need to see something, like youtube for instance, i just have to click the 'f' to start it.

[steeleyuk]

I don't mind Flash on a proof of concept basis or a site that wants to showcase something. For example, a music artists website or a site promoting a film.

But I dislike sites which use Flash extensively and are providing a service. I'm looking at you Beatport (http://www.beatport.com/)...

... and don't get me started on Flash banners.

[Compucore]

A push button here or there is not so bad. But when you make it completely out of flash. And with some computer systems that are not up to date with processing power and ram can take a longer time. I prefer without all the Massive headaches that flash has. I personally would rather combine the good things from each tech nology. For example. sometime I use java to make menu's for web sites. Other times. I use other applications that creat css for me other times. Its strictly html or a variant that will work under all browsers so it is not strictly just a single browser that you must have in order to view it. That for me is a better way of working with the best of each.

Compucore

[JC_510]

Flash works great for sites like you tube or google video...it's annoying everywhere else. Luckily, most of the annoying stuff gets filtered out by adblock plus.


I agree, flash is great for games, and videos (ie, items embedded in webpages). Its when a website is built entirely on flash that I get annoyed. It means I can't open links in new tabs!!

Websites that automatically start up with sounds without giving you a warning or an option beforehand should be banned.

[forrestcupp]

If all the website has is static information, then yes, Flash is overkill. But not every website is only static information. For instance, my brother is trying to learn guitar, and he showed me a website that teaches chords. With this Flash-based website you can click on a chord and it shows you on a guitar picture how to finger it. You can also place your own fingering on the fretboard, and it tells you what the chord is. How are you going to do things like this without using Flash, or something similar?

As technology advances, the web is becoming much more than just static info. Now you can use these tools for interactive learning, games, etc. The limits are only people's imaginations.

[Gargamella]

I do websites with flash and I think it is not right saying that flash is evil, because it has a lot of functions, can make you have fun or entertein, then it may be a good idea having the site in flash and non flash version.
But anyway I think it is an important feature of web.

[JC_510]

If all the website has is static information, then yes, Flash is overkill. But not every website is only static information. For instance, my brother is trying to learn guitar, and he showed me a website that teaches chords. With this Flash-based website you can click on a chord and it shows you on a guitar picture how to finger it. You can also place your own fingering on the fretboard, and it tells you what the chord is. How are you going to do things like this without using Flash, or something similar?

As technology advances, the web is becoming much more than just static info. Now you can use these tools for interactive learning, games, etc. The limits are only people's imaginations.

Got a link? I'm probably on a similar stage as your brother guitar-wise. Just learning chords. Website sounds good...

[forrestcupp]

Got a link? I'm probably on a similar stage as your brother guitar-wise. Just learning chords. Website sounds good...

The website is http://www.chordbook.com/

It's pretty cool.

[juxtaposed]

Good for games, but i'd rather have a good old fashion text + pictures, simple but effective web site.

[cunawarit]

As a Web developer, and I don't like most uses of it.

As long as Flash is adding to the clarity, redability, or content of the site I am OK with it. But far too often it gets used to simply make a fancy looking site that lacks content, clarity, and is cumbersome.

One thing is true though, quite often clients love Flash eye candy. So you can't blame the developers for doing it.

[RAV TUX]

Why does Flash continue its pointless existence?

it occurred to me many moons ago, but after reading this (http://www.webcopyplus.com/content/view/142/62/)website, i decided that i wanted to find out what other people thought.

from what i understand, every web designer seems to want to make his/her website as beautiful as possible. but almost all of them are entirely missing the point and have no clue whatsover about what makes people want to visit their website. the reason why they use flash is more to do with showing off their web design skills than it has to do with making their website friendly, navigable, and usable.

the general rule that i heard donkey's years ago is that if a website takes more than about 3 seconds to load, then people will just go somewhere elsewhere. they won't stick around, even if your website is the epitome of beauty and the information that they are seeking to find on the website is ultra important.

and after reading the above website, it seems that the stance that people have about usability hasn't changed in the last 7 or 8 years.
personally, i find flash to be slow, irritating, totally impractical, utterly annoying, utterly pointless, often crash inducing, useless, pathetic,........i mean, why does it still exist? it has no point whatsoever.

message to any web developers: do yourself and the general internet viewing public a masssive favour and get rid of flash entirely and totally from your websites....please.

so what are your views on flash? do you think that websites shouldn't use it so heavily, do you appreciate the use of websites that use flash, or do you not care one way or the other?

Thank Goodness for
Flashblock (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/433)


and

Adblock Plus (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865)

[Nonno Bassotto]

Sometime I use java to make menu's for web sites.

I hope you meant Javascript. Having Java open just for the menus seems so 1990s...

[bigboy_pdb]

It seems as though flash is an abomination that is out of control. I see so many sites that use it needlessly. Most sites don't require anything other than HTML, XHTML, or XML and XSLT, along with CSS and possibly some images.

There are some cases where using it can be justified. For example, sites with videos or interactive media (such as content for learning) might require it. Outside of this it shouldn't be used. It also keeps people with disabilities from being able to read site content.

Some people mentioned that they prefer a site that has an option where you can choose between a flash and HTML version of the site, and other people mentioned that they don't want to wait the extra load time. If I'm not going to be visiting the site repeatedly then I can tolerate some loading time, but from a design perspective I don't think alternate versions of a site should be offered because it's unnecessary.

I'm wondering if the use of flash has a positive or negative effect on sales for businesses. Is there anyone who knows of a source that argues for either of these cases? Thank you if you do.

[kamaboko]

There is good flash and bad flash, just as there is good html and bad html.

A few examples of good flash:

http://www.fordvehicles.com/
http://www.plugintomarriott.com/
http://www.sixtailer.com/2sixv2/pc_index.html (flash developer. does nice stuff)

[saulgoode]

It seems as though flash is an abomination that is out of control. I see so many sites that use it needlessly. Most sites don't require anything other than HTML, XHTML, or XML and XSLT, along with CSS and possibly some images.

There are some cases where using it can be justified. For example, sites with videos or interactive media (such as content for learning) might require it. Outside of this it shouldn't be used. It also keeps people with disabilities from being able to read site content.

Some good points there. I would add that a Flash website precludes the visitor from navigating a history, bookmarking pages, and linking to a specific section of a website.

As for video, there are better solutions available (http://www.flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/Website/films.html). ;)

[tgalati4]

Excessive use of Flash is similar to what happened to FM radio in the States, or MTV.

[DirtDawg]

Flash bothers me when it's used unnecessarily (which is most of the time). Especially for ridiculous trash like rollover menu effects. I mean, come on; L to the A to the Z to the Y.

It can really make navigation difficult for the visually impaired or others with disabilities (like PPC Linux users).

[bigboy_pdb]

I also forgot to mention that spider bots for search engines sometimes have problems with trying to index flash content. This usually happens when sites are completely created using flash.

See the section entitled "Flash" on this page:
http://googlesitemapwizard.com/spider/

[proalan]

In general most sites don't need flash at all. Its has deep accessiblity issues, wastes bandwith. There are some good sites that are exclusively use flash like newgrounds, it works well, but in my view it should only be used for timewaster sites you may visit during lunch or something.

[Nonno Bassotto]

There is good flash and bad flash, just as there is good html and bad html.

A few examples of good flash:

http://www.fordvehicles.com/
http://www.plugintomarriott.com/
http://www.sixtailer.com/2sixv2/pc_index.html (flash developer. does nice stuff)


I have to disagree. The Ford site is nice, but could have been done almost identical with css only and surely identical with ajax.

The other two are just annoying. Both feature two of the worst things you can put on any site: an introduction and music background. Apart from this, sixtailer is at least visually nice. Did I mention he uses popups (ugh!) too?

[mips]

I hate flash websites. Give me good layed out W3C compliant site over flash any day.

[Enverex]

I think the worst thing is Flash adverts that have sound (anyone remember the one with the fly swatter?). Flash NEEDS an option to disable sound.

You don't realise how popular Flash is though until you're stuck being unable to install it (can't find any way to get it to work on Ubuntu 7.10 x86_64, it doesn't work with nspluginwrapper).

[stmiller]

This site uses quite a lot of flash:

http://www.digidesign.com/

It doesn't work so well with anything but macromedia/adobe flash. Gnash sort of works here but not 100%.

[RichPeter]

I have to disagree. The Ford site is nice, but could have been done almost identical with css only and surely identical with ajax.

The other two are just annoying. Both feature two of the worst things you can put on any site: an introduction and music background. Apart from this, sixtailer is at least visually nice. Did I mention he uses popups (ugh!) too?

Amen, Nonno.

As a specialized enhancement tool -- it works great! But to base an entire site on Flash doesn't do anyone favors, especially the poor sucker trying to use the site.

For example, look at www.blprnt.com/ and rate its usability. Creative? Definitely! Useful? Come on...

I located the actual poll results at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/4/prweb519287.htm and wasn't surprised to see only about 6% of web users put much weight on appearance. Those using Flash excessively should start paying attention.

[neorou]

It seems like the whole "I use Windows cause I have to" comment.

I'm no big fan of Flash myself, but it seems a lot of things could be done better with flash. I wonder what would have happened if Adobe didn't buy Macromedia.
Creating Flash content is a cool idea, it sucks to have to use it because of the money issue. I keep hoping there would be a specific ubuntu package build for this:
http://f4l.sourceforge.net/

At least I could use it if I had to.

[runningwithscissors]

I hate flash. The internet isn't ******* television. Keep your "streaming" pile of flash garbage to yourselves.

[Linux Killer!]

The internet isn't ******* television.
It might as well be now, what with more powerful computers and broadband. I don't even watch that much TV anymore - YouTube's a lot more interesting. :)

Flash is fine as long as it's done well. That is, if it's going to take a while to load itself, a loading progress bar or percentage is necessary, at least for usability sake. Ads sucks in Flash of course, but it still has many uses.

[runningwithscissors]

It might as well be now, what with more powerful computers and broadband. I don't even watch that much TV anymore - YouTube's a lot more interesting. :)
I'd hate for a brilliant medium like the Internet to be turned into the state TV is in right now, dumbed down and completely in control of those controlling the distribution channels.
The Internet is a great resource for sharing all manner of information, and despite the prevalence of braindead entertainment junkies, I hope it isn't reduced to just another idiotic medium for entertainment.

[bvanaerde]

What bothers me most, are informative websites that use flash.
Not to speak about the accessibility of these websites...

[ShareBuntu]

One advantage to flash is that it reduces bandwidth costs for streaming audio and video. I think its application should be limited to just that. Linux is getting better support for flash. The guys at Gnash are doing great work!

[Enverex]

Bytes;2857681']One advantage to flash is that it reduces bandwidth costs for streaming audio and video. I think its application should be limited to just that. Linux is getting better support for flash. The guys at Gnash are doing great work!

Heh, visited a site earlier that had Flash on it (must have been something small, didn't notice it) my 2GB RAM got used in seconds and my machine slowed down so much the mouse wouldn't even move. Gnash was using it all and killing the machine :(

[ShareBuntu]

Heh, visited a site earlier that had Flash on it (must have been something small, didn't notice it) my 2GB RAM got used in seconds and my machine slowed down so much the mouse wouldn't even move. Gnash was using it all and killing the machine :(
I certainly dislike flash, but never had a problem whilst running into it on Windows machines. Gnash is making tremendous progress though. It takes up a lot of cpu cycles but at least it doesn't crash Firefox like flashplugin-nonfree.

[iceportal]

My problem with flash isn't with Linux/Windows/Mac. I personally believe that Flash can be useful, but it's not a good idea to have a fully-flash-based site. The fact is, Flash can never compete with the utter simplicity and ease of use of HTML/Javascript/PHP/MySQL/CSS/etc.

A fully dynamic website is a breeze to develop in PHP/ASP.NET, and when something needs to be changed, it's a relatively simple task. Also, page load times are limited only by the server's processing and internet speed (for the most part). And when users have older computers or slower connections, pure HTML output loads quickly and easily. Even AJAX pages load relatively quickly. And with proper CSS and Graphic Design work, pages can look and feel beautiful.

Meanwhile, Flash takes a good bit of time and graphic design talent to put together a site. And if something wants to be changed, either you take a much longer time developing a fully dynamic site, or you constantly update and change and recompile the flash every time you need something different. Not to mention, if you ever need to change the code that loads your dynamic page, you'll have to recompile it anyways. Page load times increase with the complexity of your flash document, and this lag isn't defined by the server, but by the capability of the computer loading the flash document. This means that users on slower systems will find the website extremely frustrating. Yes, flash can be beautiful, but (for the most part) it should never be used for the entire content of a site.

As stated earlier, flash is great for videos and games, and even for logos or other (small) additions to HTML websites. But for site design and content, it's best to stick to HTML/CSS.

[dizee]

I have no problem with it being used for specific media content on a website, but menus etc should never be using it, it's very annoying when websites are designed completely off it.

[andyho]

Wow.. I think this thread was a little dead, but I just stumbled upon it and thought I'd vote anyways.. I don't care one way or the other if sites have flash. I do think they look prettier and well, flashy! :rolleyes: However, sites built completely with Flash are not SEO friendly whatsoever! So if you're looking to place high on a search, sucks to be you! Which is one thing a lot of people don't think about... but at the same time I've seen sites completely built from images, and well that's just idiotic as well! Some companies don't really have to worry about that though; Sony, Disney, Oprah. Ya know.. they could have all the Flash they want! Well, there's my $.02! :popcorn:

[geoken]

Being a Flash developer I love Flash. For the record it's pretty easy to have a flash site rank high, it's just needs to have some html text below it. My wife has a Pole Dance and Fitness studio. Her site is full browser flash. If you search Pole Dancing on google her site will be on the first page. If you search Pole Dancing on google.ca her page will be in the top 3 or 4. Her site has only been up since March or Feb IIRC and we really haven't even tried to target non local users because, bieng a fitness studio, she's only looking to reach out to people with in a certain vicinity.

It's way faster to develop something in flash than it is to develop the identical thing in HTML/CSS or AJAX. It's also pretty easy to offer back, forward and reload button support with deep linking as well.

[K.Mandla]

In my mind, using Flash is a cover-up for not having anything of value on a site. It's easy to trickle some fancy graphics on an otherwise lame site, but that's lipstick on a pig.

If I need something off your site and it uses too much Flash, I'll browse it with elinks. But otherwise, I look elsewhere.

[RageOfOrder]

The only time I don't like flash sites is when I work on my Gentoo box. It's 64-bit and there's no 64 bit flash player yet, so I have to result to a 32 bit binary, which defeats the purpose of me compiling my own packages, and having a 64 bit environment.

With slackware on my laptop, I don't give a ****. It's 32 bit and mostly binary anyways so flash isn't a big issue.

Edit: Your forums are lame. I can't swear.

[Dimitriid]

Strongly against flash use, the next step is propietary adobe markup text protocol, then one for microsoft ( already on the plans I understand ) then it is another victory of capitalism managing to extinguish the life of yet another free exchange of information.

[lunaz]

i'm visually impaired so i hate it unless it's something like youtube or google video. :P

things i like:
-firefox + scroll wheel = bigger/smaller text as needed.
-easy navigation/access to content
-ctrl + f, and keyboard input

things i hate:
-low contrast text/backgrounds like gray on white which seems to be the in thing now...
-internet explorer
-graphical navigaion (only)

[rolando2424]

things i hate:
-low contrast text/backgrounds like gray on white which seems to be the in thing now...


You can choose personalized colors on Firefox, just go to Edit, Preferences, tab Contents, Button Colors, and untick the "Allow pages to use their own colors", then just set the colors on that menu :D (The sites will look odd of a while, but then you'll get used to it.

Also, I think that if the website is essentially in flash, it's a waste of my time, especially because of my 1gb data cap (yeah, it sucks). Of course, if the page is from an artist designer, showing his work, and he can make a pretty site in flash to show off, I don't mind.

[geoken]

Also, I think that if the website is essentially in flash, it's a waste of my time, especially because of my 1gb data cap (yeah, it sucks). Of course, if the page is from an artist designer, showing his work, and he can make a pretty site in flash to show off, I don't mind.

If a Flash site is heavy it's because the designer made the desicion to add a lot of graphical content. It's no different than an HTML designer using a large amount of images to achieve the look they were going for.

For example, a flash image gallery is relatively the same size as a php/html image gallery.

[hiloguy]

I've been without flash for a while, mainly because it's non-free, and I have to say I'm liking the internet a lot more. I don't get any annoying ads, and I can still watch YouTube (Using a Javascript hack), so everything ended up working out in my favor.

Still, sometimes I long to watch videos on random websites using flash; But that's not enough to make me want to ruin my whole flash-free experience, and to go against my Debianistic standards. I'm a free software zealot :)



Could you please direct me to that Javascript hack?

Thanks!

[TenPlus1]

Keep flash for cool stuff like movies, games or fancy assed animations, but make it so you have to click on it first...

[metalguy639]

From a web designers point of view using flash is useless banter that is not needed on a site. It takes too long to load and is really not practical for a business site whatsoever.

[perlluver]

I can't stand flash, wish it would go away. But I know it is here to stay. Blah!!!

[SupaSonic]

Flash is useless. It provides content in a way unfamiliar to a user. You sometimes can't copy text, can't download images, can't open links in new tabs, often can't press the back button. All of it for some useless eye-candy, which is pretty slow. And that's when flash is working properly.

[geoken]

From a web designers point of view using flash is useless banter that is not needed on a site. It takes too long to load and is really not practical for a business site whatsoever.

Do you also refrain from using CSS and images which make a site load slower and are not 'needed'?

[geoken]

All of it for some useless eye-candy, which is pretty slow. And that's when flash is working properly.

For someone so against useless, bandwidth sapping eye candy, you sure didn't think twice about contributing to slow page loads with your useless avatar.

/tongue in cheek

[billgoldberg]

Why does Flash continue its pointless existence?

it occurred to me many moons ago, but after reading this (http://www.webcopyplus.com/content/view/142/62/)website, i decided that i wanted to find out what other people thought.

from what i understand, every web designer seems to want to make his/her website as beautiful as possible. but almost all of them are entirely missing the point and have no clue whatsover about what makes people want to visit their website. the reason why they use flash is more to do with showing off their web design skills than it has to do with making their website friendly, navigable, and usable.

the general rule that i heard donkey's years ago is that if a website takes more than about 3 seconds to load, then people will just go somewhere elsewhere. they won't stick around, even if your website is the epitome of beauty and the information that they are seeking to find on the website is ultra important.

and after reading the above website, it seems that the stance that people have about usability hasn't changed in the last 7 or 8 years.
personally, i find flash to be slow, irritating, totally impractical, utterly annoying, utterly pointless, often crash inducing, useless, pathetic,........i mean, why does it still exist? it has no point whatsoever.

message to any web developers: do yourself and the general internet viewing public a masssive favour and get rid of flash entirely and totally from your websites....please.

so what are your views on flash? do you think that websites shouldn't use it so heavily, do you appreciate the use of websites that use flash, or do you not care one way or the other?

I also don't get flash.

In some cases I can tolerate it. Take a website for some rave party, those I can tolerate (example: http://www.ilovetechno.be/2008/)

In other cases I hate flash websites.

A website that uses flash to stream videos I can also tolerate, but I would prefer something else.

[hessiess]

Do you also refrain from using CSS and images which make a site load slower and are not 'needed'?

CSS is faster than tables, formatting tags and frames simply because there's much less code.

personally I don't mind flash for things like embedded video. for everything else its useless.

[geoken]

CSS is faster than tables, formatting tags and frames simply because there's much less code.

personally I don't mind flash for things like embedded video. for everything else its useless.

I think you missed my point, namely that everything beyond completely un-formatted HTML could be deemed technically useless since it's just a dressing for the information.

When you say inline formatting is slower do you mean from a coding perspective? Because if you use a good code editor adding 'b' or 'u' tags usually involves hitting a single hotkey combo. If you're reffering to more advanced formatting (line styles, bg colors, etc) then you're getting back to my main point where you're admitting that a 'flashy' appearance is an important part of the site.

[geoken]

As an aside, how many of you are equally opposed to the Canvas tag already supported by webkit and gecko, and to become official in HTML 5?

[tdrusk]

I prefer really light websites such as Debian's (http://www.debian.org) and Richard Stallmans (http://www.stallman.org). It is not necessary to have a flash website.

The only time I use flash for my blog is for embedded media just because blogger converts your video to flash. It's just easier.

[hessiess]

I think you missed my point, namely that everything beyond completely un-formatted HTML could be deemed technically useless since it's just a dressing for the information.

When you say inline formatting is slower do you mean from a coding perspective? Because if you use a good code editor adding 'b' or 'u' tags usually involves hitting a single hotkey combo. If you're reffering to more advanced formatting (line styles, bg colors, etc) then you're getting back to my main point where you're admitting that a 'flashy' appearance is an important part of the site.

fair enough, although web users have become accustomed to more graphical ways of displaying information.

A site with good code structure, using only CSS can be displayed however you please, if you disable CSS, the page is essentially raw HTML, and displays as sutch. i.e. I have firefox set up to change the background colour of all pages to mid-gray. not because it looks good, but because its a hell of a lot easier to reed.

From a code point of view CSS is easier than in-line formatting because you can have one .css file controling the display of the entire website, so to change the look of the site you only have to change one file instead of N number of files, as you have to do with in-line formatting.
less code = less time spend downloading the code and displaying it.

[saulgoode]

I prefer really light websites such as Debian's (http://www.debian.org) and Richard Stallmans (http://www.stallman.org). It is not necessary to have a flash website.

By Slackware (http://slackware.com/) standards, those sites are gawdy, bloated monstrosities. :lolflag:

[Prefix100]

None of the options in the poll fit my opinion.

There are two types of websites when it comes to flash or non-flash.

Sites like Google where people visit for one simple function should defiantly not use flash. Sites that need PHP or other code can't and shouldn't use flash.

However, sites which require alot of media, such as band sites, should use flash because it puts them ahead of their competition, and it suits the objective.

I would give more details on my points but im to tired right now.

[inagaddadavida]

I have to agree with the majority here...if your website is not showing video, why use flash?

[tdrusk]

By Slackware (http://slackware.com/) standards, those sites are gawdy, bloated monstrosities. :lolflag:
Are you talking about Slackware's website or distribution? If you are talking about websites, how is Slackware's lighter than Stallmans? (I'm looking to be educated, not starting an argument)

[geoken]

fair enough, although web users have become accustomed to more graphical ways of displaying information.

A site with good code structure, using only CSS can be displayed however you please, if you disable CSS, the page is essentially raw HTML, and displays as sutch. i.e. I have firefox set up to change the background colour of all pages to mid-gray. not because it looks good, but because its a hell of a lot easier to reed.

From a code point of view CSS is easier than in-line formatting because you can have one .css file controling the display of the entire website, so to change the look of the site you only have to change one file instead of N number of files, as you have to do with in-line formatting.
less code = less time spend downloading the code and displaying it.

Don't get me wrong, I totally advocate CSS. I was just trying to play devils advocate and point out that saying 'a website with N amount of graphical content is OK but a website with N+1 amount of graphical is bad' constitutes a completely arbitrary statement. My basic point was that if someone is going to claim graphics are useless when arguing against flash, then they also need to adopt that stance to any site that doesn't look like Stallmans. They should, for example, also go to Firefox's website and deride them for the extraneous use of images.

[aysiu]

Text content is not the only reason to visit a website. Some people go for images or for video.

If you're using Flash for multimedia (videos or audio), that makes sense.

Flash for menus is extraneous, as you can get pretty-looking menus with CSS.

[mrgnash]

I like Flash for video content (although I think ogg theora would be 1000x better), and that's why I have Swfdec installed. Apart from that, I really don't like it too much at all. There's so much you can achieve these days with Ajax, DHTML, CSS, etc.

[swoll1980]

I believe the functionality that flash brings to a website is invaluable. I don't particularly care which app it is that brings that functionality. Is there a better alternative? It can be over used though, and often is.

[oedipuss]

What I don't understand, is why use flash for pointless things like ad banners, that can be done just as easily with even an animated gif.

You lose functionality (left click, ctrl click), use more resources and have a partially closed format as a web standard. Even for streaming video, I'd much prefer an alternative way, like the html5 video tag, over flash.
That being said, flash has its uses, just not as an indispensable part of websites.

[kvarley]

I think sites which use flash are acceptable as long as it isn't all flash and you can easily bookmark pages and link to pages.

I hate it when all you get is one embeded flash file which is the whole site, so you can't link to any of the pages and have to go through the sites sections every time just to find the thing you were looking for.

[richg]

I have no problem with them. I use Mozilla Flash Blocker.

http://flashblock.mozdev.org/

Rich

[Giant Speck]

Well, there are certain websites where the use of flash makes sense, like Pandora radio. I don't see how it could run without using flash.

[Rokurosv]

I don't mind. If you use Flash make sure it's not heavy and that the interface is nice. I like CSS/Javascript sites better but a well designed flash site can be quite nice.

[gnomeuser]

If they must, couldn't they at least use Silverlight. That way I would have a fully compliant implementation in Free Software I could use.

Flash really is a plague, it's crashy, prone to failure and it isn't open in any useful sense of the word.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

As a general rule I've found that the more Flash a website uses the less actual content there is that's worth looking at. Whenever a new movie or video game comes out the official websites are usually constructed entirely with Flash. And most of the time there is very little actual content. You can find out a lot more by going to that movie or videogame's Wikipedia entry instead of it's official website.

Flash is good for things such as online videos and web games. But not for website navigation. If you want to make a website and use cool drop down menus or whatnot just code it with JavaScript instead.

I wonder if/when I'll be able to replace Adobe's proprietary Flash player with Gnash?