or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › NPR, WSJ plan Flash-free Web sites for Apple iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NPR, WSJ plan Flash-free Web sites for Apple iPad - Page 2

post #41 of 60
Bu bye flash!!!!!
post #42 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfoolery View Post

Sorry, but I'm not seeing any Flash on that site either. I've got Click to Flash installed, so if it were there I'd see big gear icons or whatever. I haven't spotted any. Not even that video on the about page you linked earlier.

http://docs.jquery.com/Tutorials:Qui...8Screencast%29

Is another. The video on the about page is a link that loads the Flash into a div but it is broken sort of so you may have to right click in Click2Flash and choose Load Flash in order to view it. Nevertheless, Flash is everywhere on the Net so don't go too picky on saying you can't find any examples.

Also if you code your embed tag with a CSS background image you don't see the gray boxes or gear icon on iPhone or Click2Flash

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #43 of 60
Anyway I'm not going to argue with anyone about Flash. If you don't like it don't use it. If I want to use it for some reason I will use it. I just think it is silly to think it is going away anytime soon. There are 1000s of people who own web sites that ask their web developers for Flash everyday because they think it is cool. Regardless of what you think, Flash/Actionscript is going to be relevant for for a few more years minimum even for video. HTML 5 editor Ian Hickson expects W3C will likely finalize the proposed recommendation in 2022.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #44 of 60
I think its premature of Apple to try to kill flash, because there is so much great stuff on the web that will be there for years. Also, HTML5 simply can't duplicate all that flash can do, so in terms of interactive material, it is a step backwards in interface quality. Flash should be allowed to decline at its own pace, when there are equal or better tools to replace it. I think its disingenuous of Apple to say "flash is a dying technology" while simultaneously stabbing it. It suits their business needs to say so, but it doesn't suit the resources of website operators or the legions of simple web users who want to be able surf the web as it is now, not as it will be in 4 years time. If you agree sign my online petition at http://flash4ipad.com/flash-for-ipad-petition
post #45 of 60
Anyone want to buy a MacBook Air? I'm not joking.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #46 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Anyway I'm not going to argue with anyone about Flash. If you don't like it don't use it. If I want to use it for some reason I will use it. I just think it is silly to think it is going away anytime soon. There are 1000s of people who own web sites that ask their web developers for Flash everyday because they think it is cool. Regardless of what you think, Flash/Actionscript is going to be relevant for for a few more years minimum even for video. HTML 5 editor Ian Hickson expects W3C will likely finalize the proposed recommendation in 2022.

I think most of us understand that flash isn't disappearing, but it's dominance in web video might very well be coming to an end, even though it will be used and needed for a while. Now maybe it'll be 50-50 instead of 90-10.

On our side of the argument, flash is a legacy technology that was never optimized for delivering rich content efficiently anyway (look at it's development history and performance). You really need a pretty powerful machine to play flash well which kind of leaves out netbooks and tablets and now we have a way of delivering rich content to mobile computers that doesn't degrade the experience if it's scaled up to a desktop or laptop and in fact in most cases it will only improve it.

Just a thought, but if Apple's in a rush to get there no one's going to be upset except maybe Adobe.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #47 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

The writing's on the wall.

If your content doesn't play nicely with Apple devices, you're doing it wrong.

It's about time,. We were ignored for decades by pretty much everybody except Microsoft and macromedia.
post #48 of 60
The phraze "if users dig deeper into the site they will find pages that are unconverted" is troubling. If they only do the front page news as iPad friendly, its almost not worth it. I applaud the effort, but WSJ has no excuse for half baked iPad apps considering they've had some advanced knowledge.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #49 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

I program about 85% to 90% flash. I like it a lot ... as a matter of fact I have at least 5 sites that are 100% flash. One html page with flash movies loading and unloading as needed.

I welcome flash's depart for one reason and one reason only.

MOBILE Sites

Not just talking iphone here. No mobile device parses it properly. Obviously this is a big issue for adobe ... if they don't hurry up, not sure it can survive in future.

Just mobility in general. It is slow loading no matter what you use to load it, if you are on the go (notebooks on wifi included.) I like what you can do with it, but the cost (loading times) is not worth the benefit (good looking). I'd rather have a slightly less "rich" appearance, and go for functionality and speed.
Take for example, Cisco's entire web-based curriculum, Net Academy. There is no reason it needs to be Flash. Navigation is a pain in the ass, and you can't print easily from the site. Maybe the print thing is by design, but the navigation part still sucks.
post #50 of 60
I think it's amazing to see so many companies go out of their way to accommodate the iPhone/iPad with new apps and now websites. However, I found a curious situation the other day:

I was on DisneyMovieClub.com using Safari and was prompted to use FireFox instead. I got a chuckle thinking about Steve's reaction in finding this out - being he is one of the biggest shareholders of Disney.
In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Reply
In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Reply
post #51 of 60
This entire debate with regard to create a flash site or create an alternative seems to be driven by incompetence. Two sites are not needed, any competent developer using flash elements should already be using detection scripts browser/plug-in and automatically providing alternative elements where the required plug-ins are not available.

That sites such as WSJ do not already do this is utterly ridiculous - if I were to present work to a client that wasn't built to work on any platform - plug-in or not - I'd lose the contract.

There should be no flash OR html5 debate, it should be a debate about web standards, accessibility and competent developers doing their jobs properly. Flash can achieve things that no other technology currently can, that it's currently being used for video delivery is irrelevant - it was never intended to deliver video and there are already plenty of alternatives out there that don't use flash - again it's lazy/incompetent designers using pre-built/off the shelf flash delivery components rather than having the technical competence to deliver video using quicktime etc. etc. - html5 is not required to replace flash for video delivery and those that are stating that html5 will 'kill' flash frankly have no idea what they're talking about.

The whole idea of modern web development is that content is modular and separated from style/aesthetic - a professionally developed site should detect it's environment, load the required CSS/content modules/detect plug-in development and deliver accordingly. There should not be "two versions of the site" there should be one professionally developed web solution that fits all platforms. If people can't achieve this, they really shouldn't be calling themselves web developers, and they certainly wouldn't be employed by my company.
post #52 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

those that are stating that html5 will 'kill' flash frankly have no idea what they're talking about.

Steve is the one who will kill flash!
post #53 of 60
Until advertisers start ditching Flash, this is meaningless. There's no way even die-hard Flash-haters like Prince McLean will go Flash-free until that happens.
post #54 of 60
Sure you can remove Flash from places in favor of HTML5 but you can't do absolutely everything as well.

For instance in the argument for Silverlight, Windows Phone 7 whole interface is basically Silverlight, the same as the browser plug in. If HTML5 was as good, then why isn't the whole iPhone interface just made in HTML?
post #55 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

This entire debate with regard to create a flash site or create an alternative seems to be driven by incompetence. Two sites are not needed, any competent developer using flash elements should already be using detection scripts browser/plug-in and automatically providing alternative elements where the required plug-ins are not available.

That sites such as WSJ do not already do this is utterly ridiculous - if I were to present work to a client that wasn't built to work on any platform - plug-in or not - I'd lose the contract.

There should be no flash OR html5 debate, it should be a debate about web standards, accessibility and competent developers doing their jobs properly. Flash can achieve things that no other technology currently can, that it's currently being used for video delivery is irrelevant - it was never intended to deliver video and there are already plenty of alternatives out there that don't use flash - again it's lazy/incompetent designers using pre-built/off the shelf flash delivery components rather than having the technical competence to deliver video using quicktime etc. etc. - html5 is not required to replace flash for video delivery and those that are stating that html5 will 'kill' flash frankly have no idea what they're talking about.

The whole idea of modern web development is that content is modular and separated from style/aesthetic - a professionally developed site should detect it's environment, load the required CSS/content modules/detect plug-in development and deliver accordingly. There should not be "two versions of the site" there should be one professionally developed web solution that fits all platforms. If people can't achieve this, they really shouldn't be calling themselves web developers, and they certainly wouldn't be employed by my company.

+1! Very well said!

My biggest pet-peeve is when a so-called "web developer" users Flash for navigation.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #56 of 60
Interesting, it downloads an .flv format file which I can play in Quicktime, so where's the Flash?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

http://jquery.org/about
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #57 of 60
Those publication's will get LOT'S of new reader's because if it. Others will go bankrupt, like these:

—Mail Online MD James Bromley: “These are still really really embryonic devices that are great and fantastic, and I want to be at the top of the queue to buy one and play with it. But we’re talking about a very, very narrow subsection of society that will have these in 2010. This is the time that we learn about these devices – ‘11, ‘12, ‘13 is when these might become slightly more mainstream.”

—Conde Nast Digital UK manager Emanuela Pignataro: “E-readers will be the novelty of 2010. I don’t think it is a short-term adoption – it will take years.”

—Thomson Reuters consumer GM Tim Faircliff: “I don’t think we’re quite there yet.”

—Incisive Media digital manager John Barnes: “The issue with tablets is, they’re not really servicing the needs of color, with graphics and diagrams – it’s a bit like version one of the iPod.”
post #58 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Winsness View Post

Bu bye flash!!!!!

Bahhh

This is simply AI spreading F-U-D pure and simple...

Inexcusable! Especially when we __ALL__ know that it's totally impossible to build a web site today without FLASH...
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #59 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

That's a pretty broad statement to be true. allot of us do write code and in fact it's been my experience that web devs are the biggest proponents of HTML5.

BTW. Just took a look at jquery.org and there doesn't seem to be any flash. Are you unfamiliar with code yourself? I know allot of our clients think we've used flash for animated menus etc. If I'm mistaken please share.

I've already switched to jQuery and CSS3 using things like Lightbox but then again I'm not creating complex animations etc. I want to Flash to disappear too but how is non Flash technology going to create those big time animated Flash sites that big corporations like Universal Studios, movie companies etc use for promotions? I mean those are hugely complex full on animated web sites.
post #60 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

Why limit it to just the iPad/iPhone?

I want it for my everyday (desktop) browsing too !!

Safari, Develop menu, User Agent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › NPR, WSJ plan Flash-free Web sites for Apple iPad