Originally Posted by neiltc13
I'd much rather have Flash support than perfect page rendering of features that are rarely (if ever) used on the websites I visit.
Who can fault your choice?
But, let's be more practical here. How many ordinary people really know about the nuances of
- Flash only sites
- those with Flash plus other options (for devices that cannot view flash, like the iOS or those choices made by the reader themselves).
Given those two options, which sites would have a larger target population that it could reach?
As pointed out in the other thread, how many sites (who are actually using their minds -- if they intend to reach a wider audience or "take advantage" of those iOS consumers who have shown proclivity to not be fazed spending money for the things they like -- would simply ignore those growing population of consumers that are unable to view Flash?
If an ordinary visitor who is not too tech savvy visits a site, and could not open a site because of uploading issues, or has too many blank space -- who are they likely to blame: Apple, Adobe or the website creator?
And for the above reasons, can you provide those most visited sites or those that really matter that still do not provide alternatives to Flash?
I think there is an Aesop's Fable or something where the people in a kingdom have gone all mad. And so the king, supposedly a sane person, decided
to go mad too.
In the end, it is all about reaching your target audience. You have to reach them to connect. And, not be bogged down with technicalities or your own personal preferences.
Originally Posted by solipsism
While I agree it’s a non-issue the reason you aren’t seeing the little blue box is because Apple removed it from Mobile Safari. It now just shows a blank area for where the Flash object would be.
There is another possible alternative reasons, as noted above, many sites that matter may have provided alternatives to Flash for those devices that cannot view Flash or for readers who opted not to view Flash or partially disable Flash.
It is anecdotal, based mainly from my own experience, in the case of New York Times, through John Gruber, as I noted in another post, I am able to partially disable Flash and thus able to compare viewing of the NYT in Camino (flash disabled) vs Firefox or Chrome, where I either did not partially disable Flash or cannot do so (Chrome). Since I am quite familiar with the NYT layout, I know where they place their ads are usually placed, as well as their key video-images modules. Most of those showing the "F" icon are actually advertisements or inane short videos. So, Flash free in this sense is a bonus. The site loads faster too, without the Flash.
That is for the laptop, In iOS devices, many of the sites that matter already have Flash alternatives, or do not use Flash at all.