So what's wrong with teaching people to read rather than sitting there interacting with cartoons?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clayton Bigsby
I can agree with this. I was recently at an educational conference with my MBP. I kept thinking that this would be the perfect venue for an iPad; a small device for taking notes and communicating with my coworkers via email. But, when I attended a workshop on educational sites to enrich any classroom it became painfully obvious that I would have been crippled had I been using an iPad. The presenter showed me a ton of great sites perfect for my students but I would not have been able to visit any of them since they were flash based. Having the option to turn on flash when needed would have been nice for the brief amount of time that it was needed. I would much rather have carried around a portable communication device instead of my laptop but without flash, it will be crippled for educational use. I'm no fan of Flash and will rejoice when it is replaced by something more efficient but until a viable option comes along the ability to use it when needed would be nice.
I understand why people don't like flash but the idea that by not having it, supports open standards is wrong. Developers arnt creating html5 apps instead, they create a closed iPhone app that can only be used on a product from apple.
I like the idea of html5 being a replacement but it just isn't. Take a look at bing maps and then bing maps in silverlight. Or have a look at web controls availiable for HTML and their silverlight counterpart. Despite the fact in both instances the HTML versions have been around longer there not as good!
Apple's new iPad is being criticized for lacking the capacity to render interactive content built using Adobe's Flash platform, but the company shows no sign of reversing course.
And why should they? When 10-15% of users use Mac(of which basically the laptop and iPhone users are complaining FLash) and the iPad users will be miniscule as well. If your used effectively by 85-90% of users than you are the standard. Apple is trying to push its muscle on the internet now like it's tried to squash bu-ray and failed. Sorry SJ- the world runs on FLash.
So what's wrong with teaching people to read rather than sitting there interacting with cartoons?
I agree totally with that statement. None of the sites were those silly Flash game sites. I don't have time for those but they were sites designed to extend the curriculum for gifted learners. I hate Flash just as much as the next guy but there are a few sites that have made use of it that are quite beneficial for educational. They are in the vast minority.
I am positive the guy who writes these articles is constantly thinking about how he can include the word "Flash" in the headline. No doubt it drives his click-throughs and increases his conversion rates resulting in more money.
I'll admit the first few times I threw my two cents in, being a web developer for the last 10 years and all. But then I realized most of the people here have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and based on their comments they clearly don't actually work in the field at all.
Eventually I realized the point of these articles isn't really to say anything meaningful, and the point of the ensuing forum discussions isn't really to discuss the nature of whats really going on.
This article was posted just to drive traffic. That simple. And once again, it worked. I prognosticate that within the next week we will see another Flash related "news break".
And why should they? When 10-15% of users use Mac(of which basically the laptop and iPhone users are complaining FLash) and the iPad users will be miniscule as well. If your used effectively by 85-90% of users than you are the standard. Apple is trying to push its muscle on the internet now like it's tried to squash bu-ray and failed. Sorry SJ- the world runs on FLash.
You can't be the original teckstud, you're too stupid.
1) As of April 30th, 2009, IE 6 represents 60% of all corporate browsers.
2) Digg tried removing support for IE 6, and found that most of its usage was by people logging in from work. A large number of them can't upgrade or install another browser since those are work computers were software installation policies, or lack of admin rights prevent them from doing so.
This is the major factor preventing websites from leveraging HTML 5 features. However, they can provide Flash content since those IE 6 installations have Flash on them.
I do hate Flash, but there are major obstacles to HTML 5 overcoming it that have nothing to do with the quality of the technology.
I am positive the guy who writes these articles is constantly thinking about how he can include the word "Flash" in the headline. No doubt it drives his click-throughs and increases his conversion rates resulting in more money.
I'll admit the first few times I threw my two cents in, being a web developer for the last 10 years and all. But then I realized most of the people here have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and based on their comments they clearly don't actually work in the field at all.
Eventually I realized the point of these articles isn't really to say anything meaningful, and the point of the ensuing forum discussions isn't really to discuss the nature of whats really going on.
This article was posted just to drive traffic. That simple. And once again, it worked. I prognosticate that within the next week we will see another Flash related "news break".
I agree totally with that statement. None of the sites were those silly Flash game sites. I don't have time for those but they were sites designed to extend the curriculum for gifted learners. I hate Flash just as much as the next guy but there are a few sites that have made use of it that are quite beneficial for educational. They are in the vast minority.
There are good uses.
Also, vast means great, large, expansive. 49% is a vast minority. But people use the phrase as if means a small minority.
As long as IE 6 remains the corporate browser of choice, HTML 5 will have a hard time taking off.
Google has removed IE6 support from their services since most of the attacks last month were from IE6 exploits. Overall IE6 has already been pushed out as the most common version of IE.
Point taken and of course you are right. That being said, some sites do exhibit more integrity than others. NYT.com posts to drive traffic and so does TMZ. Im sure they each consider themselves a news site. But of course they aren't really the same.
H.264 is open, but licensed -- codecs and hardware acceleration. The fee is modest now, but should it become a monopoly by uniform use, MPEGLA can put the hammer down any time and charge the moon.
This is a bit misleading. In almost every single case it's actually free right now, not requiring even a "modest fee." Also, MPEGLA has stated very recently their intentions to keep it free for the next few years, so you are painting a picture of an imminent danger here that doesn't really exist.
This means that Google can open source On2's old and new codecs, ending the HTML5 War for opensource that Mozilla is waging against the licensed-proprietary H.264 in favor of Ogg, thus speeding the accelerated acceptance of HTML5 because the 25% of the world using Firefox will support it.
This "great development" you are talking about here will only ignite a standards war. H.264 is already too embedded in the products and strategies of too many companies for it to be arbitrarily dropped because "Google's working on an open source alternative and Firefox will use it." You are completely over-estimating the pull of Mozilla as a company.
Open standard alternatives to H.264 already exist, but they are substandard and not as ready as H.264. How is Google or anyone going to develop a mature alternative with the same qualities as H.264 in anything less than a few years at minimum? None of this will be ready until 2015 at the earliest and in the interim Mozilla will probably adopt H.264 after MPEGLA makes some concession or statement that Mozilla will pretend is enough assurance to move ahead with implementing it.
That's a way more likely scenario than the fantasy you are pushing.
Google has removed IE6 support from their services since most of the attacks last month were from IE6 exploits. Overall IE6 has already been pushed out as the most common version of IE.
OK, so IE 6 is on its way out, but IE 7 is still going strong. Last time I checked, IE 7 didn't support HTML 5, and neither did IE 8.
OK, so IE 6 is on its way out, but IE 7 is still going strong. Last time I checked, IE 7 didn't support HTML 5, and neither did IE 8.
You're right, but that is hardly an issue. There is nothing corporate websites need that require HTML5 on IE right now. The benefits of HTML5 can be seen in the consumer space, but are most relevant on mobiles where resources (including power) are limited and where current Flash apps and games simply doesn't work on a touchscreen.
Right now, the video tag is the most relevant aspect of HTML5, and it's part of every decent mobile browser. I would not be surprised to see Windows Phone 7 Series support the video tag out of the gate despite the desktop browser's lack of support. It's just too important to the mobile space for streaming video. The benefits are clear on the desktop, too, but the requirment isn't there.
Thinking back to the cool-looking SI interactive reader that was demo'd.... it was made using Adobe AIR and Flex... will a lack of flash on the iPad mean this cannot be used on the iPad?
Thinking back to the cool-looking SI interactive reader that was demo'd.... it was made using Adobe AIR and Flex... will a lack of flash on the iPad mean this cannot be used on the iPad?
How would you interact with it? Did they rewrite to work with a finger-based touchscreen as well as a keyboard and mouse? They could always make into an App Store app. Adobe specifically made that an option because Flash apps don't work on touchscreens anyway without a rewrite.
Comments
I can agree with this. I was recently at an educational conference with my MBP. I kept thinking that this would be the perfect venue for an iPad; a small device for taking notes and communicating with my coworkers via email. But, when I attended a workshop on educational sites to enrich any classroom it became painfully obvious that I would have been crippled had I been using an iPad. The presenter showed me a ton of great sites perfect for my students but I would not have been able to visit any of them since they were flash based. Having the option to turn on flash when needed would have been nice for the brief amount of time that it was needed. I would much rather have carried around a portable communication device instead of my laptop but without flash, it will be crippled for educational use. I'm no fan of Flash and will rejoice when it is replaced by something more efficient but until a viable option comes along the ability to use it when needed would be nice.
Thank you for printing the article so we don't have to watch Daniel speak. That is as painful as watching flash.
OOOOOPS! His video is on Flash!
Keep your thoughts in print. Thanks.
I like the idea of html5 being a replacement but it just isn't. Take a look at bing maps and then bing maps in silverlight. Or have a look at web controls availiable for HTML and their silverlight counterpart. Despite the fact in both instances the HTML versions have been around longer there not as good!
Apple's new iPad is being criticized for lacking the capacity to render interactive content built using Adobe's Flash platform, but the company shows no sign of reversing course.
And why should they? When 10-15% of users use Mac(of which basically the laptop and iPhone users are complaining FLash) and the iPad users will be miniscule as well. If your used effectively by 85-90% of users than you are the standard. Apple is trying to push its muscle on the internet now like it's tried to squash bu-ray and failed. Sorry SJ- the world runs on FLash.
So what's wrong with teaching people to read rather than sitting there interacting with cartoons?
I agree totally with that statement. None of the sites were those silly Flash game sites. I don't have time for those but they were sites designed to extend the curriculum for gifted learners. I hate Flash just as much as the next guy but there are a few sites that have made use of it that are quite beneficial for educational. They are in the vast minority.
I'll admit the first few times I threw my two cents in, being a web developer for the last 10 years and all. But then I realized most of the people here have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and based on their comments they clearly don't actually work in the field at all.
Eventually I realized the point of these articles isn't really to say anything meaningful, and the point of the ensuing forum discussions isn't really to discuss the nature of whats really going on.
This article was posted just to drive traffic. That simple. And once again, it worked. I prognosticate that within the next week we will see another Flash related "news break".
MacRumors is really so much better.
And why should they? When 10-15% of users use Mac(of which basically the laptop and iPhone users are complaining FLash) and the iPad users will be miniscule as well. If your used effectively by 85-90% of users than you are the standard. Apple is trying to push its muscle on the internet now like it's tried to squash bu-ray and failed. Sorry SJ- the world runs on FLash.
You can't be the original teckstud, you're too stupid.
Consider this article:
http://www.infoq.com/news/2010/02/Go...t-Old-Browsers
Among the assertions:
1) As of April 30th, 2009, IE 6 represents 60% of all corporate browsers.
2) Digg tried removing support for IE 6, and found that most of its usage was by people logging in from work. A large number of them can't upgrade or install another browser since those are work computers were software installation policies, or lack of admin rights prevent them from doing so.
This is the major factor preventing websites from leveraging HTML 5 features. However, they can provide Flash content since those IE 6 installations have Flash on them.
I do hate Flash, but there are major obstacles to HTML 5 overcoming it that have nothing to do with the quality of the technology.
I am positive the guy who writes these articles is constantly thinking about how he can include the word "Flash" in the headline. No doubt it drives his click-throughs and increases his conversion rates resulting in more money.
I'll admit the first few times I threw my two cents in, being a web developer for the last 10 years and all. But then I realized most of the people here have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and based on their comments they clearly don't actually work in the field at all.
Eventually I realized the point of these articles isn't really to say anything meaningful, and the point of the ensuing forum discussions isn't really to discuss the nature of whats really going on.
This article was posted just to drive traffic. That simple. And once again, it worked. I prognosticate that within the next week we will see another Flash related "news break".
MacRumors is really so much better.
You have just described the entire internet.
MacRumours never posts anything to drive traffic
I agree totally with that statement. None of the sites were those silly Flash game sites. I don't have time for those but they were sites designed to extend the curriculum for gifted learners. I hate Flash just as much as the next guy but there are a few sites that have made use of it that are quite beneficial for educational. They are in the vast minority.
There are good uses.
Also, vast means great, large, expansive. 49% is a vast minority. But people use the phrase as if means a small minority.
As long as IE 6 remains the corporate browser of choice, HTML 5 will have a hard time taking off.
Google has removed IE6 support from their services since most of the attacks last month were from IE6 exploits. Overall IE6 has already been pushed out as the most common version of IE.
You have just described the entire internet.
MacRumours never posts anything to drive traffic
Point taken and of course you are right. That being said, some sites do exhibit more integrity than others. NYT.com posts to drive traffic and so does TMZ. Im sure they each consider themselves a news site. But of course they aren't really the same.
H.264 is open, but licensed -- codecs and hardware acceleration. The fee is modest now, but should it become a monopoly by uniform use, MPEGLA can put the hammer down any time and charge the moon.
This is a bit misleading. In almost every single case it's actually free right now, not requiring even a "modest fee." Also, MPEGLA has stated very recently their intentions to keep it free for the next few years, so you are painting a picture of an imminent danger here that doesn't really exist.
I am gobsmacked that the article did not mention (nor did any one yet in the comments) Google's purchase Thursday of On2.
This means that Google can open source On2's old and new codecs, ending the HTML5 War for opensource that Mozilla is waging against the licensed-proprietary H.264 in favor of Ogg, thus speeding the accelerated acceptance of HTML5 because the 25% of the world using Firefox will support it.
This "great development" you are talking about here will only ignite a standards war. H.264 is already too embedded in the products and strategies of too many companies for it to be arbitrarily dropped because "Google's working on an open source alternative and Firefox will use it." You are completely over-estimating the pull of Mozilla as a company.
Open standard alternatives to H.264 already exist, but they are substandard and not as ready as H.264. How is Google or anyone going to develop a mature alternative with the same qualities as H.264 in anything less than a few years at minimum? None of this will be ready until 2015 at the earliest and in the interim Mozilla will probably adopt H.264 after MPEGLA makes some concession or statement that Mozilla will pretend is enough assurance to move ahead with implementing it.
That's a way more likely scenario than the fantasy you are pushing.
Google has removed IE6 support from their services since most of the attacks last month were from IE6 exploits. Overall IE6 has already been pushed out as the most common version of IE.
OK, so IE 6 is on its way out, but IE 7 is still going strong. Last time I checked, IE 7 didn't support HTML 5, and neither did IE 8.
Just wanted to note that the Flash-Bashing video embedded in the article is brought to you in part by Flash.
Ironic.
Not on my MBP... It was brought to me via HTML5.
OK, so IE 6 is on its way out, but IE 7 is still going strong. Last time I checked, IE 7 didn't support HTML 5, and neither did IE 8.
You're right, but that is hardly an issue. There is nothing corporate websites need that require HTML5 on IE right now. The benefits of HTML5 can be seen in the consumer space, but are most relevant on mobiles where resources (including power) are limited and where current Flash apps and games simply doesn't work on a touchscreen.
Right now, the video tag is the most relevant aspect of HTML5, and it's part of every decent mobile browser. I would not be surprised to see Windows Phone 7 Series support the video tag out of the gate despite the desktop browser's lack of support. It's just too important to the mobile space for streaming video. The benefits are clear on the desktop, too, but the requirment isn't there.
Thinking back to the cool-looking SI interactive reader that was demo'd.... it was made using Adobe AIR and Flex... will a lack of flash on the iPad mean this cannot be used on the iPad?
How would you interact with it? Did they rewrite to work with a finger-based touchscreen as well as a keyboard and mouse? They could always make into an App Store app. Adobe specifically made that an option because Flash apps don't work on touchscreens anyway without a rewrite.