Had Apple implemented the same features in Flash then around 98% or 99% would see them.
I didn't bother to look at the code but I wouldn't be surprised if they have browser detection and lots of conditional code for other browsers. If they don't then they are totally dropping the ball because isn't the iMac about getting people to switch from Windows? Really there should be tons of Javascript in there somewhere.
The "-webkit-" prefixes on all of these attributes indicate that they will only be displayed by WebKit browsers (mainly Chrome and Safari).
That means that a maximum of 19.09% of users will see them (far less when you consider that not all users will be running versions of these browsers capable of displaying these animations).
Had Apple implemented the same features in Flash then around 98% or 99% would see them.
We'll be waiting a while until web developers can implement things like Apple has without spending time and money providing hacks and alternative versions for different browsers.
Well, the pages work in ie, firefox, chrome, safari, camino and opera... So your point is..?
If you can get buy with those apps, then I say go for it. But if you need more advanced features, CMYK support, etc. Photoshop is your best bet.
That said, I can't stand GIMP - it's free and it shows - the UI is awful and does not lend itself to productivity. I couldn't work in GIMP more than a few minutes.
Yeah, GIMP is something of a pain and PS is better. But PS isn't $700.00 better IMHO, unless CYMK support is needed.
Acorn and Pixelmator are much easier to use than GIMP and will actually do the bulk of the work. Layers, filters, various selection tools, brushes, transforms, dodge, burn, blur, blending, etc. It's rare that you even have to jump into GIMP. Mostly just for paths.
So spending $50.00 on Acorn and $60.00 on Pixelmator and $0.00 on GIMP, you get pretty close to PS functionality and ease of use for a total cost of less than renting PS for 4 months and much less than actually buying PS.
Well, the pages work in ie, firefox, chrome, safari, camino and opera... So your point is..?
Yep. It also works in IE7 and almost works in Mozilla 1 on Fedora Core. Funny how they do that using only CSS3 and -webkit prefixes. So, as I said, tons of Javascript and probably more than a couple Ph.D.s in computer science. Sounds like totally accessible technologies to the average web designer who is used to dragging and dropping in Flash where that same thing could be built in a 30 minutes or less. But that is the state of HTML5/CSS3/JS these days. Very complicated. It is nice that they could make it so cross platform compatible, but very complicated.
Programming for multi-browser compatibility in Javascript/HTML5/CSS for anything much beyond a simple web page is just pathetic. It is a nightmare without equal in the programming world. Anyone who thinks otherwise should learn more about programming generally.
The W3C standards are design by committee of the worst sort and browser makers have consistently showed no interest in listening to them very carefully. The result has historically been a terrible, terrible mess and it is not changing very fast.
On the other hand, the fact that Flash has been developed by a single company has allowed it to offer genuine cross-browser deployment.
You can hate Flash all you want, but you're able to hate it equally across all browsers.
In terms of ease of programming - you should not confuse the deployment with the programming tool.
What most people think of as 'Flash' is a compiled executable that can be created in many different ways. The 'Flash' application that's part of the Creative Suite is just one way ... but you can also code 'Flash' in TextPad if you want and compile it using the free Flex SDK.
Graphic artists have on the whole used the Adobe Suite Flash tool because it has historically provided a pretty simple graphical interface for animations such as the one on the Apple site - no or very little 'coding' required. However, for coding complex 'Rich Internet Apps' nobody in their right mind would use that tool - you'd use a proper dev environment like Eclipse and the (free) Flex SDK.
Programming for multi-browser compatibility in Javascript/HTML5/CSS for anything much beyond a simple web page is just pathetic. It is a nightmare without equal in the programming world. Anyone who thinks otherwise should learn more about programming generally.
In the old days of the browser wars, I think that was true. These days, it's not that difficult to write cross-browser code on modern browsers, IMHO. Even things like animated properties aren't that hard to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delany
You can hate Flash all you want, but you're able to hate it equally across all browsers.
Except those running on iOS.
In general I agree that up till now, Flash was clearly superior to the HTML/JavaScript combo. But with HTML 5 on the scene and professional tools available that support it, I'm not sure what the future of Flash is.
Flash and Flash Player are responsible for a huge amount of the interactivity and multimedia content that has been on the web in the past 10+ years. Without it, we'd have a far less rich internet and massive fragmentation of plugins and media players.
I doubt anyone at Adobe or Macromedia set out for "world domination" - they produced a truly excellent product that became popular because of how good it was.
If you'd like to suggest an alternative technology that can deliver what the combination of Flash and Flash Player do, please enlighten us all.
What total crap! Get your head out of your posterior! If there wan't flash, something else would have been invented, and maybe HTML 5 would have come along a lot sooner. To say that they produced a "truly excellent product" is just BS. Buggy, bloated, taking forever to download, often broken, etc. etc. etc. On top of all this, it is grossly overused and clogging the bandwidth of the internet.
"Way too expensive"? If you make money using their products, you should be able to pay them off after one or two projects. If you just use their software to screw around, any price is too expensive.
By "way too expensive" I mean I can easily get nearly identical functionality and ease of use for a fraction of the price.
I can then use the remainder of the money buying other things I need, like 3D models, development tools like decimators, and so on. Trust me, I can burn through the $600.00 I save by not buying Photoshop in a matter of minutes, buying only things I actually need. In fact, I've already done exactly that and could do it again several times over.
The "-webkit-" prefixes on all of these attributes indicate that they will only be displayed by WebKit browsers (mainly Chrome and Safari).
That means that a maximum of 19.09% of users will see them (far less when you consider that not all users will be running versions of these browsers capable of displaying these animations).
Had Apple implemented the same features in Flash then around 98% or 99% would see them.
We'll be waiting a while until web developers can implement things like Apple has without spending time and money providing hacks and alternative versions for different browsers.
You just don't get it! The far easier and better solution is for the browsers to implement webkit. NOT the POS flash! That is the whole point - open versus proprietary adobe crapware...
In the old days of the browser wars, I think that was true. These days, it's not that difficult to write cross-browser code on modern browsers, IMHO. Even things like animated properties aren't that hard to do.
I think the problem is that while it's certainly easier to do the things we been trying to do for 10 years or so, like simple animation, those are things that have been easy to do in Flash for those 10 years. The newer stuff is as buggy and inconsistent as ever.
As a not-terribly cutting-edge example - I've been trying to program an online eReader-type thing using some of the HTML5 'column' capabilities. It's just completely frustrating - and this is stuff that was actually specified by W3C 5 years ago. It's not even consistent in Safari from one update to another - a number of the useful 'column' properties are still classified as 'subject to change' by Apple. This is an app that would be very easy to create in Flash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj
In general I agree that up till now, Flash was clearly superior to the HTML/JavaScript combo. But with HTML 5 on the scene and professional tools available that support it, I'm not sure what the future of Flash is.
I'm sure certain uses will move over to HTML5 away from Flash. However, HTML5 really only covers the most obvious things that Flash does: simple animation, simple-ish video playback etc. But Flash has advanced on from those sorts of things. The new stuff people are creating online - the things that will be the obvious things in 10 years time - are still either ridiculously hard in HTML 5 or not remotely possible. As well as the eReader, I'm also working on some media-heavy interactive features - these sort of things are going to become more and more common as our media consumption becomes less linear and they are not remotely possible in HTML5.
I'm not necessarily convinced that Flash is the future for this sort of thing (I'm also using the excellent Unity quite a lot these days) - but I'm fairly sure it will not be a technology controlled by a weak standards committee and then butchered by a bunch of politically motivated browser makers.
Comments
Had Apple implemented the same features in Flash then around 98% or 99% would see them.
I didn't bother to look at the code but I wouldn't be surprised if they have browser detection and lots of conditional code for other browsers. If they don't then they are totally dropping the ball because isn't the iMac about getting people to switch from Windows? Really there should be tons of Javascript in there somewhere.
Very nice
Would any Flash experts care to show the code to do the very same thing in Flash?
I wont hold my breath... but I don't have all day either.
No code required at all. Just drag and drop in Flash.
The "-webkit-" prefixes on all of these attributes indicate that they will only be displayed by WebKit browsers (mainly Chrome and Safari).
That means that a maximum of 19.09% of users will see them (far less when you consider that not all users will be running versions of these browsers capable of displaying these animations).
Had Apple implemented the same features in Flash then around 98% or 99% would see them.
We'll be waiting a while until web developers can implement things like Apple has without spending time and money providing hacks and alternative versions for different browsers.
Well, the pages work in ie, firefox, chrome, safari, camino and opera... So your point is..?
If you can get buy with those apps, then I say go for it. But if you need more advanced features, CMYK support, etc. Photoshop is your best bet.
That said, I can't stand GIMP - it's free and it shows - the UI is awful and does not lend itself to productivity. I couldn't work in GIMP more than a few minutes.
Yeah, GIMP is something of a pain and PS is better. But PS isn't $700.00 better IMHO, unless CYMK support is needed.
Acorn and Pixelmator are much easier to use than GIMP and will actually do the bulk of the work. Layers, filters, various selection tools, brushes, transforms, dodge, burn, blur, blending, etc. It's rare that you even have to jump into GIMP. Mostly just for paths.
So spending $50.00 on Acorn and $60.00 on Pixelmator and $0.00 on GIMP, you get pretty close to PS functionality and ease of use for a total cost of less than renting PS for 4 months and much less than actually buying PS.
Had Apple implemented the same features in Flash then around 98% or 99% would see them.
Guess I'm in that 1-2%, because with Click2Flash, I don't see any of that crap ever.
No code required at all. Just drag and drop in Flash.
Having been forced to use Flash on and off over the past two years, that's complete and utter nonsense.
Well, the pages work in ie, firefox, chrome, safari, camino and opera... So your point is..?
Yep. It also works in IE7 and almost works in Mozilla 1 on Fedora Core. Funny how they do that using only CSS3 and -webkit prefixes. So, as I said, tons of Javascript and probably more than a couple Ph.D.s in computer science. Sounds like totally accessible technologies to the average web designer who is used to dragging and dropping in Flash where that same thing could be built in a 30 minutes or less. But that is the state of HTML5/CSS3/JS these days. Very complicated. It is nice that they could make it so cross platform compatible, but very complicated.
Guess I'm in that 1-2%, because with Click2Flash, I don't see any of that crap ever.
Having been forced to use Flash on and off over the past two years, that's complete and utter nonsense.
Do you want a more detailed explanation or is that just hyperbole?
Do you want a more detailed explanation or is that just hyperbole?
It's not "drag and drop". You paint it as though it's actually easy to use.
The W3C standards are design by committee of the worst sort and browser makers have consistently showed no interest in listening to them very carefully. The result has historically been a terrible, terrible mess and it is not changing very fast.
On the other hand, the fact that Flash has been developed by a single company has allowed it to offer genuine cross-browser deployment.
You can hate Flash all you want, but you're able to hate it equally across all browsers.
In terms of ease of programming - you should not confuse the deployment with the programming tool.
What most people think of as 'Flash' is a compiled executable that can be created in many different ways. The 'Flash' application that's part of the Creative Suite is just one way ... but you can also code 'Flash' in TextPad if you want and compile it using the free Flex SDK.
Graphic artists have on the whole used the Adobe Suite Flash tool because it has historically provided a pretty simple graphical interface for animations such as the one on the Apple site - no or very little 'coding' required. However, for coding complex 'Rich Internet Apps' nobody in their right mind would use that tool - you'd use a proper dev environment like Eclipse and the (free) Flex SDK.
It's not "drag and drop". You paint it as though it's actually easy to use.
Simple animations are a snap in Flash.
1. Import a png file perhaps with transparent background
2. Drag onto the stage just off the canvas.
3. Click 30 frames down the timeline and press F6
4. Drag the picture to where you want to end up
5. Right click anywhere in the timeline and select Motion Tween
No step 6.
Programming for multi-browser compatibility in Javascript/HTML5/CSS for anything much beyond a simple web page is just pathetic. It is a nightmare without equal in the programming world. Anyone who thinks otherwise should learn more about programming generally.
In the old days of the browser wars, I think that was true. These days, it's not that difficult to write cross-browser code on modern browsers, IMHO. Even things like animated properties aren't that hard to do.
You can hate Flash all you want, but you're able to hate it equally across all browsers.
Except those running on iOS.
In general I agree that up till now, Flash was clearly superior to the HTML/JavaScript combo. But with HTML 5 on the scene and professional tools available that support it, I'm not sure what the future of Flash is.
Do you guys honestly believe this nonsense?
Flash and Flash Player are responsible for a huge amount of the interactivity and multimedia content that has been on the web in the past 10+ years. Without it, we'd have a far less rich internet and massive fragmentation of plugins and media players.
I doubt anyone at Adobe or Macromedia set out for "world domination" - they produced a truly excellent product that became popular because of how good it was.
If you'd like to suggest an alternative technology that can deliver what the combination of Flash and Flash Player do, please enlighten us all.
What total crap! Get your head out of your posterior! If there wan't flash, something else would have been invented, and maybe HTML 5 would have come along a lot sooner. To say that they produced a "truly excellent product" is just BS. Buggy, bloated, taking forever to download, often broken, etc. etc. etc. On top of all this, it is grossly overused and clogging the bandwidth of the internet.
"Way too expensive"? If you make money using their products, you should be able to pay them off after one or two projects. If you just use their software to screw around, any price is too expensive.
By "way too expensive" I mean I can easily get nearly identical functionality and ease of use for a fraction of the price.
I can then use the remainder of the money buying other things I need, like 3D models, development tools like decimators, and so on. Trust me, I can burn through the $600.00 I save by not buying Photoshop in a matter of minutes, buying only things I actually need. In fact, I've already done exactly that and could do it again several times over.
The "-webkit-" prefixes on all of these attributes indicate that they will only be displayed by WebKit browsers (mainly Chrome and Safari).
That means that a maximum of 19.09% of users will see them (far less when you consider that not all users will be running versions of these browsers capable of displaying these animations).
Had Apple implemented the same features in Flash then around 98% or 99% would see them.
We'll be waiting a while until web developers can implement things like Apple has without spending time and money providing hacks and alternative versions for different browsers.
You just don't get it! The far easier and better solution is for the browsers to implement webkit. NOT the POS flash! That is the whole point - open versus proprietary adobe crapware...
In the old days of the browser wars, I think that was true. These days, it's not that difficult to write cross-browser code on modern browsers, IMHO. Even things like animated properties aren't that hard to do.
I think the problem is that while it's certainly easier to do the things we been trying to do for 10 years or so, like simple animation, those are things that have been easy to do in Flash for those 10 years. The newer stuff is as buggy and inconsistent as ever.
As a not-terribly cutting-edge example - I've been trying to program an online eReader-type thing using some of the HTML5 'column' capabilities. It's just completely frustrating - and this is stuff that was actually specified by W3C 5 years ago. It's not even consistent in Safari from one update to another - a number of the useful 'column' properties are still classified as 'subject to change' by Apple. This is an app that would be very easy to create in Flash.
In general I agree that up till now, Flash was clearly superior to the HTML/JavaScript combo. But with HTML 5 on the scene and professional tools available that support it, I'm not sure what the future of Flash is.
I'm sure certain uses will move over to HTML5 away from Flash. However, HTML5 really only covers the most obvious things that Flash does: simple animation, simple-ish video playback etc. But Flash has advanced on from those sorts of things. The new stuff people are creating online - the things that will be the obvious things in 10 years time - are still either ridiculously hard in HTML 5 or not remotely possible. As well as the eReader, I'm also working on some media-heavy interactive features - these sort of things are going to become more and more common as our media consumption becomes less linear and they are not remotely possible in HTML5.
I'm not necessarily convinced that Flash is the future for this sort of thing (I'm also using the excellent Unity quite a lot these days) - but I'm fairly sure it will not be a technology controlled by a weak standards committee and then butchered by a bunch of politically motivated browser makers.
Just be aware that it isn't anything close to the full photoshop app. These are tool bar apps that only work with photoshop, not on their own.
I am well aware, but the way they support the iPad is pretty cool, don't you think.
Has there really been a useful feature they've added to Photoshop since CS1?
Yes there have been a few dozen useful features. About 38 features to be exact.
However, remember that "useful" is a relative term. So I have no idea if the same features I find useful are useful to you.