[futureproof]

Hi I'm a junior web designer applying for my first job and see loads and loads of opportunies for Flash developers and pretty much all web designers are required to know Flash too. So it looks like I should learn Flash...

However, the people I know that know lots more than me say that I shouldn't bother as HTML5/CSS3/jQuery will do what flash can do with more benefits. But there seems to be so much call for it in the job market, so I don't know what to think!

I would very much like it if some of you could tell me all the PRO's and CON's of Flash so I can hopefully understand where I am and where Flash is.

[andyl]

Before I start - I hate Flash, with a fiery passion. It's regularly enough to make me bounce from a site.

Pro's:

• Looks shexy

Con's:

• Google tends to ignore it - though not always the case (it can be read by robots - somewhat)
  
• Not visible on iDevices (iPhone/iPad) which are becoming increasingly popular.
  
• Most of it can be done with HTML5+CSS3 and a bit of jQuery

I was shown this site by a respected member of this forum, Lev, to prove to me that jQuery wasn't the alternative to Flash. Lev's right, you cannot create such a smoothly, over-the-top animated page using jQuery - but would you really want to?

[WBC]

I'm with Andy.

I say this too often but how does a visually impared person use the site above?

I'm not against Flash, just flash sites.

[futureproof]

Yeah I've seen that site before on Moluv. Impressive but a bit OTT.

Ok so if that is the case then will Flash be phased out and only used for things like banner-ads and not used for websites?

[andyl]

Hopefully it won't even be used for banner ads in a few years...
Take a look at the upcoming 'Smokescreen' plugin - very impressive.

[irn3rd]

Finally, Flash will take a back seat and only be sued for games (hopefully).
I agree with everyone andyl it pushes me away from sites. only site it doesn't push me away from is the nvidia website.

[futureproof]

Ok so why are so many employers asking for their designers to know Flash? AND why are there so many jobs for Flash developers and not HTML5/CSS3/jQuery developers?

[WBC]

Flash is still very sell-able and easy to impress cients with that have no idea on current changes. Alot of clients don't care, you can tell them what you like if they have Flash on the mind they dont want anything else. Plus flash is a long way from dead.

[andyl]

futureproof, on 27 July 2010 - 09:39 AM, said:

Ok so why are so many employers asking for their designers to know Flash? AND why are there so many jobs for Flash developers and not HTML5/CSS3/jQuery developers?

Internet Explorer browsers do not support HTML5 or CSS3. That's a good chunk of any website's audience. To make a website from HTML5 and CSS3 is to make an unusable website for 50% of viewers at present. That won't be the case for much longer, though.

For now, Flash maximises the number of viewers who can see your effects. That's changing, but it will take some time. IE9 will give the process a boost.

[futureproof]

I see, that's interesting.

http://www.wolffolins.com/ - so what software was used to create this effect?

[andyl]

You can tell if something is built in Flash by right-clicking it, it'll say 'About Flash Player X' at the bottom and list a few Flash settings above.

So to answer your question - Flash.

[socreative]

judging by the name i thought this thread would be about perverts

[andyl]

socreative, on 27 July 2010 - 10:47 AM, said:

judging by the name i thought this thread would be about perverts

Perverts, Flash developers - what's the difference?

[futureproof]

So assuming you could do that on HTML5 and CSS3, it still wouldn't be visable for about 50% of the users using IE at the moment? So this is why companies want Flash, because HTML5 and CSS3 to be used in this way isn't commercial viable yet??

[boblet]

futureproof, on 27 July 2010 - 01:56 PM, said:

So assuming you could do that on HTML5 and CSS3, it still wouldn't be visable for about 50% of the users using IE at the moment? So this is why companies want Flash, because HTML5 and CSS3 to be used in this way isn't commercial viable yet??

I'd say yep to that.
And until html5, canvas & JS is super-easy to use, and supported, I imagine a lot of designers would rather stick to visual flash.

Having said that; there is a lot of stuff with html5 and css3 that are only supported by some browsers. IE is not the only one.

I am not a fan of flash, I'd be happy to see it go, but I think it will be a good while yet.

[futureproof]

Also, so those graphics on that Wolff Olins site wouldn't be able to be viewed on a Apple iMac or iPhone, as it uses Flash, is that right?

[boblet]

futureproof, on 27 July 2010 - 02:03 PM, said:

Also, so those graphics on that Wolff Olins site wouldn't be able to be viewed on a Apple iMac or iPhone, as it uses Flash, is that right?

Nah - you get flash on the computers, obviously.
It is not build-in support on iphones and ipads, but there are ways around it. Problem is that people may not bother to get the workarounds, and then your beautiful flash will be dead on those devices.

[futureproof]

I see. So in order for that site to work on Apple devices - the user would need to download special software?? Funny as all Mac users pride themselves on the fact that 'they just work'.

So really the only fault that you can't get around is the SEO properties of Flash? If Adobe found a way to get around this and make Flash fully readable to Google, would you all like Flash?

[futureproof]

Good answer.

[zed]

futureproof, on 26 July 2010 - 09:28 PM, said:

However, the people I know that know lots more than me say that I shouldn't bother as HTML5/CSS3/jQuery will do what flash can do with more benefits. But there seems to be so much call for it in the job market, so I don't know what to think!

they probably have iPhones and iPads? or are just iMugs for whatever Jobs says. If you've got the opportunity to learn it and use it then make money out of it. From what I've seen of HTML5 there is no way in can do what a serious Flash developer can do. Ask if you can see some examples of the work they have done that rivals any of the best Flash sites and how much they got paid for it.

[davehalo1]

I use Flash on my website for video delivery and it does what I need it to do.

If you think Flash will do what you need to acomplish then it's worth looking at.

As zed has said, there is a lot of great stuff done in Flash that HTML5 wont be able to get anywhere near.

[futureproof]

Ok, I'm getting a clearer picture now. Flash seems to be a bit like Marmite.

[futureproof]

Maybe not quite as extream as that but you know what I mean.

[zed]

at the end of the day, whatever makes you money

[FizixRichard]

I'm going to pipe in with my perspective, which I've voiced before.


Firstly HTML5/CSS3/JQuery bridges the gap between HTML and Flash, it does not replace it. The whole HTML5/JQuery replacing Flash argument is normally touted by people with a beef against Flash.


HTML5/CSS3/JQuery allow you to create more interactive experiences without using proprietory technologies such as Flash, but Flash is a lot more powerful. It simply reduces the NEED for Flash for things like animated menus, a video stream and stuff like that. (It goes a bit further than that).


To sum both up (not exhaustive)
The positives to HTML5/CSS3/JQuery:
- It opens up interactive applications to developers using a free platform
- It opens up interactive applications to developers using a technology they are familiar with (unless they already know Flash/AS)
- It provides a platform for interactive applications under devices without Flash support (Apple - although I don't believe Apple will never support Flash, I think they will but not for a while yet)
- More efficient for low/medium end interactive applications
- Its easier to work with (from what I have seen, its simpler)
- Its essentially open code (which may or may not be a good thing depending on you're perspective)
- No need for a plugin


The downside to HTML5/CSS3/JQuery are:
- They are not standard yet so therefore accessibility is a big issue
- It does not IMO go anywhere near far enough to remove Flash from the equation
- They are developer orientated, Flash is both artist and developer orientated
- HTML5 Video and DRM - I am not convinced about
- It's suited to simple animation and interactive applications, but not high end interactive applications
- Not suitable for rich animated content
- Not suitable for games - which I believe will become more common as time goes on, but I believe the likes of Unity will take precidence here.
- JavaScript based applications (jQuery is JavaScript) can crash you're computer if you are lazy
- JavaScript based applications offer security holes if you are malicious
- People turn JavaScript off for security reasons


I was excited when people started talking about HTML5/CSS3/JQuery but then disapointed that it didn't go as far as I'd have liked to see.


Positives of Flash:
- Suitable for high end interactive interfaces
- Provides a gateway to video and audio devices and streaming (webcam, chat, conferencing, high end video streaming platforms etc.)
- Suitable for games
- Flash Media Server (enough said there)
- DRM (again enough said)
- Closed code (this is a positive or negative depending on perspective)
- Artist orientated SDK for artists
- Developer orientated SDK for developers
- Suitable for rich animation (timeline based animation trumps programatic)
- Supported by a majority of computer systems


The downside to Flash:
- Requires a plugin (I dont think this is as big of a deal as some make out)
- No supported by apple mobile devices (I don't think this is forever due to competitors now starting to support Flash and gaining popularity - competition and all)
- There are security issues * (important note at the end as this is a dumb argument)
- It can be inefficient if you are sloppy and or lazy
- It can hinder SEO if you are lazy
- It can hinder screenreaders if you are lazy
- It can crash you're computer if you are lazy



* On security and Flash
JavaScript is a bitch for security issues, most virus and security warnings I get from websites are via JavaScript exploits / malicious applications - on both my Mac and my PC. If someone is malicious and intends to exploit someones computer they will. I dont think I've ever had a Flash application give me a day of downtime, JavaScript nasties have more than once!


* On efficiency and Flash
I had a javascript website slow my iPhone only the other day. This is down to the developers skill not the platform.


* On Flash and Crashing
I would say more JavaScript issues have crashed my computer (PC and Mac) than Flash and I use Flash a lot. Again though this is the developer NOT the platform. I was pissing around with a jQuery based application a few weeks ago and crashed my iPhone with it due to being sloppy. Anyone want to crash their iPhone for proof, get in touch and I'll link you to it.


* I read somewhere once (cant remember where it was a while ago) that more people disable JavaScript than Flash. I cannot vouch its validity but its plausable.


* The SEO argument is a strawman used by people who either have never used Flash but have an expert opinion or that have a limited knowledge of Flash but have an expert opinion. If you're Flash site is less SEO efficient than a HTML site you've been lazy or don't know enough about Flash to use it for full websites.


* If you're full flash website is unavailable to some users without Flash you've been lazy.

* If you're website is unusable by screenreaders you've been lazy

* If you're Flash site/application is slow, stop being a cowboy and optimize the bloody thing like you would any application!

* If you're Flash site/application hogs CPU resources you have made mistakes and need to fix things. (see above).

* "Flash is difficult to update" is relevant to HTML websites. If you don't make it dynamic its more difficult to update, if you make it dynamic its easier to update.


All of the above *'s are relevant to both Flash and JavaScript based applications, they are a strawman argument and have no place amongst professionals. People who start screaming these arguments in debates I always assume to be amateur developers as it shows a lack of knowledge of an application. I'd rather people be honest and just say "because I prefer working with Flash" or "I prefer working with JavaScript based applications" as a personal preference rather than spouting old information thats been incorrect for years.


In other words, sh!t peddelers with an adjenda annoy me.


The bottom line IMHO is this:

1. Flash is a powerful plaftform, with any powerful platform it means there is a higher point of entry and skill required to use it. The reality is, the artistic nature of getting stuff built leads people with no knowledge to build crap. This is true for HTML sites too (pleanty of crappy HTML sites out there, more crappy HTML/JS sites than Flash ones, yet Flash gets the flack).

2. Do not attempt to create a full blown interactive application or website unless you have a very strong knowledge of the platform else you'll come unstuck with a substandard application.

Trying to make a full flash website with limited knowledge of Flash is like trying to make an iPhone game with Unity with amateur skills. You might get away with it by the skin of you're teeth but it will be crap.


Both are capable of being leveraged successfully for powerful applications but Flash has a much broader scope and is overall more powerful. The BEST applications out there that I have encountered use a mixture of technologies.


The best website I have ever used was a Flash and jQuery hybrid. It was blisteringly fast, slick, engaging, cool and usable. A good developer will look at the tools available, choose the best for the job and work with these tools to their maximum potential and importantly finish the job by testing and optimizing it.

[Lev]

Bravo mate!
+1

[Daz]

Lev, on 10 August 2010 - 01:49 PM, said:

Bravo mate!
+1

Ditto. Very enjoyable read. Points well backed up and explained.

[Synjyn]

Interesting read and very goog points on both sides.

This point I dont agree with:

- No supported by apple mobile devices (I don't think this is forever due to competitors now starting to support Flash and gaining popularity - competition and all)

Steve Jobs basically said in a conference in April that flash would never come to apple devices, and even put his opinion down on the the apple site.

Whether or not this will really impact flash remains to be seen. The real point I beleive is if you use flash make sure it degrades nicely back to html, problem is that is more work and ultimately increases the cost, as the gap between what can be done in html closes clients are going to be less willing pay these extra costs when the benfits are not so obvious.

[FizixRichard]

Synjyn, on 18 August 2010 - 01:06 PM, said:

Interesting read and very goog points on both sides.

This point I dont agree with:

- No supported by apple mobile devices (I don't think this is forever due to competitors now starting to support Flash and gaining popularity - competition and all)

Steve Jobs basically said in a conference in April that flash would never come to apple devices, and even put his opinion down on the the apple site.

Whether or not this will really impact flash remains to be seen. The real point I beleive is if you use flash make sure it degrades nicely back to html, problem is that is more work and ultimately increases the cost, as the gap between what can be done in html closes clients are going to be less willing pay these extra costs when the benfits are not so obvious.

I'll just counter this a bit...

With regards to cost, its not difficult to build a Flash RIA Framework which reduces the workload when creating accessible, standards compliant Flash applications & sites. By doing so you can produce applications which compete with HTML based sites on cost. Of course animated content is always going to be more expensive than non animated content but a client who wants animated content will be aware of that.


With regards to Jobs statements, at the moment his products are leading the market so he can pretty much say and do what he wants & people will accept the restricted access to applications and development. With this I am referring to the strict vetting of apps on the app store and how you have to use Apples SDK (which you have to pay for) and restricting content (lack of browser plugin support).

The problem is that his competitors are supporting plugins such as Flash and are being more open about app development, his competitors are also gaining popularity fast & the fact that app development and freedom of choice are greater with the competitors will eventually serve to impact Apple negatively, who pretty much ignore freedom of choice and disregard those who want it.

While Jobs could be said to be a great man with great visions he is a very arrogant man (this is well documented) and does think he & Apple are invincible.

So while things are good he will disregard his competition, that is until they have to pay attention - when their products are no longer "the most popular". At that point I believe they will either go freedom of choice or crash & burn.


What I mean is, at the end of the day they are a business and in order to survive they will have to change on a number of levels in order to compete with other vendors. Freedom of choice is I believe central to this.

[Synjyn]

FizixRichard, on 18 August 2010 - 01:20 PM, said:

I'll just counter this a bit...

With regards to cost, its not difficult to build a Flash RIA Framework which reduces the workload when creating accessible, standards compliant Flash applications & sites. By doing so you can produce applications which compete with HTML based sites on cost. Of course animated content is always going to be more expensive than non animated content but a client who wants animated content will be aware of that.

Thats not my point. My point is that if you want a slick flash experience, but then to also degrade back down to a html version so it does work on devices that dont support it there is extra cost involved to the client. I have done this myself on some larger scale projects and the client was happy to pay for it, we basically had 2 sites. My opinion is that as the gap between what can be done in flash compared to html becomes smaller (we are talking years here) these clients will be less willing to pay to do this.

If all devices end up supporting it then this may not be such an issue, but still I have not come across any very good flash developers that can do all the things you quite rightly point out should be done in flash that can also deliver the same quality html/css/js/server side and vice versa. Again as the gap between what they offer becomes smaller then why pay for 2 areas of expertise when 1 can deliver almost all of the same features.

FizixRichard, on 18 August 2010 - 01:20 PM, said:

With regards to Jobs statements, at the moment his products are leading the market so he can pretty much say and do what he wants & people will accept the restricted access to applications and development. With this I am referring to the strict vetting of apps on the app store and how you have to use Apples SDK (which you have to pay for) and restricting content (lack of browser plugin support).

The problem is that his competitors are supporting plugins such as Flash and are being more open about app development, his competitors are also gaining popularity fast & the fact that app development and freedom of choice are greater with the competitors will eventually serve to impact Apple negatively, who pretty much ignore freedom of choice and disregard those who want it.

While Jobs could be said to be a great man with great visions he is a very arrogant man (this is well documented) and does think he & Apple are invincible.

So while things are good he will disregard his competition, that is until they have to pay attention - when their products are no longer "the most popular". At that point I believe they will either go freedom of choice or crash & burn.


What I mean is, at the end of the day they are a business and in order to survive they will have to change on a number of levels in order to compete with other vendors. Freedom of choice is I believe central to this.

Don't get me wrong, I am not fan of jobs, and how on earth he can talk about 'open' when Apple is one of the most proprietry vendors out there (try using bluetooth with a non apple device, or an app signed that may be competitive to their own), but I have already seen some small fallout from it first hand. Whether or not it really equates to anything in the larger scheme of things I don't know, maybe not, but times are changing.

These are just my opinions on the matter, I have been proved wrong before, many time in fact so don't take any of it too seriously,no-one can really predict where it will all go.

[Daz]

Simple fact (from experience working in a large billion pound company), no matter what the CEO, Managing Director or Marketing Manager etc say, the company most likely will be there for longer the they will be and when money is involved anything could happen.

My understanding of Adobe and Apple is that they had a disagreement where by Adobe wouldn't do as Apple wanted and so Apple spat it's dummy out? If so, who are we to say they don't make friends again, after all, they both seem very immature if you ask me!

[FizixRichard]

This is true Daz. Ultimately money and maintaining a market share is what will guide Apple, not Job's having a rant and a grudge.

The alternative Smart Phones are IMO now better in many ways than the iPhone. My contract changed over for my mobile phone a few months back and I decided to go iPhone (I had a Blackberry before, before that I had an iPhone 1) and a little bit of me felt disapointed, a bit of me wishes I had stuck with a Blackberry.

My brother in law went Apple to Blackberry and isn't turning back. Apple IMO need to change their stance on a number of levels because its competition is getting very good.

If I were a betting man I'd say Job's closed and monopolising stance is what will see a handover of power at Apple because I think thats its death knell.


On the other hand I think Adobe do need to work on Flash. The thing is I think Adobe are more likely to actually do whats needed than Apple are to do what they need to do; for a while at least.

Flash needs to be optimised and secured somewhat, Flash Cookies should go and I think HTML integration into the Flash environment would be good, along with Flash Templates for UI's (a real solution I mean).

[pippin62]

AFAIK the reason Apple does not support Flash on iPhone / iPad is because of the danger it would cause to the revenue it earns from the app store.

[Daz]

pippin62, on 19 August 2010 - 01:14 PM, said:

AFAIK the reason Apple does not support Flash on iPhone / iPad is because of the danger it would cause to the revenue it earns from the app store.

That was my understanding of the situation too. Also AFAIK they blamed the whole thing on how they don't want flash because it crashes their phones and dents it's performance.

[Alex O'Connor]

socreative, on 27 July 2010 - 10:47 AM, said:

judging by the name i thought this thread would be about perverts

LOOOOOL XD

[padioland]

It is funny how emotive this issue can be, I personally can see flash becoming less relevant in the next 3 years. One of the downfalls of flash is its ease of use, that has mean that many people with no talent created a lot of rubbish, however on the upside a lot of creative people were able to realise some positive creative ideas using it.

[Daz]

padioland, on 25 August 2010 - 03:18 PM, said:

It is funny how emotive this issue can be, I personally can see flash becoming less relevant in the next 3 years. One of the downfalls of flash is its ease of use, that has mean that many people with no talent created a lot of rubbish, however on the upside a lot of creative people were able to realise some positive creative ideas using it.

Erm, how do you figure? I'm fluent in flash and HTML/CSS but i still think Flash is a lot harder (unless you use some sort of rubbish online tool). There are millions and millions of rubbish rookie made websites out there but you don't see that effecting the strength of some languages, php, asp etc?

[padioland]

Daz, on 25 August 2010 - 03:30 PM, said:

Erm, how do you figure? I'm fluent in flash and HTML/CSS but i still think Flash is a lot harder (unless you use some sort of rubbish online tool). There are millions and millions of rubbish rookie made websites out there but you don't see that effecting the strength of some languages, php, asp etc?

In the past I've known graphic designers and creatives who have been shown the animation and simple scripting basics in flash go on to produce some really creative things, they might not be ready to go on-line but they are visulaisations that can be used to express their idea to a technical team. It was this aspect of flash I was thinking about, I wasn't making a comparison to html etc to do the some of the things you can do in flash with html etc requires a lot of technical knowledge.

[padioland]

padioland, on 25 August 2010 - 03:52 PM, said:

In the past I've known graphic designers and creatives who have been shown the animation and simple scripting basics in flash go on to produce some really creative things, they might not be ready to go on-line but they are visulaisations that can be used to express their idea to a technical team. It was this aspect of flash I was thinking about, I wasn't making a comparison to html etc to do the some of the things you can do in flash with html etc requires a lot of technical knowledge.

I guess both views can be relevant depending on what the context is and what somebody wishes to achieve with flash.

[keithics]

Flash = GAMES

the rest are html,css, html5 etc..