Hi I am currently conducting research for my final year dissertation and am trying to gain views from web designers on which they think is better to use when designing web sites; Flash or HTML5?

 

Please comment with your opinion, and if you would be willing to participate in a brief interview via email please message me.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Becky

Let's see - HTML5: the latest evolution of the main standard the Web is built on which can be written in a text editor and displayed in any browser, or Flash: a proprietary technology that's inaccessible to most search engines, smartphones and tablets, requires a browser plug-in to work at all and can only be authored in an expensive software package released by one company.

^ what he said

Let's see - HTML5: the latest evolution of the main standard the Web is built on which can be written in a text editor and displayed in any browser, or Flash: a proprietary technology that's inaccessible to most search engines, smartphones and tablets, requires a browser plug-in to work at all and can only be authored in an expensive software package released by one company.

If Flash had a face:

You can't "design" a site in Flash - Flash movies are content

“Web designers and developers sometimes lose sight of what works and is demanded by a larger audience, due to preferring what’s considered ‘cool’ in their bubble,” he adds. “More big brands will shift from Flash, testing the water with HTML5 and CSS3 for focussed campaigns. But for entertainment sites, Flash is – and will remain – the predominant tool of choice to create engaging experiences. And that’s because those sites act as an extension of a movie’s universe, not only existing to serve cold information.”

 

 

According to this guy

Edited March 8, 201214 yr by oakleaves

But adobe Edge might be ok!

 

*Runs for cover*

Requirements, in my eyes, before you use Flash:

 

• You have a genuine reason to do so, that cannot be replicated with HTML5/CSS3
  
• You have evidence that 95% of your visitors are desktop users with Flash installed
  
• You are making a web-based game
  

 

In all other cases, there is no reason not to code in the latest standards. CSS3 and HTML5 aren't "cool", they're standards that govern how we code for the web, so unless you have some sort of inner-rebel waiting to get out and "fight the machine" that is the W3C, then you should be using them.

 

The fact is, a lot of things we used to use Flash for we can do do without needing Flash and the results are the same. I remember having to use Flash to make a navbar that, when you hovered on buttons, they had a "pulse" effect. You can do that in CSS3 now, and the result is exactly the same, so you don't get any of the negatives associated with Flash, such as the Flash menu not working on an iPhone etc.

I hear you Mike. Just thought I'd throw in a curveball for consideration.

Hi, thanks all for your input. Do you think the fact that HTML5 does not currently have a set standard across web browsers could prevent you/and or, other developers choosing not to use it?

 

Becky

Hi, thanks all for your input. Do you think the fact that HTML5 does not currently have a set standard across web browsers could prevent you/and or, other developers choosing not to use it?

 

Becky

 

That question is a double negative but if you meant what I think you did:-

 

No, the fact that there is a lack of consistency as to how mark-up is displayed amongst the various web browsers will not put developers off from using HTML5. Far from it.

There are options available for people wanting to use html5 right now; progressive enhancement, graceful degradation and frameworks.

 

For general websites most people will be making there will be be little need to move away from xhtml just yet but it you want to you can certainly create the same sites with html5 and add the newer features as browsers update.

HTML5 everytime

HTML5 everytime

agreed.

Both will have its own advantages. We are not able to compare each other.... HTML 5 is more advanced than flash!

 

We can and have compared them.

 

How is HTML5 more advanced then flash? Maybe one day it will be but it isn't yet.

Turn off JavaScript and disable CSS styles and then see how great HTML5 is at animations and graphics.

 

HTML5 is just a shiny new stage for some great, talented, old performers.

Edited April 24, 201214 yr by Spitfire

With the way design technology is moving, it looks like HTML5 is going to win out - especially when it comes to mobile devices.

It's already been said, but for most applications HTML5 is superior as it's more accessible to more people in more places.

 

Flash still has it's place, either as rich assets within a HTML framework (for some zing or interaction that doesn't effect the usability of the site). It's still far superior at handling video.

 

Full flash sites are reserved for projects that have no requirement to be accessible nor work on most mobile/tablets. It's also worth noting that for these types of rich experiences it's also probably a hell of a lot cheaper (and less riskier) to do in flash due to there being a larger pool of talent that can produce it and there's no need to spend time on progressive enhancement or accessibility. This will change once everyone gets to grips with what HTML5, canvas etc is capable of.

Full flash sites are reserved for projects that have no requirement to be accessible...

I'd love to see an example where a site doesn't need to be accessible

I'd love to see an example where a site doesn't need to be accessible

 

My point mostly refers to micro-sites that support the launch of a product that is not aimed at those who are impaired and where the requirement for lots of 'WOW' (video game audience is a great example). Go to The FWA and you'll find plenty

 

Also, the point that sites SHOULD be accessible is mute for this discussion. It's whether flash is better than HTML5. And the answer is yes, sometimes. The people still spending millions on full flash experiences when it's appropriate seem to think so, and you can bet they know exactly who their audience is and can back the choice to use flash with their financials. Why cater for the 0.5% of your audience revenue at a much higher percentage overhead?

some really nice tips and opinions here, I believe that HTML5 is the best, on the other hand flash is good for animations and games

Now, i've always said Flash has it's place. I even said so in a familiar thread, however i'm going to go back on that. The only time i'll ever use Flash now is if i'm working alongside a Flash developer on a project with separate budgets for us and a very short deadline.

 

Although i will say that the title of this thread is a little odd. HTML5 is one ingrediant in a whole variable 'cake' that goes to make up websites. HTML5 alone can't really replace Flash but HTML/CSS/JavaScript can and for the most part does a far better job at it.

 

HTML/CSS/JavaScript > Flash

Or even HTML/CSS/JavaScript/Flash > Flash

 

That's the great thing about open standards use them freely.

 

And I'd like to have a shout out for SVG, very important in the war against proprietary software.

Aa already someone said before me, there is no clear answer in this question. I think it depends on what the project is about. HTML5 (with help from css3 and javascript of course) can have a great result for almost every website a regular customer would ask. But, there are still some projects that flash is the only way to make them work.

 

So, html 5 is going more and more famous and powerful, but flash still has some benefits that can't be substituted. yet...

First of all, it's not like you have to choose. We can use both on your site. Have you ever asked HTML 4.01 or Flash?

 

That said I'll answer few things

Let's see - HTML5: the latest evolution of the main standard the Web is built on which can be written in a text editor and displayed in any browser

Make sense but see html5demos.com. It doesn't look like all the features of HTML5 are supported equally by all the browsers. Those are just desktop browsers but how about every new devices with their browsers. You can always say, it's the standard so the browser makers should catch up. While, we are full aware of how the "standard" worked on HTML 4.01, CSS2 and Javascript, extra-coding right.

or Flash: a proprietary technology

It didn't matter for years, why would it matter now? As long as it's free. I don't see any reason of why would they stop improving it.

(Flash)...that's inaccessible to most search engines,

entirely true

(Flash)...smartphones and tablets, require a browser plug-in to work at all

no big deal, as long as it works.

and can only be authored in an expensive software package released by one company.

no big deal either

iphone, ipad...

Fair enough. We can't wait for Apple to change their mind. Talking about a proprietary.

 

The main downside of HTML5 is the same as usual.

1- As I said above: multicoding for different browsers. For example: go to HTML5 demo on Apple's page and use the latest Internet Explorer (ie 9 as of now) and see it it works.

2- Interaction: you've got to use Javascript, and again that is browser dependent. But which framework to use? jQuery, Mootools, ... or develop your own. And your user have to download those frameworks every time they cleared their browser histories. Or wait for the browser makers (new updates for every single of them)for some Javascript features need not to be downloaded. And up to now, it didn't work so well.

________________________________________

 

So to conclude.

Need a "rathe heavy" application on your page: use Flash. But don't make your entire page Flash. Save some places for the SEO-robots to walk.

Just for design and looks: use HTML5

Devices: have your page to have Device versions

iPhone/iPad: HTML5, and if you need interaction, develop apps(just as Apple wanted)

Edited June 9, 201214 yr by ndriana

 

no big deal either

 

... Any on, I just need to change this one image in my shiny flash web app... Ah damn it!

So it is a big deal really.

 

2- Interaction: you've got to use Javascript, and again that is browser dependent. But which framework to use? jQuery, Mootools, ... or develop your own. And your user have to download those frameworks every time they cleared their browser histories. Or wait for the browser makers (new updates for every single of them)for some Javascript features need not to be downloaded.

 

How long does it take your browser to download a few kb? Also the amount of browsers out there that can run JavaScript,and already do, far out weighs the amount that can and do run Flash.

 

So to conclude.

Need a "rathe heavy" application on your page: use Flash. But don't make your entire page Flash. Save some places for the SEO-robots to walk.

Just for design and looks: use HTML5

Devices: have your page to have Device versions

iPhone/iPad: HTML5, and if you need interaction, develop apps(just as Apple wanted)

 

My conclusion...

Forget about flash , code sites in HTML5, CSS3 and JavaScript. If you need it to work in older out of date browsers then there are many graceful fallback solutions out there.

... Any on, I just need to change this one image in my shiny flash web app... Ah damn it!

So it is a big deal really.

Please elaborate your point. Do you intend to mean that you cannot reedit a flash application?

A great thing about Flash is that only the author has the .fla file. Safe from intellectual property thieves. Some softwares can decompile the .swf but the result is not comparable as the original .fla.

Or if you want to say that you cannot change an image interactively in Flash with as3, like you do with Javascript in case of HTML5, then I'm not going to continue this discussion.

 

How long does it take your browser to download a few kb? Also the amount of browsers out there that can run JavaScript,and already do, far out weighs the amount that can and do run Flash.

Let's say a second for a fast connection. It depends. But what I meant is that, can't a browser save frameworks, let's say the famous ones, in the computer already? Instead of downloading them all the time for every site? Weird... Thanks to Google for hosting those at least. But flashplayer is not like that. You download the framework only once and basta.

Talking about the amount of browsers, please state which ones can't support flash besides on iPad and iPhone. And tell how much people actually use them, and do they really need interactivity?

 

My conclusion...

Forget about flash , code sites in HTML5, CSS3 and JavaScript. If you need it to work in older out of date browsers then there are many graceful fallback solutions out there.

Support your idea. Which browsers are you refering as "older out of date"? I want to know.

 

Fash vs Ajax discussions have been there for few years now. But look, Zynga became billionaire thanks to Flash. They are trying HTML5 now but who is playing it.

Think of Flash as the BeeGees, ok in it's day but ultimately annoying and dead ;-)

 

... teeth, medallions, open shirts, and falsetto. I can see exactly where you're coming from

This whole discussion, if Flash sits at 0 and Html5 sits at 10, I guess I'm at about 7 at the moment with my opinions.

 

Maybe it's just me, but we get these periods where we're kind of waiting for things to change over, and often it either doesn't happen or happens much later than anticipated. Mabe it's me becoming older and more cynical, but nowadays I always take a step back to wait and do a bit of chin stroking during these "blah blah is out. Blah blah is the next big thing" periods, as it rarely pans out how all the "gurus" say it's gonna.

 

We have the same thing happening at the moment with the EU cookie stuff, I believe. Not so much a directive as a Bermuda Triangle at the moment. We have to wait and see how it's gonna pan out once the Fat Bird sings.

 

As we all know this continual development of technologies is an organic thing, and although deadlines are rules are set, they are rarely adhered to. I'm still waiting for everyone to stop using Flash and for it to change to html5 but look - there's still loads of Flash stuff out there and people are still using it.

 

I would probably say that html5 will replace Flash if I had to put my money on it, but as usual it doesn't seem to be happening as quickly as all these magical turning points that the gurus proclaim all the time. The other question I have is that if Apple hadn't kicked up a stink, would the concept of replacing Flash ever have come into discussion, or would we all be still sitting here happily advising each other of swfobject etc. oblivious to all these problems?

 

Yes, html5 over Flash, but tiny pinch of salt required, I guess is what I'd say. Some of these changeovers are more rock solid than others.

Fash vs Ajax discussions have been there for few years now. But look, Zynga became billionaire thanks to Flash. They are trying HTML5 now but who is playing it.

Back in the day when we all used Java to display video applets I remember the same arguments when Flash came along - everyone was saying that Java was so useful and Flash wasn't the solution. Eventually, as technology progressed, use of Java declined and Flash became the mainstream method. Move forward 10 years and technology has move on again, but this time HTML is the new boy and Flash is in decline. That's the way of the world - some people may not like it but if you don't move with the times you'll quickly get left behind.

Talking about the amount of browsers, please state which ones can't support flash besides on iPad and iPhone. And tell how much people actually use them, and do they really need interactivity?

All of them. Every single browser requires a plugin to be installed before it can support Flash.

 

But look, Zynga became billionaire thanks to Flash. They are trying HTML5 now but who is playing it.

 

Actually, most Zynga games are built actually built in Shockwave but yes Flash is still the most popular format for browser based games. However, that is rapidly changing as the game companies are looking to push their games out onto other devices.

I have voted for Flash but I am surprised after knowing the results. Is HTML 5 really so worthy as I am a big fan of flash specially for my banners.

I think HTML5 is not better than Flash. Flash has a very advanced and optimized 2D drawing api and i have also voted for Flash.

Saying either is better than the other is disingenuous, you can't say HTML5 or Flash 100% of the time as that's not true. So many factors come into it that it's impossible to say one is inherently better than the other.

 

For most cases where you need rich interactions HTML 5 will be most suited, it was created to address that very need; to provide a platform where we can create richer experiences without having to use Flash.

 

Saying that HTML 5 is an out and out replacement for Flash is either short sighted or blindly ideological. Flash is an incredibly mature platform which is in some (many?) ways far more evolved and far more powerful than HTML 5 is now.

 

Which is best will really depend on what the projects requirements are, who the audience is, how they will be interacting with the site, how important SEO is to that project (SEO is not the beginning and the end; it is one part of an ocean of marketing offerings).

 

 

In most cases, Flash takes the stage when there is a requirement for highly engaging user experiences that blend high levels of animation and media content. Certain types of campaign and brand experiences.

 

 

Then of course you have niches and specific areas of functionality that depend on Flash.

 

Sites like Livestream, uStream and Stickam for example, simply couldn't exist without Flash.

 

Sites like Youtube still primarily depends on Flash and haven't converted completely over to HTML 5 Video (there are reasons for this) - the codec problems play a major role for smaller broadcasting platforms.

 

Some of the new wave of analytical applications depend on Flash for graphing still (although for many HTML 5 / JQuery is suitable)

 

 

Then there are games; while HTML 5 can achieve some it cannot achieve all.

 

 

There are also areas where using Flash is desirable over HTML 5 due to costs and risk. There are numerous things HTML 5 can achieve across platforms or can technically be used for; but doing so would require breaking new ground and/or addressing device technical limitations that are either totally or somewhat unexplored.

 

For some businesses the risk outweighs the drawbacks, for others the drawbacks outweigh the risk.

 

 

I did vote HTML 5 though, because for many applications where Flash would have been used in the past, HTML 5 fits now. But it is not the beginning and the end, the answer is far more complicated than that.

 

Also we can only consider how HTML 5 and Flash are now; HTML 5 will evolve, other things will appear, Flash will evolve. Thats one of the exiting things about this industry, it moves so fast. In 5 years time, a lot of what I've said will probably be irrelevant, in 8 years time, people will likely be looking at HTML 5 discussions of today with smirks.

Edited July 1, 201214 yr by FizixRichard

Just to add to this thread, a little something that's quite important.

Adobe is discontinuing support for mobile versions of Flash and Android will no longer support flash as of 'Jellybean'

Just to add to this thread, a little something that's quite important.

Adobe is discontinuing support for mobile versions of Flash and Android will no longer support flash as of 'Jellybean'

 

 

I don't think that is all that "important" - as such.

 

Apple don't support Flash so there is more demand for interactive content to be produced in HTML 5 for mobile platforms anyway.

 

With CS6 having the capability to publish Flash as HTML 5; those who create something in Flash can target mobile devices comfortably via that route (though I am not sure how it benchmarks against hand coded yet)

 

The kind of experiences where Flash is better than HTML 5 are somewhat irrelevant to mobile devices as they would struggle to cope with those applications on a technical level anyway. Which is probably the driving force behind Adobe's decision there. It also makes much better business sense for them to work on HTML 5 publishing from their Flash and AIR platforms.

 

 

The exception being tablets where Flash is beneficial, the hardware can cope and HTML 5 isn't viable. Like rich product configurators.

 

 

Another thing I want to add is Unity 3D, they are now rolling out Flash publishing support, which while limited at the moment will no doubt evolve; that has the potential to change the browser based gaming landscape.

Edited July 1, 201214 yr by FizixRichard

Sites like Livestream, uStream and Stickam for example, simply couldn't exist without Flash.

 

 

Very true. I don't think anybody would deny Flash has had, and continues to have, its place.

 

It's when people use it for things that can be just as easily done exactly the same using standard technologies that I question the use of it.

 

By the way, getUserMedia will now allow websites to build webcam apps without using Flash. It's not quite ready for adoption yet, but any webcam sites should certainly think about developing with it.

 

Especially as it'd work with iPads and the like.