01-29-2010, 05:18 PM
I agree with M A V I C that there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in this thread as to what actually uses Flash on the web.
What additional tools would make it worthwhile to develop an alternative solution in order to have the advantages of a Flash-less online experience?
Flash just isn't video. Do you think you'd be able to experience the animation on the Simpsons web site without Flash? Yes, that animation is done in Flash if not their proprietary system not HTML 5. When you go to movie or musicians' sites, all that animation is Flash and cannot be replicated by HTML 5. It cannot, period. In those cases of rich media, Flash will not be replaced at all.
For navigational menu animations such as accordion menus, etc, they can be replaced by jQuery & HTML 5. I think M A V I C and i are speaking from the perspective of people who actually produce content for the web & build it versus people who consume the web.
No, that isn't the problem. The problem is Flash itself. If I download a YouTube video (in H.264 format) and play it with QuickTime player, it plays perfectly. Yet, it won't play at all in Flash on the web page.
Flash is garbage.
BTW, this test is on a G4/400!
What's missing?
AA, see above. Also, you downloading a movie and playing in QuickTime on your hard drive or desktop is *way* different than playing a video in a browser that's dependent on servers, buffering, your browser cache & your internet connection. Of course it's going to run faster on your hard drive. Try running the Flash file on your hard drive, I'm sure it will be miles faster as well.
deckeda wrote:
[quote=M A V I C]
... CSS & HTML 5 only partially replace what Flash offers.
What additional tools would make it worthwhile to develop an alternative solution in order to have the advantages of a Flash-less online experience?
Flash just isn't video. Do you think you'd be able to experience the animation on the Simpsons web site without Flash? Yes, that animation is done in Flash if not their proprietary system not HTML 5. When you go to movie or musicians' sites, all that animation is Flash and cannot be replicated by HTML 5. It cannot, period. In those cases of rich media, Flash will not be replaced at all.
For navigational menu animations such as accordion menus, etc, they can be replaced by jQuery & HTML 5. I think M A V I C and i are speaking from the perspective of people who actually produce content for the web & build it versus people who consume the web.
Article Accelerator wrote:
[quote=M A V I C]
Wow. Ok. There appears to be some misunderstandings in this thread...There isn't a Flash video codec. All Flash provides is a wrapper for third party video codecs. The problem is, the most commonly used codecs are processor intensive.
No, that isn't the problem. The problem is Flash itself. If I download a YouTube video (in H.264 format) and play it with QuickTime player, it plays perfectly. Yet, it won't play at all in Flash on the web page.
Flash is garbage.
BTW, this test is on a G4/400!
CSS & HTML 5 only partially replace what Flash offers.
What's missing?
AA, see above. Also, you downloading a movie and playing in QuickTime on your hard drive or desktop is *way* different than playing a video in a browser that's dependent on servers, buffering, your browser cache & your internet connection. Of course it's going to run faster on your hard drive. Try running the Flash file on your hard drive, I'm sure it will be miles faster as well.