Website issue - Flash 8 maybe?

tektonnic said:

It was done in Flash 8 and saved as Shockwave files.

Click to expand...

Why are you saving as a shockwave file? Shockwave is kinda dead, I don't think MacroMedia/Adobe are even planning another release of Director to m knowledge.

Also I checked your source code and you've got some funky thing with frames going on....ok I found the frame source....although it's still calling an SWF which should be fine?

I'm really not sure what you've done here, but like I said, shockwave is dead

dornoforpyros said:

but like I said, shockwave is dead

Click to expand...

nonsense.

tektonnic said:

What do you suggest if not shockwave?

Will doing it in another format stop my browser compatability issues?

Click to expand...

Everyone thinks (myself included until very recently) that SWF stands for Shockwave Flash, whereas it actually (rather oddly, and perhaps unofficially) stands for 'Small Web Files'.

So you should be exporting as SWF, but this doesn't mean Shockwave.

Sorry just checked your site and realised you have actually exported as Shockwave - I thought you were confusing swf with shockwave.

You should be exporting as Flash Player, Shockwave is useful if you're doing anything 3D, but most people don't have the plug-in, so it's awkward to use.

londonweb said:

Everyone thinks (myself included until very recently) that SWF stands for Shockwave Flash, whereas it actually (rather oddly, and perhaps unofficially) stands for 'Small Web Files'.

Click to expand...

Unofficially...

As far as I'm aware SWF doesn't actually have a meaning, though it was at times (unofficially) referred to as Shockwave Flash in the mid/late 90's which is strange considering Shockwave has always been a .dcr format and never used the .swf format.

tektonnic said:

so export as .fla?

Click to expand...

No, as a .swf.

iGav said:

Unofficially...

As far as I'm aware SWF doesn't actually have a meaning, though it was at times (unofficially) referred to as Shockwave Flash in the mid/late 90's which is strange considering Shockwave has always been a .dcr format and never used the .swf format.

Click to expand...

Sort of intrigued now- have a look at this:

http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd/archives/2004/08/shockwave_vs_fl.cfm

tektonnic said:

So what recommendations would you make to allow the site to be continually succesful at displaying on all OS and browsers?

Click to expand...

In Flash, choose 'Export Movie' from the file menu, and make sure the file type is 'Flash Movie'. When the 'Export Flash Player' dialogue appears, choose 'Flash Player 6' from the version menu, and uncheck 'Optimise for Flash Player 6 r65.

This method will give you a good compromise between functionality (if you've used any Actionscript 2 coding) and compatibility. Flash player 6 came included with IE 6 (I think) and so is the player version that many users still have. In large corporations where users are barred from installing software on their machines, this is the player that is most common. In smaller organisations where users are allowed to download and install software many people will have upgraded to player 7 or 8. Hopefully IE7 will include player 8 and this will instigate the next wave of software upgrades in larger companies.

You have to be careful if you've worked in Flash 8 and are exporting as player 6, because certain AS2 elements are unsupported and won't work, as well as certain animation and anti-aliasing effects, although the program should warn you. The best thing is to set your publish settings to Flash 6 in the file menu before you start working, to avoid pitfalls later on.

londonweb said:

Sort of intrigued now- have a look at this:

http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd/archives/2004/08/shockwave_vs_fl.cfm

Click to expand...

Interesting... though pretty much confirms what I remember at the time.

I'm still puzzled why Macromedia didn't actually just unify Shockwave and Flash in the first place with a single, soul plug-in. It would've saved a lot of hassle.

Shockwave still has it's uses though, and it's still reasonably popular with end users, hence why I disagree with the comment regarding it being dead.

I'd always hoped that Macromedia would've more closely intergrated Flash and Director into a common suite, but with Adobe taking over Macromedia, now I'll just be happy if they continue to support Director.

Both Flash and Director need serious development to improve workflow though, Flash has always suffered from being incredibly clunky, with poor cross-platform performance, where as Director has the perfect UI metaphor, but suffers from a far too extensive plug-in (xtras) architecture, which whilst good in some respects, also means that Director misses out on a lot of basic functionality... that requires developers to purchase often expensive xtra's to achieve simple features.

They'd be better off building a new app from scratch IMHO... maybe they will... LiveMotion always had the better interface.