PDA

View Full Version : Rebuild website From Flash to html 5... (Flash vs. html 5)




freeny
Jan 31, 2010, 06:55 AM
Ok, so if apple wont be supporting Flash for the forseeable future, i assume I will need to rebuild my website from Flash to html 5.
Here is my site-

Old Flash site-
http://web.mac.com/moistproduction/flash_Old/index.html

New site (iweb)
www.moistproduction.com

I like Flash's keyframe setup as well as easy methods to build rollover buttons and prebuilt simple action scripting ie "goto and stop" etc...

What is a good html 5 web building app that would hopefully give similar ease?

I am an illustrator, not a programmer, but want to be able to manage my own site...



angelwatt
Jan 31, 2010, 07:51 AM
The HTML5 spec is still under work and browsers only have partial support for it and some have no support for it. You'll be locking out more users by using HTML5 right now than Flash. The only tools somewhat like this is Adobe's product for making Flash into iPhone apps.

freeny
Jan 31, 2010, 08:48 AM
Is there anything out currently that would be able to do the html 5 in the future similar to what I am looking for?

I could at least get the ball rolling on learning the app...

angelwatt
Jan 31, 2010, 09:31 AM
Is there anything out currently that would be able to do the html 5 in the future similar to what I am looking for?

I could at least get the ball rolling on learning the app...

I'd suggest learning JavaScript because that's how most of it will be done and currently can be done with without HTML5. Even CSS works really well for rollover effects. What HTML5 brings is the video tag. I suggest doing more reading so you know what HTML5 actually is because it's clear you have the wrong impressions about it. Knowledge is power.

freeny
Jan 31, 2010, 09:40 AM
I'd suggest learning JavaScript because that's how most of it will be done and currently can be done with without HTML5. Even CSS works really well for rollover effects. What HTML5 brings is the video tag. I suggest doing more reading so you know what HTML5 actually is because it's clear you have the wrong impressions about it. Knowledge is power.
My impressions of it from the current anti flash threads is that it is going to magically replace it. Is this not the case? If so there is alot of false info running rampant...

Im not looking to learn a whole computer language, im looking for an app that will take alot of the bite out of knowing how to write code, like Flash does with its library of pre written scripts for the basic stuff...

Remember, i am an illustrator not a programmer.

angelwatt
Jan 31, 2010, 09:46 AM
Like I said, read. HTML5 from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5). Forums discussions like you've read are not a good place to start. Those discussions generally expect people to have an understanding of the topics being discussed and do not get into the specifics of what will be done. Not being a programmer won't be an excuse that gets you very far. There's plenty of tutorials and pre-built solutions that don't require you to have detailed programming knowledge.

thejadedmonkey
Jan 31, 2010, 10:03 AM
Chances are if you rebuild your site without flash, it won't look as good, and will be less accessible to more people, assuming you don't choose to support IE 6.

robj
Jan 31, 2010, 10:11 AM
There's something wrong in your statement, You cannot clone your Flash with HTML5, that's not the point when some people say HTML5 would replace Flash.

HTML5 isn't a closed standard, and as some stated before, it isn't even supported by all browsers.

But, if you want to use HTML5 for your site, you should start by redesing itself, making it more close to a thing that can be done with Javascript/HTML/CSS. I'm not saying this design must be less stylish, but at least, it must be different.

What I think is you should never use only Flash to make a website, there's some standard methods to lay up a web.

freeny
Jan 31, 2010, 10:15 AM
Chances are if you rebuild your site without flash, it won't look as good, and will be less accessible to more people, assuming you don't choose to support IE 6.

I realize there are plenty of flash/no flash threads but i have to pose this question... What does apple expect to replace Flash if they refuse to support it? Im not talking about video but interactive websites like my own?...


Side question-
Is there a way in iweb to place custom built navigation that doesnt need to reload for every page? Just loads the new content without rerendering the content that is consistant?... (similar to how flash can load a different layer within the same flv)

sushi
Jan 31, 2010, 10:16 AM
Here is my site-

www.moistproduction.com
No offense, but I had to force myself to stay on your site past your main page. Everything takes way too long to load. Sorry, but I would never consider giving you my business because everything is too slow and I would not want my pages to load the same way.

On a side note, you have many cool things on your website. You are a creative individual. Suggest when transitioning from Flash to HTML(5)/CSS/etc., I think it would be a great idea to work on streamlining and speeding up your website.

Just my 2 cents.

MacDawg
Jan 31, 2010, 10:24 AM
Everything takes way too long to load.

The site looks cool, but having to endure a progress bar to load everything is definitely a turn off

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

freeny
Jan 31, 2010, 10:35 AM
I use to have the whole site built in iweb, looked exacly the same sans the rollovers and spinning animation. The problem was several things-

-i couldnt use my custom font without rasterizing
-no roll overs
-everything had to rerender for every page including the navigation which stayed the same for each page (biggest peeve). Loading times were worse then flash because it was for every page not just each section.

I agree on the slow load comments hence my journey to correct them...

MacDawg
Jan 31, 2010, 10:38 AM
The artwork looks awesome

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

snouter
Jan 31, 2010, 01:40 PM
I'd suggest learning JavaScript because that's how most of it will be done and currently can be done with without HTML5. Even CSS works really well for rollover effects. What HTML5 brings is the video tag. I suggest doing more reading so you know what HTML5 actually is because it's clear you have the wrong impressions about it. Knowledge is power.

^ This.

You are looking at using current tech - HTML/CSS and javascript libraries for effects.

Right now when people say HTML5 they are mostly talking specifically about the ability to deploy video, but there are some brewing issues around H.264 licensing.

The reason for the confusion is that with the rise of YouTube, Flash came to mean video. When is the last time you played a Real or .wmv file? So, if the video can be handled through other means, than the only other thing you are looking to replicate is interactive effects, data handling and sorting which moves from Actionscript to Javascript.

It's not a direct replacement, Flash will always be able to produce much more art intense interactive experiences, and some other things like the ability to control things like fonts.

Welcome to the Splinternet.

smetvid
Jan 31, 2010, 04:08 PM
What kind of society are we if a few seconds of loading puts us off? Are we really that hyperactive now that we cannot sit still for 5 seconds without a massive amount of visual stimulation?

The flip side of this is that some people prefer to see animation even it means waiting a few seconds for it. Complexity has a tradeoff and that tradeoff is time. Some of the best computer games take a few seconds to load new levels. To me dumbing down the content so people can get a quick fix and run through the internet like they just drank 10 cups of coffee is not the solution either. There needs to be an in between.

The reality is that people today are just spoiled brats. I used to have to wait sometimes a minute for a simple HTML and jpeg based website to load on dialup. Mostly young people today have no concept of relaxing and waiting for the finer things in life. In all reality a site that uses a lot of jpegs and just HTML and CSS could take just as long to load. After all Flash itself does not add much of an overhead in a SWF file. 95% of the data is your image and audio data.

I did not find your site to take too long to load. You may want to try to speed it up slightly for those who are addicted to that quick fix by having each section use smaller data but other then that I do not see a problem with your site. Very nice work.

Dunmail
Jan 31, 2010, 04:33 PM
html5 isn't an app, it's a description of how elements on a web page should act and interact with one another, plus it's work in progress.

Rather than replace all of your site with html (of whatever level) look at those parts of it that Flash does best and those that are better done in html then aim towards that.

Loading times are dependent on the goal - I'd quit a commercial or information site that took as long to load as the main content of your site - but for an entertainment site it is probably acceptable these days.

freeny
Jan 31, 2010, 05:04 PM
html5 isn't an app

and nor is action script, but there is an app called "flash" that allows you to build websites with it... I was hoping there was an app that easily, with semi wysiwyg elements where i could build a site using html5... Dreamweaver perhaps?

snouter
Jan 31, 2010, 05:51 PM
and nor is action script, but there is an app called "flash" that allows you to build websites with it... I was hoping there was an app that easily, with semi wysiwyg elements where i could build a site using html5... Dreamweaver perhaps?

Dreamweaver is a glorified text editor with code hinting and formatting, site management and FTP built in. Which is basically what a WYSIWYG HTML editor is.

Coda is also very popular on the Mac. Maybe $60?

Aptana Studio and Komodo also get some play. Free.

angelwatt
Jan 31, 2010, 06:01 PM
and nor is action script, but there is an app called "flash" that allows you to build websites with it... I was hoping there was an app that easily, with semi wysiwyg elements where i could build a site using html5... Dreamweaver perhaps?

You're trying to compare apples and oranges, though I realize you don't realize that yet as you need to understand both sides, which is why I keep encouraging reading (there's lots of articles on HTML5). You're not going to find anything like Flash for doing HTML5/JavaScript because they aren't in the same category really other than being for the web. The only thing I can think of that may partially addresses what you're looking for is YUI (http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/). The simple answer to this thread has been "no," but you keep dragging it out unnecessarily.

snouter
Jan 31, 2010, 06:11 PM
What kind of society are we if a few seconds of loading puts us off?

That's not really what he thinks his issue is.

Some sites are appropriate for Flash.

Other sites want/need more universal access, or their authors just want them to work on all devices.

freeny
Jan 31, 2010, 06:45 PM
The simple answer to this thread has been "no," but you keep dragging it out unnecessarily.
that is actually the first time the answer has been addressed, thank you :)

ive appreciated everyones input, i learned more then I expected.

sushi
Jan 31, 2010, 09:14 PM
What kind of society are we if a few seconds of loading puts us off? Are we really that hyperactive now that we cannot sit still for 5 seconds without a massive amount of visual stimulation?
Good questions.

I think the point is this, what kind of website is it going to be? Is the priority an entertaining one or an informative one.

For the first type, Flash and other are fine. These individuals have the time to enjoy watching whatever is presented.

However, for the second type, those who access the site want information provided quickly and effectively. They are not interested is being entertained.

Some sites provide both by having a button/link that the user can click to skip the Flash.

For me both types of sites are good. Which I prefer depends on what my purpose is when accessing a site. Hope that makes sense.

snouter
Jan 31, 2010, 09:22 PM
FWIW, I build sister mobile websites now for our main sites.

I was just on an around the country trip doing some work with various design agencies. There we are with our iPhones and Androids trying to pull up some agency's website on our phones and there were are staring at the missing Flash plug-in.

All we wanted was a phone number or an address or something.

You can build an all-flash website, but you need to consider mobile users, SEO, and deep linking now, and that's with the usual concerns about ease of updating, etc.

It's enough to almost make one forgo Flash altogether in some instances.

thejadedmonkey
Jan 31, 2010, 09:32 PM
I realize there are plenty of flash/no flash threads but i have to pose this question... What does apple expect to replace Flash if they refuse to support it? Im not talking about video but interactive websites like my own?...

Javascript and CSS... which is a poor alternative, but Apple doesn't give you anything better. Basically, they are trying to gimp the internet in a way.

disconap
Feb 1, 2010, 04:32 AM
What kind of society are we if a few seconds of loading puts us off? Are we really that hyperactive now that we cannot sit still for 5 seconds without a massive amount of visual stimulation?

The current one. It's easy to say things like this, but how often do you turn off films, tv shows (or flip channels during commercials)? Have you never jumped a site because it loads slowly?

The reality is that web design is half art, half advertising. You have to meet the visual needs of your clients, but appeal to the technical needs of their customers. If you're not doing both, you're an artist or an advertiser, not a web designer.

angelwatt
Feb 1, 2010, 07:36 AM
The reality is that web design is half art, half advertising.

And where does that leave information? I use sites to find info (content), not to look at art and I block advertisements.

Cromulent
Feb 1, 2010, 08:21 AM
What kind of society are we if a few seconds of loading puts us off? Are we really that hyperactive now that we cannot sit still for 5 seconds without a massive amount of visual stimulation?

It is quite simple really. Because there is no need to wait if the site uses appropriate technology.

If you absolutely must wait for something then that is fine (an example would be a game loading screen) but for things that have a loading screen because they mis-used a technology or used a technology when it was not 100% essential then that is an extremely annoying feature.

Just because the site designer thought Flash was cool, does not mean that me, the user, thinks it cool or even necessary.

freeny
Feb 1, 2010, 08:47 AM
It is quite simple really. Because there is no need to wait if the site uses appropriate technology.

If you absolutely must wait for something then that is fine (an example would be a game loading screen) but for things that have a loading screen because they mis-used a technology or used a technology when it was not 100% essential then that is an extremely annoying feature.

Just because the site designer thought Flash was cool, does not mean that me, the user, thinks it cool or even necessary.

Agreed, I used Flash because it was a tool that delivered my needs and I knew how to operate. Now if there is another tool that can do the same thing that is easy to use, intuitive and is more accessible to the end user I am all for it :)

I am not an animator and I usually dont include animation on my site, but every once in a while ill throw it in for a change. Other then that the only animation i use is the preloaders and only because its better then staring at a blank screen for 7 seconds...

Avicdar
Feb 1, 2010, 09:52 AM
I'd like to be able to show off my website - http://avicdar.com

It's currently an HTML front page and a flash portfolio presentation. I've found the HTML templates that come with Aperture and Lightroom to be fairly weak and not to my liking. What I've used for my flash portion is a flash template that comes with Lightroom.

I'd love to find an alternative that is similar to my flash version but will work on iPhone, iPad, etc.

Anyone have any brilliant ideas? All this talk of how flash will never be supported is bumming me out.

lucidmedia
Feb 1, 2010, 09:53 AM
I love this thread. It reveals some really fundamental issues.

We are hearing, from Apple, and from many people on this website, that HTML 5 is the replacement for Flash TODAY, RIGHT NOW. So, the OP is asking a valid question. If "HTML 5 = Flash, How do I...". Its interesting how few of us can give him an honest answer. The simple answer is that there is no *simple* way to do this.

We probably should be prepared for a lot more posts like this.

The HTML 5 specification is a good thing, and is long overdue. The video tag will someday simplify video embedding, but as many know, there are currently fundamental codec licensing issues that will affect the use of the HTML5 video tag for the near future.

HTML5 is also still not fully supported across all browsers, etc. So, while the transition will happen, I personally think that the "call to HTML 5" is a bit premature.

Realistically, outside of the video tag, HTML 5 features are roughly comparable to Flash Player 2 or 3 (circa 1998). A great deal of my work involves creating real-time web-based interactive tools that visualize data. I do not see how the lion's share of the programming I do in AS3 (or Java) can be replaced by HTML 5's canvas tag. So, while HTML 5 will hopefully remove a lot of the flash banner ads and video players, to me HTML5 != Flash.

I often have to make the choice as to what technologies should be implemented on a specific project and from a business standpoint, again in my personal experience, development time and costs for AJAX have been significantly longer / higher than the same project built in As3. Part of this is because, as the OP has discovered, there is no simplified toolchain for this type of development. We have a handful of tools and libraries. Passing a project from developer to developer can be problematic sometimes.

So, for our OP (who is a talented artist. One who's work was familiar to me before he posted on the site) the costs for creating an interactive website just went up.

freeny
Feb 1, 2010, 10:54 AM
I love this thread. It reveals some really fundamental issues...


Hammer, meet head of nail... ;)

Perhaps I should rename the thread so it will be more appropriate?
Its refreshing to have a realistic conversation/debate outside of the front page posts that are pretty much "Flash sucks good riddance/No Flash, screw Apple" I would be guilty of the latter :o

The iPad looks to be a fantastic mobile portfolio for someone like myself, but as you can see my site would display a big blue Lego brick.

snouter
Feb 1, 2010, 11:20 AM
One who's work was familiar to me before he posted on the site) the costs for creating an interactive website just went up.

Drat, just as we get near the point of being able to ignore the extra development costs for ie6... ;)

iLunar
Feb 1, 2010, 12:09 PM
So here is my question...

If Apple (or other mobile companies) were to support Flash, how would mouse handler events be translated on touch devices? Video is one thing, but so many sites are built with event handlers that require mouse or keyboard input...that degree of interactivity is the reason why these designers chose Flash to begin with.

So how does Flash translate to a touch device without those event handlers? And has Adobe or Apple even addressed how that would work?

lucidmedia
Feb 1, 2010, 12:26 PM
So here is my question...

If Apple (or other mobile companies) were to support Flash, how would mouse handler events be translated on touch devices? Video is one thing, but so many sites are built with event handlers that require mouse or keyboard input...that degree of interactivity is the reason why these designers chose Flash to begin with.

So how does Flash translate to a touch device without those event handlers? And has Adobe or Apple even addressed how that would work?

Flash player 10.1 has native multi-touch events built in. Currently you can use your macbook's multi-touch track pad as an input on OSX. Windows 7 also has multitouch built in (perhaps better implemented that OSX).

Flash CS5 is able to compile native iphone applications (and soon probably ipad applications) as well. The As3 multitouch events work just fine across all those devices.

Its quite easy. See: http://theflashblog.com/?p=1672. Arguably easier than doing the same thing in xcode.

I should also mention that the multi-touch stuff works in browser as well. On Windows. Apple has locked down its gesture and raw touch data and won't give us access to it.

smetvid
Feb 1, 2010, 04:16 PM
The current one. It's easy to say things like this, but how often do you turn off films, tv shows (or flip channels during commercials)? Have you never jumped a site because it loads slowly?

The reality is that web design is half art, half advertising. You have to meet the visual needs of your clients, but appeal to the technical needs of their customers. If you're not doing both, you're an artist or an advertiser, not a web designer.

But Flash itself isn't really the problem here because it actually has very little overhead. If I made a website with 2 MB's of images it would take just as long to load a HTML version as it would a Flash version. The only difference is that the HTML version loads one image at a time. The same method could be used with Flash as well. Perhaps that is really the only problem here. Pre loaders give a perception of taking too long even though they may not be. It all comes down to how a site is loaded. With HTML it loads one image at a time and builds the site before your eyes. In the end you pretty much wait the same amount of time for a site to be 100% loaded. The true problem here is not Flash vs HTML but a data driven site vs a visual driven site.

snickelfritz
Feb 1, 2010, 04:24 PM
Personally I don't think it's necessary to provide "Flash-equivalent" rich content for mobile devices, but I do think it is necessary to make the data available to these devices.

The approach I'm working on right now for simple Flash apps is to create an external XML document that contains all data for the Flash app.
This XML document is imported into Flash and parsed to create the objects that make up the Flash app.
PHP5 is used to parse the XML data and write it into the swfObject alternate content div.
CSS can then be used to make the data presentable on crippled devices like the iPhone and iPad.
The upside of this approach is that an HTML form can be created that allows your clients to easily update the site data without having to work directly with an XML document, or (ugh!) editing an FLA or Actionscript file.

At the end of the day, the choice to use a niche device like the iPad or iPhone to browse the internet should not dictate which API developers should be using.
I'd be surprised if more than 1% of internet users were on crippled devices like the iPad at the end of the year.
All of these users will have to accept the limitations of Apple's mobile platform.
Some websites will simply never be viewable on this device.

smetvid
Feb 1, 2010, 04:39 PM
I love this thread. It reveals some really fundamental issues.

We are hearing, from Apple, and from many people on this website, that HTML 5 is the replacement for Flash TODAY, RIGHT NOW. So, the OP is asking a valid question. If "HTML 5 = Flash, How do I...". Its interesting how few of us can give him an honest answer. The simple answer is that there is no *simple* way to do this.

We probably should be prepared for a lot more posts like this.

The HTML 5 specification is a good thing, and is long overdue. The video tag will someday simplify video embedding, but as many know, there are currently fundamental codec licensing issues that will affect the use of the HTML5 video tag for the near future.

HTML5 is also still not fully supported across all browsers, etc. So, while the transition will happen, I personally think that the "call to HTML 5" is a bit premature.

Realistically, outside of the video tag, HTML 5 features are roughly comparable to Flash Player 2 or 3 (circa 1998). A great deal of my work involves creating real-time web-based interactive tools that visualize data. I do not see how the lion's share of the programming I do in AS3 (or Java) can be replaced by HTML 5's canvas tag. So, while HTML 5 will hopefully remove a lot of the flash banner ads and video players, to me HTML5 != Flash.

I often have to make the choice as to what technologies should be implemented on a specific project and from a business standpoint, again in my personal experience, development time and costs for AJAX have been significantly longer / higher than the same project built in As3. Part of this is because, as the OP has discovered, there is no simplified toolchain for this type of development. We have a handful of tools and libraries. Passing a project from developer to developer can be problematic sometimes.

So, for our OP (who is a talented artist. One who's work was familiar to me before he posted on the site) the costs for creating an interactive website just went up.

In my opinion it will not replace it 100%. I am happy for HTML 5 and cannot wait to make real use of it. HTML 5 however to me looks more like actionscript 1 and Flash 1 - 6. It can create interactivity and complex animation but it is no where near a programming language yet. It will be able to do some neat things like simple Flash banner animation but true interactive games will be a bit tough.

HTML 5 also has a few problems right now.

#1. No authoring software. While the concept of open means you can create great HTML 5 content with a simple text editor the fact is that a lot of the complex stuff will need a visual development environment. Without that HTML 5 development will be like programming with basic. Flash development can happen 10x faster for a complex project which means a much lower cost for companies. Chances are this will be a program more like Flash then Dreamweaver. Dreamweaver isn't really setup to a be a tool that can handle complex animation with layers of complexity. Hey maybe Go Live will come back to life as the HTML 5 version of Flash.

#2. Training and community support. How many art schools teach HTML 5 right now? How big is the user community with tutorials and books? Sure it will get bigger eventually but it is at least a few years off. I would say closer to four or five years. Other then a few topics here and there no art schools focus on HTML 5 right now. The focus is regular HTML and Flash. Even if schools did start HTML 5 training it would take two to four years before there would be a talent pool to support HTML 5 taking over Flash. That is assuming the tens of thousands of designers that already use Flash will llet that happen. Technology doesn't control what tools are used, the artists and talent do. If the designer community wants to use Flash then that is what will be used. If HTML 5 can fit into the same work flow and offer the same level of functionality then maybe slowly people will switch. It is not going to happen over night however. It is going to take years for the corporate world to totally switch gears and do a 180. So who exactly is going to create all of this HTML 5 content we are supposed to see a few months from now? We need a bit more then a few interesting samples to sell HTML 5 as the new standard.

#3. No universal video codec support yet. Many companies want to target as many users as possible. Considering Firefox will not use H264 for HTML 5 poses a huge problem for video content. Flash still offers the cheapest, easiest way to target the largest number of people with video.

angelwatt
Feb 1, 2010, 04:56 PM
It will be able to do some neat things like simple Flash banner animation but true interactive games will be a bit tough.

Have you seen the NES emulator written in JavaScript (http://benfirshman.com/projects/jsnes/)?

#1. No authoring software. While the concept of open means you can create great HTML 5 content with a simple text editor the fact is that a lot of the complex stuff will need a visual development environment.
Not needed really. I always prefer hand coding. Visual editors just get in my way. There's a lot of developers who feel the same way, maybe not designers, but developers prefer code views.

smetvid
Feb 1, 2010, 05:28 PM
Have you seen the NES emulator written in JavaScript (http://benfirshman.com/projects/jsnes/)?


Not needed really. I always prefer hand coding. Visual editors just get in my way. There's a lot of developers who feel the same way, maybe not designers, but developers prefer code views.

Yes and have you seen how slow that emulator is? The emulator also isn't an emulator. It doesn't read the rom data but pulls images wile the rom runs. I'm not sure about you but I find the performance of this to be unacceptable in a professional environment not to mention reading a image from a rom isn't exactly showing complex animation.

Sure developers prefer to code that way but the world isn't full of programmers. Heck sometimes I prefer to work that way as well but we do need something a bit more complex then just a simple text editor. Even Adobe Flex builder is better then writing raw XML files. Time is also money in this world. If a company that can use Flash can produce a project in 20 hours compared to a company that can do it in 120 hours who do you think is going to get the job? Do you really think a client is going to give a darn if you tell them the 120 hours is worth it because you are using a open source method of development? The other problem is just how well is HTML 5 going to work with thousands of line of code. I could imagine the execution would be a tad slow compared to a decent runtime environment.

angelwatt
Feb 1, 2010, 06:07 PM
Yes and have you seen how slow that emulator is? The emulator also isn't an emulator. It doesn't read the rom data but pulls images wile the rom runs. I'm not sure about you but I find the performance of this to be unacceptable in a professional environment not to mention reading a image from a rom isn't exactly showing complex animation.

Sure developers prefer to code that way but the world isn't full of programmers. Heck sometimes I prefer to work that way as well but we do need something a bit more complex then just a simple text editor. Even Adobe Flex builder is better then writing raw XML files. Time is also money in this world. If a company that can use Flash can produce a project in 20 hours compared to a company that can do it in 120 hours who do you think is going to get the job? Do you really think a client is going to give a darn if you tell them the 120 hours is worth it because you are using a open source method of development? The other problem is just how well is HTML 5 going to work with thousands of line of code. I could imagine the execution would be a tad slow compared to a decent runtime environment.

I didn't say anything about animation. I quoted you on interactive games. That page was just one example, it may require a faster browser, but it was just an example, a proof-of-concept really. There's plenty of pages showing animations using canvas. I've even used it to do OCR processing and applying image filters.

Just because it's new doesn't mean people should avoid it or anything. You seem to assume it'll take longer to do with HTML/JavaScript than Flash, but that all depends on the developer. I could do a number of these in the exact opposite hours you gave because I don't use Flash and it would take me forever to do. Someone coming from Flash to JavaScript will be slower at first, but everything gets easier with time. The client may not care about the hours it takes, but many will care about it being accessible on mobile devices.

sbryan
Feb 1, 2010, 07:14 PM
I didn't come to the forum to post this topic, but I might as well since I'm here.

Isn't Jobs outright lying when he says HTML 5 will replace Flash? As I understand it, HTML 5 will deliver a codec solution, like H264 and Flash are used for on YouTube.

But Flash isn't a codec. It's an interactive experience. Sure, it's used as a crutch many times, but talented Flash designers never fail to wow. Is Jobs really contending that Flash will be replaced by a gimped, hastily-implemented HTML 5 standard?

snickelfritz
Feb 1, 2010, 07:36 PM
HTML5 accomplishes the goals for Apple's mobile platform, and does not interfere with the revenue model for the appstore and iTunes.

Flash is also in many cases far too demanding for most mobile devices.
No one is going to be playing the latest 3D videogames on the iPad either, but I doubt that game developers will stop advancing video game technology because of this.
In the same way, Flash developers will continue to produce advanced Flash content and simply provide static alternate HTML content for the iPad, iPhone and other limited devices, as they should already be doing anyway.

iPad and iPhone users will just have to accept as a fact of life that these devices are limited, and will probably never actually be the de facto "best way" to surf the net.
The iPad multitouch interface is definitely cool though, and Flash developers would LOVE to be able to leverage this feature in Flash CS5 websites, but I doubt we'll see it in anything but apps compiled for the appstore.
(this is of course assuming that Apple approves apps that have been compiled in Flash CS5)

smetvid
Feb 1, 2010, 07:45 PM
I didn't say anything about animation. I quoted you on interactive games. That page was just one example, it may require a faster browser, but it was just an example, a proof-of-concept really. There's plenty of pages showing animations using canvas. I've even used it to do OCR processing and applying image filters.

Just because it's new doesn't mean people should avoid it or anything. You seem to assume it'll take longer to do with HTML/JavaScript than Flash, but that all depends on the developer. I could do a number of these in the exact opposite hours you gave because I don't use Flash and it would take me forever to do. Someone coming from Flash to JavaScript will be slower at first, but everything gets easier with time. The client may not care about the hours it takes, but many will care about it being accessible on mobile devices.

But what is the compelling reason to use HTML 5 over Flash? Ok fine you say it will be easier and faster then Flash for you but not everybody will think so. There is also a very deep Flash community that isn't going to shake up their tried and true method to make 100% of their clients happy just to please a few people who want everything to be open source. Why exactly should tens of thousands of Flash designers switch to HTML 5 just because Steve Jobs said so. HTML 5 offers nothing at all over Flash except Iphone and Ipad support. I think HTML 5 is a great addition but moving to it would be like taking a step backwards for myself and many other developers and designers. I do not doubt that HTML 5 will be able to create some nice content but it is going to take awhile for people to drop what they know to move to something new if they don't really need to. When HTML has some real market potential I and many others will use it but not right now. Give me a reason why I should use it and maybe I will change my mind, but so far nobody anywhere has given me a good reason as to why I should dump Flash.

smetvid
Feb 1, 2010, 07:52 PM
HTML5 accomplishes the goals for Apple's mobile platform, and does not interfere with the revenue model for the appstore and iTunes.

Flash is also in many cases far too demanding for most mobile devices.
No one is going to be playing the latest 3D videogames on the iPad either, but I doubt that game developers will stop advancing video game technology because of this.
In the same way, Flash developers will continue to produce advanced Flash content and simply provide static alternate HTML content for the iPad, iPhone and other limited devices, as they should already be doing anyway.

iPad and iPhone users will just have to accept as a fact of life that these devices are limited, and will probably never actually be the de facto "best way" to surf the net.
The iPad multitouch interface is definitely cool though, and Flash developers would LOVE to be able to leverage this feature in Flash CS5 websites, but I doubt we'll see it in anything but apps compiled for the appstore.
(this is of course assuming that Apple approves apps that have been compiled in Flash CS5)

Flash lite has been working on cell phones much slower then the Iphone for years and 10.1 will be even better. I fail to see how a crappy cell phone can play Flash without any problems but yet the Iphone which has the processing power to play 3D games cannot handle it. Something just doesn't add up there. I do agree with you that Flash is bloated but everybody really exaggerates by how much.

By the way there are already aps in the ap store that were made with CS5. CS5 will publish native Iphone aps so I'm not even sure if Apple will know it is made with Flash since it will look like a native C executable.

angelwatt
Feb 1, 2010, 08:07 PM
But what is the compelling reason to use HTML 5 over Flash? Ok fine you say it will be easier and faster then Flash for you but not everybody will think so. There is also a very deep Flash community that isn't going to shake up their tried and true method to make 100% of their clients happy just to please a few people who want everything to be open source. Why exactly should tens of thousands of Flash designers switch to HTML 5 just because Steve Jobs said so. HTML 5 offers nothing at all over Flash except Iphone and Ipad support. I think HTML 5 is a great addition but moving to it would be like taking a step backwards for myself and many other developers and designers. I do not doubt that HTML 5 will be able to create some nice content but it is going to take awhile for people to drop what they know to move to something new if they don't really need to. When HTML has some real market potential I and many others will use it but not right now. Give me a reason why I should use it and maybe I will change my mind, but so far nobody anywhere has given me a good reason as to why I should dump Flash.

For me, the biggest reason not to use Flash, is the price and it's proprietary. You seem to be under the impression that I think Flash will be replaced by HTML5. I haven't said anything like that. My comments have been about HTML5/JavaScript being able to do a comparable job and that I don't need Flash to make an experience like Flash does. Jobs statement was overstated in my opinion (mostly because he dumbed it down for his audience rather than elaborating on what he really meant, but that's just marketing), but I do see its usage lessening in the future unless Flash brings more to the table that other technologies cannot.

The iPad and iPhone also aren't the only ones without Flash support. Most mobile devices cannot handle it. I haven't tried to convince you to drop Flash, just giving reasons why it isn't all that necessary for many of us. I have my Flash plugin disabled personally. I only turn it on for the occasional video to watch.

freeny
Feb 1, 2010, 09:02 PM
This thread continues to educate :)

angelwatt
Feb 1, 2010, 09:14 PM
This thread continues to educate :)

I tried to tell you early on that there was more to it than you realized. This thread is only a small glimpse at the topic, which is why I always suggest further reading.

khunsanook
Feb 1, 2010, 11:25 PM
What kind of society are we if a few seconds of loading puts us off? Are we really that hyperactive now that we cannot sit still for 5 seconds without a massive amount of visual stimulation?

The flip side of this is that some people prefer to see animation even it means waiting a few seconds for it. Complexity has a tradeoff and that tradeoff is time. Some of the best computer games take a few seconds to load new levels. To me dumbing down the content so people can get a quick fix and run through the internet like they just drank 10 cups of coffee is not the solution either. There needs to be an in between.

The reality is that people today are just spoiled brats. I used to have to wait sometimes a minute for a simple HTML and jpeg based website to load on dialup. Mostly young people today have no concept of relaxing and waiting for the finer things in life. In all reality a site that uses a lot of jpegs and just HTML and CSS could take just as long to load. After all Flash itself does not add much of an overhead in a SWF file. 95% of the data is your image and audio data.

I did not find your site to take too long to load. You may want to try to speed it up slightly for those who are addicted to that quick fix by having each section use smaller data but other then that I do not see a problem with your site. Very nice work.

Agreed! I'm on a sluggish Thai connection and the animations did not take very long to load - better than a lot of flash sites. The artwork is great. keep it up.

I've never been a big fan of flash though, and I also suggest diving head first into JavaScript.

angelneo
Feb 2, 2010, 03:14 AM
For me, the biggest reason not to use Flash, is the price and it's proprietary.
I think proprietary works both way, in the earlier days on JS, it is plagued by inconsistent rules implemented by different browsers causing a big headache for developers. Right now, remnants of this problem still surface every now and then and especially if you are designing for audiences with limited tech access (outdated OS/browsers). It gets extremely tedious when you start testing. This problem also existed for Flash player plugins in very rare cases though.

angelwatt
Feb 2, 2010, 06:28 AM
I think proprietary works both way, in the earlier days on JS, it is plagued by inconsistent rules implemented by different browsers causing a big headache for developers.

It sounds like you may misunderstand what the word proprietary means based on your comment. Proprietary: "protected by trademark or patent or copyright; made or produced or distributed by one having exclusive rights."

angelneo
Feb 2, 2010, 06:45 AM
It sounds like you may misunderstand what the word proprietary means based on your comment. Proprietary: "protected by trademark or patent or copyright; made or produced or distributed by one having exclusive rights."
Which is good in part, you look at Mac OS, it's an controlled environment. The standards are all defined within Adobe/Macromedia. No one can come in and change the way actionscript is being interpreted without Adobe.

The swf file format is not protected. You can actually come up with your own editor to produce swf file, but however, it is prone to Adobe changes and it's not guaranteed.

angelwatt
Feb 2, 2010, 06:56 AM
Which is good in part, you look at Mac OS, it's an controlled environment. The standards are all defined within Adobe/Macromedia. No one can come in and change the way actionscript is being interpreted without Adobe.

The swf file format is not protected. You can actually come up with your own editor to produce swf file, but however, it is prone to Adobe changes and it's not guaranteed.

Comparing OSX and Flash is an apples and oranges situation. It would be more appropriate to compare Flash to C++, Java, or Xcode. Hacking around the swf format isn't something I would care to do, and doubt many professional environments would.

angelneo
Feb 2, 2010, 08:08 AM
Comparing OSX and Flash is an apples and oranges situation. It would be more appropriate to compare Flash to C++, Java, or Xcode. Hacking around the swf format isn't something I would care to do, and doubt many professional environments would.
I'm pointing out that OSX and Flash operated in a very controlled environment. Both have control over the source (standards/codebase) and the end user (Flash player/Apple hardware)

Comparing Flash to Java or C++ would not be correct as code in C++ and Java will run on JVM or system that is specified by many many different manufacturers.

For the swf format, Adobe has released a specification document here
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/ . It's not really hacking but the specification is under Adobe jurisdiction.

For me, I'm fine with both JS and Flash. I used more JS than actionscript and still think a lot of applications is more suitable to be on HTML/JS than on Flash. But I think Flash has a very clear advantage moving forward if Adobe is able to capitalize on their platform.

smetvid
Feb 2, 2010, 08:17 AM
Comparing OSX and Flash is an apples and oranges situation. It would be more appropriate to compare Flash to C++, Java, or Xcode. Hacking around the swf format isn't something I would care to do, and doubt many professional environments would.

This does bring up an interesting point however. A lot of people are upset saying that video on the internet shouldn't be controlled by a single company. Isn't that exactly what Apple does with their Ap process? Apple's system is much more controlled then Flash will ever be. Once you buy Adobe Flash you are free to create whatever you want no matter how lame or offensive. The Flash player itself is also free and widely available for free on many platforms. There is talk about mobile devices but what about computers and the ap process? Apple doesn't even have an emulator to play aps on a computer. Now I know we are talking about the internet here and not software applications but my company uses the internet to deliver software applications for our clients. Apple is basically forcing us to adapt to their system instead of being "open". Apple is actually the most closed and restrictive system in the world. Therefore I don't think it is fair to criticize Adobe for trying to make a standard player and allow anybody in the world to use it for free. The only people that have to pay to use it are developers and even then certain things like video playback can be done for free with pre made players. I cannot do anything with an Ap for free since I don't own a Iphone or Ipod. While comparing OSX to Flash may not work in itself what we do have to look at are the practices of a company like Apple or Adobe. That we can compare. If people want to consider Adobe greedy for it's use of commercial software then Apple is just as guilty. Don't be fooled by the mantra of open source web application development when the same company puts so many restrictions on it's own development process for aps. In the end they are both just companies that want their system to do well for their own profits.

designguy79
Feb 2, 2010, 10:47 AM
Here is an article I ran across that has some good points, in my opinion.

http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/Why_Flash_Isn_t_Going_Anywhere__iPad_Be_Damned

savar
Feb 2, 2010, 11:10 AM
The reality is that people today are just spoiled brats. I used to have to wait sometimes a minute for a simple HTML and jpeg based website to load on dialup. Mostly young people today have no concept of relaxing and waiting for the finer things in life.

You're implying that staring a blank screen is one of the "finer things in life"?

If this discussion was about a scotch and cigar, or about having sex, then I'd agree with you whole-heartedly. Take your time, indulge the senses, relax, etc.

But I'd rather do many other things than stare at a loading screen. I agree with most of the rest -- the loading time on that site is absurd and I would never go back to that site. I can't imagine why it takes so long just to load low-res graphics.

snickelfritz
Feb 2, 2010, 11:50 AM
Most people do not have a concept of the difference between Flash and HTML.
Nor do they care. They just want stuff to work right and look good.

The big question is: how will consumers feel and what will they do if they buy this device and find that many of the sites they normally visit will not work at all?
Apple is not mentioning the lack of Flash in their website promotion, so I doubt many consumers will even be aware of this limitation before they purchase an iPad.
Competing netbooks and tablets do work with Flash, so it's certainly not reasonable to expect consumers to assume that the iPad will not also work with Flash.

Apple is playing with fire if they think they can sell dissatisfied iPad consumers the idea that "Flash is bad, you don't need it".

lucidmedia
Feb 2, 2010, 12:29 PM
Peter Kirn, who is not a big fan of flash and a big proponent of open systems has a well reasoned post as to why HTML5 currently cannot replace flash.

http://createdigitalmotion.com/2010/02/html5-and-a-brave-flash-free-open-world-uh-not-so-fast/

and this post (http://nwebb.co.uk/blog/?p=399) is also quite well done.

The second post also makes two funny arguments:

1. iPhone owners seem to be the worst critics of Flash's "closed proprietary system", while simultaneously using one of the most closed devices in history -- one that is perhaps far more dangerous to content creators.

2. When advertisers begin to advertise with HTML5, will you all start to hate and complain about that technology too?

smetvid
Feb 2, 2010, 03:08 PM
Peter Kirn, who is not a big fan of flash and a big proponent of open systems has a well reasoned post as to why HTML5 currently cannot replace flash.

http://createdigitalmotion.com/2010/02/html5-and-a-brave-flash-free-open-world-uh-not-so-fast/

and this post (http://nwebb.co.uk/blog/?p=399) is also quite well done.

The second post also makes two funny arguments:

1. iPhone owners seem to be the worst critics of Flash's "closed proprietary system", while simultaneously using one of the most closed devices in history -- one that is perhaps far more dangerous to content creators.

2. When advertisers begin to advertise with HTML5, will you all start to hate and complain about that technology too?

These are both very excellent points. The main thing that Flash gets criticized for is over the top animation and annoying ads. Well HTML 5 will be able to do exactly the same thing except it will be much harder to turn it off or block it. It isn't the technology that is the abuser but the talent. Flash designers will not just all of a sudden drop dead because there is no Flash. They will have to move to HTML 5 if that is the case and continue to create annoying things. That is just the nature of the beast with a visual medium.

The Apple ap system really scares me as well. Sure it is cute right now but what happens if this business model really catches on and everybody decides to use this method. There will no longer be any software freedom left in the world. I love open source software and am not fooled by Apple's claim to support open source. Open means being able to develop with any language you want to use either C, Java or Python. Open also means some big brother company not telling you your ap is approved or not. We all need to be very careful not to support this closed minded development system or else the future could look very controlled for everybody. Just imagine if even computers someday go the way of the Ipad. None of us will be able to deliver software the way we really want to.

freeny
Feb 3, 2010, 06:42 AM
The more I read the more I come to the conclusion that the reason Steve Jobs doesnt want Flash is either he has a personal vendetta against Adobe or he sees Flash imposing on his profits.

I have yet to hear a good believable excuse from him.

I personally have very few experiences where Flash was an issue on my computer.

Meanwhile, I am busy building an alternative css website. When complete I can make an honest comparisson of the two...

Melrose
Feb 3, 2010, 10:39 AM
When complete I can make an honest comparisson of the two...

I don't think it really will be an honest comparison, tbh. No offense. To make it honest, you'd have to compare a well-authored Flash site with an equally well-authored HTML one. Unless you're the best at both it won't be equal.

Also, you'd have to compare it on mobile environments and consider accessibility (and I'll leave the argument of "Flash is soooo accessible these days!" to someone else), as well as test Calls to Action in them both. It's much deeper than looks and preference.

:)

lucidmedia
Feb 3, 2010, 02:58 PM
I don't think it really will be an honest comparison, tbh. No offense. To make it honest, you'd have to compare a well-authored Flash site with an equally well-authored HTML one. Unless you're the best at both it won't be equal.

Also, you'd have to compare it on mobile environments and consider accessibility (and I'll leave the argument of "Flash is soooo accessible these days!" to someone else), as well as test Calls to Action in them both. It's much deeper than looks and preference.

:)

I have some experience with creating identical rich media projects simultaneously in both flash and AJAX. Animation smoothness, aliasing, and bitmap smoothing mean that the Flash version usually is the more polished of the two.

And, just to be a pain, its worth noting that the HTML5 canvas tag is not currently accessible... so, no argument needs to be made! :D

freeny
Feb 3, 2010, 03:15 PM
I don't think it really will be an honest comparison, tbh. No offense. To make it honest, you'd have to compare a well-authored Flash site with an equally well-authored HTML one. Unless you're the best at both it won't be equal.

Also, you'd have to compare it on mobile environments and consider accessibility (and I'll leave the argument of "Flash is soooo accessible these days!" to someone else), as well as test Calls to Action in them both. It's much deeper than looks and preference.

:)
While both sites wont be 100% exactly the same, they will be similar enough to get a general "user experience" comparisson. I will say that I am enjoying my new site much more then the Flash version, mostly because ive built a much more streamlined experience :D

angelneo
Feb 3, 2010, 07:26 PM
The more I read the more I come to the conclusion that the reason Steve Jobs doesnt want Flash is either he has a personal vendetta against Adobe or he sees Flash imposing on his profits.

I have yet to hear a good believable excuse from him.

I personally have very few experiences where Flash was an issue on my computer.

Meanwhile, I am busy building an alternative css website. When complete I can make an honest comparisson of the two...
Flash player still consumes a lot of overhead especially if the content gets overly complicated and the author is not well versed in Flash optimization. It's very easy to get carried away putting in whole lot of non-optimized elements on the canvas. It takes planning and effort to streamline the contents which not many people are willing to do, because we all assume the other party will have the same experience as us.

freeny
Feb 3, 2010, 11:06 PM
Flash player still consumes a lot of overhead especially if the content gets overly complicated and the author is not well versed in Flash optimization. It's very easy to get carried away putting in whole lot of non-optimized elements on the canvas. It takes planning and effort to streamline the contents which not many people are willing to do, because we all assume the other party will have the same experience as us.

Thats the case with any method of website construction...

smetvid
Feb 4, 2010, 07:35 AM
Flash player still consumes a lot of overhead especially if the content gets overly complicated and the author is not well versed in Flash optimization. It's very easy to get carried away putting in whole lot of non-optimized elements on the canvas. It takes planning and effort to streamline the contents which not many people are willing to do, because we all assume the other party will have the same experience as us.

The same will be true with HTML 5 as well. There are already examples that eat up a lot of cpu power. If people can abuse Flash they will abuse HTML 5 as well. Give people an option to animate everything under the sun and they will do so. In the case of HTML 5 the process may be harder for a lot of people so we could end up seeing even more abuse with HTML 5. Right now many of the examples that are out there are created by people who know how to usually program this stuff well. As soon as everybody else get their hands on HTML 5 all the same crap and problems you see with Flash you are going to see except maybe worse. Flash will continue to get better as well. PC users already enjoy great Flash performance and they make up 90% of the market. I have a dual core IMac with Snow Leopard and even the most complex Flash sites work well enough for me. I am a designer that usually has Flash, Photoshop filezilla, Dreamweaver, Firefox and a few finder windows open at the same time and I never notice my system slowing down when I watch Flash content.

freeny
Feb 8, 2010, 01:41 PM
Site is now built in iweb-
www.moistproduction.com

Old Flash site-
http://web.mac.com/moistproduction/flash_Old/index.html

snickelfritz
Feb 8, 2010, 02:01 PM
The iWeb page displays an empty rectangle if javascript is disabled.

Personally, I think too much is being made of the significance of HTML5 with regard to RIA.
HTML5 brings some welcome improvements and simplifications to page markup, but I doubt it will ever take the place of true plugin RIA technologies like Flash and Silverlight.
(mostly because RIA developers will probably continue to use Flash or Silverlight; the workflow is faster and more profitable than time consuming and arcane AJAX frameworks)
Some of the HTML5 tech demos are impressive though.

freeny
Feb 8, 2010, 02:09 PM
The iWeb page displays an empty rectangle if javascript is disabled.

There's no winning I suppose :o

I get 94.56% Javascript enabled, I wonder what the percentage of Flash enabled is...

snickelfritz
Feb 8, 2010, 02:47 PM
It's probably prudent to assume that some visitors cannot view anything but plain HTML and basic CSS.

I would just keep the Flash site and embed it using swfObject (http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/).
Manually write the code for the alternate HTML page in the alternate content div.

BTW, swfObject also has an AIR app for automatically generating the HTML page.
Here's an example of the default swfObject HTML for dynamic publishing:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="swfobject.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
var flashvars = {};
var params = {};
var attributes = {};
swfobject.embedSWF("untitled.swf", "myAlternativeContent", "800", "600", "9.0.0", false, flashvars, params, attributes);
</script>
</head>
<body>
<div id="myAlternativeContent">
<a href="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer">
<img src="http://www.adobe.com/images/shared/download_buttons/get_flash_player.gif" alt="Get Adobe Flash player" />
</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>



This way, if the user does not have javascript or Flash enabled, the browser will automatically render the alternate HTML content.
The end user will never know this has occurred.

angelwatt
Feb 8, 2010, 03:35 PM
There's no winning I suppose :o

I get 94.56% Javascript enabled, I wonder what the percentage of Flash enabled is...

It's not so much about what % of visitors have JS enabled. Search engine bots don't process JS either so they won't see the missing content either, which will effect your search ranking. This is one of the reasons people avoid iWeb.

freeny
Feb 8, 2010, 04:19 PM
It's not so much about what % of visitors have JS enabled. Search engine bots don't process JS either so they won't see the missing content either, which will effect your search ranking. This is one of the reasons people avoid iWeb.

Isnt that the same issue with Flash?
Iweb is one of the few options us programming illiterate have... ;)

snickelfritz
Feb 8, 2010, 04:29 PM
Statistics are not useful without demographic information.

The truth might be that 100% of the potential visitors to your site will have Flash and/or javascript enabled.
ie: Searching for online multimedia portfolios with Flash or javascript disabled is a bit like going fishing without a tacklebox.

Like I said before, you need to create alternate content for your index page using standard HTML markup.
Search engines will see it, and so will crippled mobile devices.

It is well worth the time and effort to learn how to read and write HTML and CSS.
Here's a link to helpful tutorial:
http://www.w3schools.com/css/

a cat *miaow*
Feb 9, 2010, 07:47 PM
There's been a lot of feedback on flash/html 5 so i'll leave that one...

But firstly, your work is wonderful – you've obviously got a huge talent in what you do. Sometimes I think people on here miss that no one can be good at everything! As you mentioned you're an illustrator so learning a whole new way to build a site isn't the best use of your time.

On to Flash... I HATE flash.. seriously... but sometimes it has it's place. In my opinion yours is one of the very (very) few cases were I find it completely acceptable to have a site built entirely from flash. The amount of customised animations and feedback on user interaction which someone with your talents can integrate into the design can be done using JS/HTML etc but Flash does it SO much better.

I would say, stick with Flash and let the site really encompase your own personality. You're an illustrator and your website should reflect that fact and your imagination to the fullest.

freeny
Feb 10, 2010, 01:30 PM
^^^
thanks a cat, i appreciate your feedback. I really do like my newer iweb site and would do it in flash, but im really piss poor at flash and resort to nagging the one or two flash people i know to help with some relatively simple things. I also want the site accessable to my iphone as well as to the future ipads...

I do have all the animations in the new site via animated gifs. You can view them if you see a "360 view" button in the lower right courner of some of the illustrations. Im adding more all the time.

zachdyer
Oct 27, 2010, 09:08 AM
I'd suggest learning JavaScript because that's how most of it will be done and currently can be done with without HTML5. Even CSS works really well for rollover effects. What HTML5 brings is the video tag. I suggest doing more reading so you know what HTML5 actually is because it's clear you have the wrong impressions about it. Knowledge is power.

Your right html5 does seem to utilize javascript for everything, but I've seen some awesome html5 animations that i didn't think were possible. Search "html5 animations" and you'll find some insane stuff. :)