I think you are using a different definition of the word "accessibility" than FloatingBones.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/accessibility.html
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
To everybody who wants Flash on IPad
- Thread starter gadget123
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think you are using a different definition of the word "accessibility" than FloatingBones.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/accessibility.html
I understand his use, but it is not wide enough in scope.
An open and accessible web does not allow for apps specific to a device you have to buy. One you can't access in a library for free. You can not be a proponent of app store apps and open accessibility.
An open web should be comprised of web apps, not proprietary OS apps.
An open and accessible web does not allow for apps specific to a device you have to buy. One you can't access in a library for free. You can not be a proponent of app store apps and open accessibility.
An open web should be comprised of web apps, not proprietary OS apps.
Exactly. Does that make you an anti-Flash zealot now?
Nope. It just makes FB a hypocrite.
Nope. It just makes FB a hypocrite.
Sigh. You did not understand what you just said. Flash Player is one of those "proprietary OS apps." FB was advocating replacing a proprietary OS app (Flash Player) with proprietary OS apps. He wasn't advocating replacing the open web with proprietary OS apps. Nothing hypocritical about it.
Especially since you purposely changed the meaning of the word that he was using to justify his argument.
No. I used it in a different, but still valid context.
iOS or Android apps are not accessible by computers web apps are. So content delivered with iOS apps are not accessible, regardless of which handicapped widgets are used.
Its a matter of one kind of accessibility is good, others are not. Accessibility by the handicapped is more important than accessibility by those who can't afford a device.
He has constantly advocated turning Flash content into proprietary apps. Which means that content accessible by the poor on public computers will no longer be accessible by them. its ok because he has an iPad so he can view that content. Both situations are unfair, but FB never advocates on behalf of the poor**.
**At least when the subject is about Flash content.
I don't want to paint FB in a bad light so I added that last bit just now.
Last edited:
No, that's not how language works. Some words have multiple definitions. You don't get to switch between the definitions at will.
That makes absolutely no sense.
You are still not making sense. Web content is accessible on any web enabled device that supports the web standards it was delivered in.
Again, the idea isn't to replace web standards with proprietary apps. The idea is to replace a proprietary app (Flash Player) with other proprietary apps until the content can be delivered using web standards.
I didn't switch between definitions. We are both talking about the ability to use. He about the handicapped. Me about the poor. Same definition.
Can you access the content of iOS apps on regular computers? Yes, but only if the content is delivered twice. Just like with Flash vs HTML.
If the web content is packaged in an iOS app or Flash site, its an issue of access. Those who can't see, can't access Flash well. Those who can't afford iOS devices can't view iOS native content. As more and more publications move online and some are choosing apps over websites, if you don't own an iOS device you can't read them.
How are proprietary iOS apps better than Flash? While it might be proprietary, in general use its not an issue. Almost every computer OS can display that content. Free computers in the library can display that content. Free computers in the library can not display content wrapped in an iOS wrapper.
Last edited:
No, FB used the term accessibility specifically to refer to these features:
http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/accessibility.html
The features recently praised by Stevie Wonder: "Because there's nothing on the iPhone or the iPad that you can do that I can't do."
Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. Depends on what you want to do. For some crazy reason, I prefer an app designed for the device I am using over a cross-platform app designed for the lowest common denominator.
Free and open are different things. What exactly is the "content wrapped in an iOS wrapper" that you are referring to? Any specific examples?
@darn: The question is really very simple -- and you didn't answer it: do you choose an accessible web, or do you choose something else?
Flash is a protocol imposed on us which will never work with accessibility -- you yourself have admitted that. Adobe could have found a way to architect and design accessibility into Flash, but they never got around to it. Their "choice" was contrary to the common good of the WWW.
It's time to flush Flash.
I want the web to be accessible. I want every page to be accessible by each person -- regardless of their ability. If people want to do something that's platform-specific, they can do it through app-store apps.
AFAICT, this is exactly the strategy that Adobe is advocating.
UPDATE: I was referring to Adobe employee Danny Winokur's blog post here.
Right. Information stored on the WWW should be accessible to all. Users should have access to accessibility adapters on all computers -- including Library computers.
Completely incorrect. Who told you that?
Apple is promoting a web where everyone codes with HTML. If all webpages were HTML, then they can be rendered correctly for accessibility on any computer which has accessibility adapters.
I do. Those are called HTML webpages. Haven't you been paying attention?
Well, Duh! I don't see a heck of a lot of people using Java to render opaque data on web browsers. Do you?
You have been running around with massive misconceptions. If you didn't understand what I was saying, why didn't you ask?
On the web, all data should be served up in an accessible manner. If someone wants to do something else, do it through an app and serve it up in the App Store.
Of course.
Completely incorrect. How could one person get it so wrong?
Please read my messages again. I asked you for any messages from reputable tech bloggers that there would be a desktop mode for ARM devices. I then asked you if you were at the BUILD conference. I then asked you how many of the video sessions you reviewed.
So far, you haven't answered any of my questions. Why is that?
I am asking you to back up your speculation.
I'm also asking you to give us some background as to how much due diligence you did before you started making claims about Microsoft's future projects. Did you attend the BUILD conference? If not, how many of the presentation videos have you viewed?
You could have found your answer in this paragraph from the same message:
Can you point to a single tech blogger who says there will also be a third venue for W8: a kitchen-sink ARM deployment? Was there a session at BUILD where they talked about this? Or did you pull this novel idea out of thin air?
Bingo.
Thanks, BaldiMac. I thought I was being pretty clear.
The other thing that the Flash-advocates are ignoring: putting Flash apps in the app store gives them their so-called choice. Developers are free to put apps into the store, and users are free to choose to download them. Developers are free to price them as they see fit, change the price, or charge nothing at all for their apps.
This is exactly what I have been advocating. The web should indeed be open and accessible. All documents should be encoded in HTML. The information should not be behind any opaque shield -- like Flash.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say, "An open web should be composed of web apps, not proprietary OS apps." I've never advocated that the open web should be anything but HTML.
You appear to have gone off the deep end in this latest round of rhetoric.
You need to explain yourself promptly. I advocate that the web be populated with transparent data -- HTML. The position is clear and straightforward. No hypocrisy.
@darn, you have a bad habit of casually slinging around inappropriate accusations. If you think there's some sort of hypocrisy in my position, you need to clearly and concisely explain what the heck you're talking about. If you can't do that, it's time to apologize to the discussion for this nonsense.
Flash is a protocol imposed on us which will never work with accessibility -- you yourself have admitted that. Adobe could have found a way to architect and design accessibility into Flash, but they never got around to it. Their "choice" was contrary to the common good of the WWW.
It's time to flush Flash.
I want the web to be accessible. I want every page to be accessible by each person -- regardless of their ability. If people want to do something that's platform-specific, they can do it through app-store apps.
AFAICT, this is exactly the strategy that Adobe is advocating.
UPDATE: I was referring to Adobe employee Danny Winokur's blog post here.
Right. Information stored on the WWW should be accessible to all. Users should have access to accessibility adapters on all computers -- including Library computers.
Completely incorrect. Who told you that?
Apple is promoting a web where everyone codes with HTML. If all webpages were HTML, then they can be rendered correctly for accessibility on any computer which has accessibility adapters.
I do. Those are called HTML webpages. Haven't you been paying attention?
Well, Duh! I don't see a heck of a lot of people using Java to render opaque data on web browsers. Do you?
You have been running around with massive misconceptions. If you didn't understand what I was saying, why didn't you ask?
On the web, all data should be served up in an accessible manner. If someone wants to do something else, do it through an app and serve it up in the App Store.
Of course.
Completely incorrect. How could one person get it so wrong?
Please read my messages again. I asked you for any messages from reputable tech bloggers that there would be a desktop mode for ARM devices. I then asked you if you were at the BUILD conference. I then asked you how many of the video sessions you reviewed.
So far, you haven't answered any of my questions. Why is that?
I am asking you to back up your speculation.
I'm also asking you to give us some background as to how much due diligence you did before you started making claims about Microsoft's future projects. Did you attend the BUILD conference? If not, how many of the presentation videos have you viewed?
You could have found your answer in this paragraph from the same message:
Can you point to a single tech blogger who says there will also be a third venue for W8: a kitchen-sink ARM deployment? Was there a session at BUILD where they talked about this? Or did you pull this novel idea out of thin air?
Bingo.
Thanks, BaldiMac. I thought I was being pretty clear.
The other thing that the Flash-advocates are ignoring: putting Flash apps in the app store gives them their so-called choice. Developers are free to put apps into the store, and users are free to choose to download them. Developers are free to price them as they see fit, change the price, or charge nothing at all for their apps.
This is exactly what I have been advocating. The web should indeed be open and accessible. All documents should be encoded in HTML. The information should not be behind any opaque shield -- like Flash.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say, "An open web should be composed of web apps, not proprietary OS apps." I've never advocated that the open web should be anything but HTML.
You appear to have gone off the deep end in this latest round of rhetoric.
Nope. It just makes FB a hypocrite.
You need to explain yourself promptly. I advocate that the web be populated with transparent data -- HTML. The position is clear and straightforward. No hypocrisy.
@darn, you have a bad habit of casually slinging around inappropriate accusations. If you think there's some sort of hypocrisy in my position, you need to clearly and concisely explain what the heck you're talking about. If you can't do that, it's time to apologize to the discussion for this nonsense.
Last edited:
I choose a web where there is Flash and HTML. Something for everyone. And I would like the choice to run Flash on my iPad natively.
Last edited:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-desktop-apps-will-run-on-windows-8-on-arm/10756
The second part of the puzzle has been revealed.
There will be desktop mode on ARM devices activated by tapping on a Metro tile. IRC you switch back to Metro by tapping on the start bar. Desktop apps will still need to be compiled for ARM, but nothing is proven as of yet.
Alert...speculation ahead.
Even if Msoft doesn't create IE for ARM devices, an open desktop mode allows for Firefox, Opera, etc., and since the plugin has already been written for ARM devices it should be trivial to add it to those browsers.
Last edited:
I wouldn't hold my breath seeing how Opera for iphone doesn't run flash and there is no firefox for iOS yet after all this time. It looks like no matter how much we bicker endlessly about either side Flash is definitely going away, at least on the mobile side of things.
We all understood in the conversation what was meant by accessibility. You appear to have an agenda to talk about something else: free access at public terminals. That's fine, but please don't try to argue that our accessibility discussion wasn't "wide enough". Just say, "I'd like to ask a related question [...]"
This is a hopeless semantic stretch. Anyone who has read The Phantom Toolbooth knows where you just landed.
@darn: nobody here has said anything at all about free public-access terminals. I do agree it's useful to talk about them in this discussion, but it's dreadfully wrong to infer that anyone has already discussed such things. We were having an accessibility discussion, not a discussion about free public-access terminals.
What I have advocated throughout the Flash discussion: the web should only be populated with open and transparent HTML. Free public terminals can be used to access an HTML web with no problem.
The WWW should not have any kind of apps at all, because those apps fail to provide accessibility. Some users of free public-access terminals will need accessibility adapters. We have already established: Flash and accessibility are mutually incompatible. Flash uses opaque data and fails to provide access to accessibility adapters.
Flash presents a magnified problem at public-access terminals. While computer owners and employees at companies minimize their exposure to Flash sites, some users at public-access terminals will deliberately seek out malware sites to break the security of those terminals. The presence of Flash increases the security risk for every user of those free public-access terminals.
@darn: this is just a word game you're playing. It has no business in a professional discussion of issues.
Nonsense. We've never discussed free public-access terminals in this discussion before. You just gave yourself a one-way ticket to the Island of Conclusions. Happy landing!
A far better strategy: in the future, don't make assumptions.
In short: you don't choose an accessible web. You are more committed to Flash than you are for a web that is accessible by all -- regardless of their ability.
It's all right: Adobe has also turned a blind eye to the accessibility issue.
Did you read the awesome article about Stevie Wonder's message to Jobs that @BaldiMac referred to the other day? We who need no accessibility adapters [yet] have no idea of the value of these adapters. We also cannot imagine how much more valuable the web as a whole will when opaque data presentations like Flash are gone.
Last edited:
What has been revealed is massive confusion about Metro mode on ARM devices. Microsoft failed to clearly present the architecture of W8 at their Build conference. If they had, then we wouldn't have these significant questions being asked a week after the presentation.
One possible explanation is that MS is being deliberately obtuse about the overlapping roles of the modes of Windows 8. I have trouble with that explanation: I can't imagine that Microsoft wants to spread confusion and uncertainty about their future products.
I believe we're seeing the fringes of major battles still being waged at Microsoft about how Windows 8 will actually work.
Today's discussion on Windows Weekly with Paul, Mary Jo, and Leo should be quite lively.
I think you meant "Flash" where you said "IE" above, right?
Microsoft has already announced that plugins won't be permitted for Metro Mode IE on ARM.
Are you saying that MS will allow other browsers to be installed on Metro Mode with ARM that can access Flash? I can't see how Microsoft would allow that, can you?
No. I choose a web with both Flash and HTML which is accessible by the blind and the sighted.
There is nothing confusing about it. Microsoft from the beginning has said there will be a single OS for all devices, but you said that they would stray away from their simple strategy by not including a massive feature, open desktop mode, on ARM devices.
They reinforced their simple strategy by announcing that there will be an easy way to switch from Metro to Desktop mode on ARM devices and that you will be able to install non-Metro apps in desktop mode on Intel and ARM devices.
No. I meant a desktop-IE which will run plugins. Microsoft revealed that ARM devices will have desktop mode, which will run non-Metro apps written for ARM chips. This open desktop mode will allow the user to install apps from any source. Microsoft has displayed a full IE with Flash running on an Intel tablet, but they have not shown this yet for an ARM tablet. Even if they don't release IE another company can release a desktop-mode browser using the Flash plugin that has already been written for ARM tablets.
Why do you keep bringing this discussion back to Metro mode? No one is saying that Metro browsers will run plugins. I am talking about the easy to switch to desktop mode which will run non-Metro apps like browsers.
Now I will concede that until we have proof its possible that Microsoft will limit browsers in desktop mode to not run plugins, but since desktop-IE does on Intel devices its more likely desktop-IE will run plugins on ARM devices.
Last edited:
We have already established in the discussion that Flash cannot work with accessibility adapters. Accessible Web with Flash is an oxymoron.
I don't understand why the Flash-advocates can't just acknowledge this fundamental limitation of Flash. It doesn't hack accessibility, and each Flash page undermines the accessibility of the web as a whole. Adobe itself understands this: they have advocated websites removing Flash code and putting up HTML.
One other thing: earlier in the thread, you labeled someone a hypocrite. Both @BaldiMac and I have asked you to explain that claim, you have failed to do that. Please explain the reasoning behind using that label, or please acknowledge that it was a mistake. Thank you.
I choose a web with Flash and HTML sites to cover the blind-accessibility issue.
I will explain.
iOS apps can not be accessed by the poor due to the cost of the device.
If there is budget for Flash and HTML there is no reason to do so and you can have both solutions which can be accessed by everyone.
If there is budget for one solution then removing that content from the web and putting it in a proprietary app system removes the poor's access to that content. Advocating that is what makes you a hypocrite. Under which conditions you are advocating turning Flash content into iOS apps.
Last edited:
If you can't understand the difference content and applications, this conversation will continue to go in circles.
Flash is a "proprietary app system"!
Flash may be proprietary, but in practice this isn't an issue. It is accessible on almost every computer OS and several of a main mobile OSes. iOS apps are proprietary but accessible only on iOS devices. If an iOS app is created to replace Flash web content it is limited to only iOS devices and is no longer accessible by the poor.
Last edited:
It's an issue to me. It's an issue to Stevie Wonder.
Like I just said, you need to understand the difference between web content and an app.
No one is advocating replacing Flash apps with iOS apps. No one is advocating replacing web content with iOS apps.
How is its proprietishness, LOL word, an issue to either of you? There should always be a simple html version of Flash sites.
Do you just ignore all of the arguments against Flash that you have read? Almost every one of the problems could be solved by a lack of proprietishness. Which is why I advocate open standards over Flash.
Your sentence makes no sense. Flash and accessibility are mutually exclusive. Throwing the two words together in a sentence is meaningless.
If you disagree, you need to actually tell us how Flash has anything at all to do with covering the accessibility issue. Writing down a one-sentence platitude is a No Pass.
That last sentence reads poorly; we can't tell exactly what you mean.
Are you talking about an abstract concept, or are you talking about something real? Can you point to a single website anywhere that serves up its content with both Flash and HTML? Please specify the URL and tell us how to access both the Flash and the HTML content on a Mac. If you can't even point to one website that actually does this, please don't even bother mentioning this "alternative" in the discussion.
Aha. This is your disconnect. I never advocated stashing away parts of the Web in proprietary App Store apps. I have consistently advocated removing Flash code entirely from the Web and replacing it with open and transparent HTML. Interestingly, this is also exactly what Adobe is recommending that developers do.
At the same time, if there happens to be an exemplary Flash app, developers can make that app available to all modern handheld devices via Adobe's Packager and App Stores for each of the devices. That's exactly what the developers of Machinarium did, and their $4.99 app made it to the very top of the iOS app store for a few days. I think that's great, and I wish more Flash developers would do it with their apps.
You assumed I was advocating something. Rather than ask a question, you jumped and used the label. That's why you wound up on that island.
If there's an exemplary Flash program like Machinarium, I think the Flash developers should package and submit it to App Stores for all of the handheld devices. The marketplace can then decide if their app is truly exemplary -- or a Flash in the pan.
So far, you've given us a series of platitudinous statements about Flash and accessibility. I'm interested in what practical and real recommendations you have. From the blog I referenced above:
Adobe's John Nack said:
The Adobe employee's blog entry is tremendously refreshing! Accessibility will happen -- one website at a time. While John Nack doesn't explicitly mention it, his proposal is indeed addressing the accessibility problem.
In this discussion, pragmatism trumps platitudes.
Agreed. Claiming it's not an issue is remarkably short-sighted. (I apologize; I am not intentionally trying to make a pun here.) As far as I can tell, virtually all of us will bump up against accessibility issues at some point in our lifetime.
Even if we never need the accessibility adapters, the clunky interface of Flash affects every user of current Macs. The implementation of two-fingered scrolling is quite terrible in Flash. It works differently than scrolling in HTML windows: the rate is all wrong and the indicators you're in a scrolling region are completely different. Adobe had to re-engineer the SWF format to enable two-fingered scrolling: developers had to re-compile and re-deploy their apps for scrolling to work correctly in the apps. Many developers either don't know or don't care that two-fingered scrolling doesn't work in their Flash apps.
This is annoying enough for users that understand the minutia of why two-fingered scrolling is broken in Flash. I can't quite imagine what it's like for users that notice that scrolling is just broken on some webpages.
Flash in the browser degrades the user experience for all users. It is an issue for everyone.
Who made this rule? Who enforces it? Who do we report violators to?
I just went to your website; I found absolutely no HTML content there at all. Could you please report yourself and tell us when you get your simple HTML version implemented on your website?
Last edited: