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
Wow . . .
WOW, lots of people trying to defend Flash and/or disregard HTML 5 or in favor of a Flash Free Planet. So many posts to try to read and accurately quote. Bob's head is blowing up this fine and sunny AM.
What I know is this: Apple will never deliver Flash to iOS devices so arguing about what Apple should/could/must do is pointless. It simply will not happen. What will happen is HTML 5 and everyone will update their browsers to take full advantage. Web designers will create improved/new/modified sites, and Flash will eventually go away. Existing sites will be redesigned and those that can't compete will fall off the planet.
Or the plug-ins will be archived so die hard Adobe Fanboys can have their silly Flash.
Lots of stuff is long gone. People always try to reinvent this and that and they release plugins that die off. Some people love Flash and want it in the iPad. When they get it, they learn how much it sucks. Not sure how many times I should mention Steve Jobs position and public statement about why there is no Flash, but it makes sense and it is compelling.
WOW, lots of people trying to defend Flash and/or disregard HTML 5 or in favor of a Flash Free Planet. So many posts to try to read and accurately quote. Bob's head is blowing up this fine and sunny AM.
What I know is this: Apple will never deliver Flash to iOS devices so arguing about what Apple should/could/must do is pointless. It simply will not happen. What will happen is HTML 5 and everyone will update their browsers to take full advantage. Web designers will create improved/new/modified sites, and Flash will eventually go away. Existing sites will be redesigned and those that can't compete will fall off the planet.
Or the plug-ins will be archived so die hard Adobe Fanboys can have their silly Flash.
Lots of stuff is long gone. People always try to reinvent this and that and they release plugins that die off. Some people love Flash and want it in the iPad. When they get it, they learn how much it sucks. Not sure how many times I should mention Steve Jobs position and public statement about why there is no Flash, but it makes sense and it is compelling.
I scanned the FAQ/Rules; I didn't see anything saying that @darngooddesign dictates what a thread is or is not about.
I think that accessibility in the browser is an issue for all handheld devices; you're certainly free to disagree with that.Once we've established -- and you have acknowledged -- that Flash is problematic to an accessible web, then we can move on to other topics. I may well ignore what you have to say on other topics until we have an intellectually honest discussion on this issue.
That's a rather convoluted statement. Flash does not solve any accessibility issues. Flash is the primary source of accessibility issues on the web. The UI of Flash degrades the user experience for all users; its opaque data makes accessibility problematic.
Flash enthusiasts have been unable to acknowledge the fundamental incompatibility between Flash and accessibility. None of them have ever been able to address the question: How can we possibly solve the accessibility problem on the web without flushing Flash?
What is the antecedent for your it? Is there actually some initiative to bring accessibility to Flash? Is there an HTML webpage -- or even a Flash webpage -- that describes this initiative? No.
As far as we can tell, it never existed before this MR discussion. It didn't exist before this discussion, and it will disappear after the discussion has concluded. Nobody -- including you -- actually has any commitment for Flash developers to be doing this thing. You're giving lip service to the Flash accessibility problem; a discussion in the MR forums will do nothing to solve this problem.
You act as if you have a solution, and we're trying to gauge if it's real. You can't identify a single site where this is done. It is not real.
How can you possibly know if what you're proposing will work with all browsers -- or work with any browser?
Are you the champion for this project, or are you arguing that, hypothetically, someone could be championing a project to do these things? If nobody is championing this, it sure as hell is not going to happen.
Then the answer to the question is, "No."
You can't identify a single site that does what you describe. You've never ever done it yourself. But you're convinced it's both technically viable and you're going to convince the owners of all Flash sites -- freedom and all that -- to spend the money to do what you say.
Are you starting to realize the magnitude of the goofiness of what you're proposing?
What is the antecedent for your this? You've never specified what this behavior should be -- but we should all be confident that you've created a comprehensive solution to the Flash accessibility problem.
You are confident that you can create "a small script" that performs this yet-to-be-specified behavior. You haven't tested your script for compatibility on all browsers. Actually, you have never ever run this script on a single browser. Actually, you haven't even written it yet. Actually, you haven't even specified what exact behavior your "small script" should have. But you are confident that you have created a comprehensive solution to the Flash accessibility problem.
Finally, you're certain that you'll be able to convince the owners of all Flash sites to add all sorts of HTML content to their Flash pages and your yet-to-be-created "small script".
Are you starting to realize the magnitude of the goofiness of what you're proposing?
Once you do, you'll be able to answer the most fundamental question about about the future of Flash on the web: how can we possibly solve the accessibility problem on the web without flushing Flash?
I can't believe darn good design is still trying to defend flash.
It's a bit of a mystery. The proposal he's given us is a total non-starter. That's got to be painfully obvious even to him.
The whole Flash on iOS story boiled down to a paragraph. Bravo.
It was definitely worth blowing up your head.
Last edited:
Once you acknowledge you were incorrect about ARM devices and desktop mode. But of course you won't admit when you were wrong. I've already admitted Flash has accessibility issues which can be overcome by serving up alternate content using the various methods I listed.FloatingBones said:
That is purely subjective.FloatingBones said:
It is impossible to search for hybrid sites. You would never know if you were on one. You would have to check the page source on every site and read through the code for an indicator.FloatingBones said:
FloatingBones said:
The same mechanism that lets you load in a separate text file into either an HTML site or a Flash site is the same mechanism that lets you have a single site but serve in english content in America and spanish content in Spain. In the case of an HTML site, you don't have to edit the HTML pages to change the content. You just change the separate content.
To put it simpler. The same programming methods that allow you to serve the same content file to either a Flash site or HTML site allow you to serve different language content files to the same HTML site or the same Flash site. These methods have been around for years.
FloatingBones said:
Its only goofy to you because you don't build websites.
Redirect based on whether a Flash plugin is detected doesn't have to be built into Flash, although it can be, because the scripting is done with js on the HTML page.
This detects if you have don't have Flash installed and redirects to an HTML site.
script type="text/javascript" src="swfobject.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
if (swfobject.hasFlashPlayerVersion("7.0.0")) { //FP7 came out in 2003.
// User has flash
} else {
// User does not have flash
window.location="HTMLVersion/index.html";
}
</script>
This redirects iOS devices to an HTML site:
<script type="text/javascript">
if ((navigator.userAgent.indexOf('iPhone') != -1) || (navigator.userAgent.indexOf('iPod') != -1) || (navigator.userAgent.indexOf('iPad') != -1)) {
document.location = "HTMLVersion/index.html";
}
This reads your screen size and redirects.
<script type="text/javascript">
if (screen.width <= 500) {
document.location = "HTMLVersion/index.html";
}
</script>
This will cover any other browser situations you need to redirect.
<a href="HTMLVersion/index.html">Click here for the HTML version of this website.</a>
These redirects have been around for a while and work on all the main browsers on all the main OSes. Some variants are still being tested.
darngooddesign said:
I most certainly did and I bolded it in my quoteFloatingBones said:
So yes I'm confident that I can write a small script to do the things I said. Which is detect when you need to serve up alternate formatting for small screens, or alternate content which does not use Flash.FloatingBones said:
Last edited:
I'm with you. I'm not fond of Flash, but I'm an adult who should be able to turn it on or off if I want to.
The truth is sometimes there is no work around. I don't even expect a flawless Flash experience.
More to the point, some sites work around flash by directing you their mobile version of the site. The mobile versions often pale in comparison, especially shopping sites, or sites that gives lot of product information. For whatever reason, the mobile versions often have less information or content or are much less user friendly.
As far as news and video goes, that's yet to be an issue.
Once I do that, you will do ... what, exactly? I'm sorry, but that sounds like a sucker bet.
You claimed to have a solution to the Flash accessibility problem -- a way to make the vast wasteland of Flash sites actually usable by those who have some sort of disability. You implied you have some way to magically make the web accessible for all and without flushing Flash. Those claims are false.
I was curious if a series of rational posts could convince you there's no way to make Flash on the web accessible for all. Flash is problematic to an accessible web. Interestingly, a rational discussion with Flash-advocates on that topic also seems to be problematic. They will never admit the total failure of Flash for accessibility. The biggest tell was your response to this question:
[Silence. No response.]
You have no interest in championing this. Adobe has no interest in championing this. Nobody has any interest in championing this. It ain't gonna happen.
You non-response points to the biggest issue in this entire Flash/accessibility discussion. I expect people to participate in an intellectually honest fashion. @darn: if you have no interest in championing accessibility in Flash, just say that. If you're just hoping that someone somewhere will champion this cause, please say that. If you're like the rest of us and don't give a ... darn ... about championing accessibility in Flash, please say that. Ignoring the question does not make it go away.
If you ever actually post a test Flash/HTML webpage with your proposed javascipt, please tell us. Show us a list of what browsers you run it against and what results you see. That code will do nothing to solve the Flash accessibility problem, but it wil be an interesting curiosity. Do keep us informed, OK?
According to Mary Jo Foley's blog entry posted during our discussion here, desktop apps will run on Windows 8 on ARM. Here's the pertinent quote from that article:
Mary Jo Foley said:
Mary Jo didn't explicitly reference Flash in her article. Since browsers are desktop apps and those browsers have the ability to run Flash, one will presumably be able to run Flash apps in the browser an Desktop mode on ARM. Just like Mary Jo, I was not correct.
Apple chose to make its iOS devices Flash-free. They even published a note why they made that decision.
Apple clearly knew there would be a transition period where the rest of the internet followed their lead. The reason no work around was offered was that such a work-around would prolong the time that the transition took. The pain will be greater, but the transition should be far shorter.
Flash on the web is a FAIL for accessibility. The only way to get an accessible web is to flush Flash. The presence of 250M+ iOS devices (40-50M of those are iPads) is a strong incentive for sites to go Flash-free.
I know the reason. Those sites don't want your business.
Seriously: the best way to accelerate the transition to a mobile web is to gently tell sites that they are not working on your iPad and you won't do business with sites that don't work. Tell them that there are 40-50M iPads in the hand of consumers and none of them can see their full site. Tell them that there will probably be 100M iPad owners by spring. Suggest to them that the time has come to stop ignoring those customers.
Last edited:
From adobe.com.
"Using Flash Player 10, people with visual disabilities may now access the web using either Window-Eyes from GW Micro or JAWS from Freedom Scientific."
"Flash Player 10 has integrated support for Microsoft Active Accessibility (MSAA). MSAA serves as a bridge between Flash Player 10 and screen access technologies such as the Window-Eyes screen reader from GW Micro. It allows designers and developers to script this information and update it as the content changes"
Because I had some free time I knocked out a mobile version of my site. The redirect works on all the major browsers in iOS, Blackberry, Android, XP, and Windows 7. I have not been able to test it on WinPhone7 or Symbian, or WebOS. I'll know by mid week on the rest of them. So using a couple of small js scripts I can be very specific on where I want the user to go. The screen size one alone will send computers to the main site, tablets to another version, and phones to a third. By keeping the content on separate textfiles and dynamically loading them each site will display the same content whether they are flash or html.
Last edited:
Those people with options will start moaning about how Safari sucks if that happens.. No one will blame Adobe or Flash about it, regular enduser is oblivious about what goes in the background, they only know if their device works or not. Apple will not take the blame of a sucky component in their clockwork system, and to be honest neither would I...
What's weird is that I've never blamed Apple for the rare issues I've had in Safari. I will blame the website if there is a problem. I don't even blame Apple when Turntable.fm, an HTML site, doesn't load fully on my iPad2.
Last edited:
Agreed. There are so many sites that work perfectly well in Safari, that when you encounter one that doesn't play ball, it has to be that site that's at fault.
First off, as an Apple user, I don't like Flash. At the core, it is a proprietary solution from a single company with limited resources. This means that optimizations are targeted towards popular platforms while second tier platforms suffer. The latest versions of Flash are still terrible under OS X compared to the Windows version.
That said, Flash is a powerful tool that has capabilities that HTML 5 will never attain. Flash games have no parallel in the HTML 5 world. Even video playback is a more seamless and feature rich experience under Flash.
I don't believe that Flash needs to go away, rather it should be used more judiciously. If a portion of a site can be implemented in HTML 5 and still adhere to your vision, please do not make it in Flash (or at least make an HTML fallback). However if Flash is the right tool, go for it.
Nobody expects a site like newgrounds to convert to HTML 5, but what I can't stand is when a site requires Flash for some basic functionality. For example, my insurance company used to have the logon box implemented as an animated drawer in Flash. It was bad design that prevented me from accessing the site from my iPad while providing no real benefit to the either the site admins or the users.
Just use Flash where it truly adds value, and I'll be happy.
That said, Flash is a powerful tool that has capabilities that HTML 5 will never attain. Flash games have no parallel in the HTML 5 world. Even video playback is a more seamless and feature rich experience under Flash.
I don't believe that Flash needs to go away, rather it should be used more judiciously. If a portion of a site can be implemented in HTML 5 and still adhere to your vision, please do not make it in Flash (or at least make an HTML fallback). However if Flash is the right tool, go for it.
Nobody expects a site like newgrounds to convert to HTML 5, but what I can't stand is when a site requires Flash for some basic functionality. For example, my insurance company used to have the logon box implemented as an animated drawer in Flash. It was bad design that prevented me from accessing the site from my iPad while providing no real benefit to the either the site admins or the users.
Just use Flash where it truly adds value, and I'll be happy.
When is the last time a Microsoft action has been used to support an Apple posittion?
I thought MS was stupid and sucked.
I guess having your cake and eating it too actually works.
I don't want anybody telling me what or how I can view stuff on the information superhighway.
Choice is better than no choice.
If you want maximum battery life, don't use flash.
For those that do, let them.
How difficult is that? It sure ain't rocket surgery.
I thought MS was stupid and sucked.
I guess having your cake and eating it too actually works.
I don't want anybody telling me what or how I can view stuff on the information superhighway.
Choice is better than no choice.
If you want maximum battery life, don't use flash.
For those that do, let them.
How difficult is that? It sure ain't rocket surgery.
I never championed it because honestly I was unaware of the issues at hand. What has become clear as I research further is that Adobe was and is aware of the issues and has worked hard at solving the problems. Its also apparent that Adobe has more work to do.
Adobe's accessibility info comes up at the top of the first Google result for "accessibility and flash". At no point did you mention that Flash Player 10 is compatible with assistive technology like screen readers. In the interest of avoiding assumptions, did you even search for this info before claiming things like:
and
when there is readily available information that Flash does in fact work with assistive technology.
Further research about accessibility in general:
http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility/
This is Adobe's blog which covers overall accessibility problems and solutions with all their products. There is a lot of info here, most of which I did not know.
http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility/2010/11/flash-accessibility-talk-at-max-2010.html
2010 Talk at a dev conference. There are a lot of different recordings covering Flash and other Adobe products.
http://sixrevisions.com/usabilityaccessibility/adobe-flash-accessibility-best-practices-for-design/
Another page describing how Flash can make sites accessible. It should be noted that just having HTML does not guarantee equal accessibility for everyone. For example, if links are styled with no underline because they will change color on rollover, users with color sensitivity problems can easily miss that the are links. This will be exaggerated on touch devices due to the lack of a pointer.
[QUOYTE]A feature of Flash that can also be an issue in regards to accessibility is the dynamic properties of an ever changing Flash movie or application. When the content in Flash changes, the Flash player sends a notification to the screen reader and the screen reader will start over at the top of a page, regardless of where it left off. In an effort to help reduce potential misinterpretations by the screen reader and user, Adobe has worked to create a "Halt Flash Events" hotkey (Alt + Shift + M) for the Window-Eyes screen reader. This toggle will suspend all animations in order for the reader to complete the page.[/QUOTE]
http://juicystudio.com/article/making-ajax-work-with-screen-readers.php#informreader
HTML pages with AJAX, which is used for server calls without hitting a button, won't always play nice with readers because unless its coded correctly it won't alert the reader to start over at the top of the page, and this is not something that is set as a default -- that code has to be added.. This just happens to be a a case where Flash.
The gist is that no dynamic content is guaranteed accessible and much of it needs some retooling to bring compliance with the best practice standards. The thing is that any solutions will require work to fix. There is no way to say if it will cost more or less to convert an entre site to HTML, especially when the client wants the HTML5 flashyness vs recompiling for the current swf to make use of the new Flash accessibility solutions. That depends on how big the site is and how much gloss the client wants.
Last edited:
I must disagree. Just like societies function better with a common written/spoken language, so does the Web. Fragmentation of content delivery reduces the reach of the message. Imagine if you needed to use multiple browsers depending upon what site you want to visit. That is the situation happening under OS X now. Many users are choosing not to install Flash on there machines and are using the integrated Flash engine in Chrome when site require it.
It's fine to deviate from the standards for a specific need, but in general sites should comply to common standards whenever possible.
I don't want anybody telling me what or how I can view stuff on the information superhighway.
Choice is better than no choice.
If you want maximum battery life, don't use flash.
For those that do, let them.
How difficult is that? It sure ain't rocket surgery.
Do you think "reading the thread before posting and looking at where the implications of your position have already been discussed ad nauseam" is also a choice that is left up to the end-user? It would explain your post.
Currently Flash video is superior to HTML5 video in regards to closed captioning.
http://webaim.org/blog/future-web-accessibility-html5-video/
An alternate media stream would be, as I have been saying, Flash in addition to HTML5.
There is no set date for when this will be fixed, it falls under the soon timeframe, and when we're talking about large organizations.
The Canvas tag, which is one of the big features that lets HTML5 do some of the advanced things that Flash can, is incompatible with accessibility aids. From the Adobe video, accessibility support with the canvas tag in 2010 is similar to accessibility support with Flash in 2001.
http://webaim.org/blog/future-web-accessibility-html-canvas/
This is the same kind of fallback content that can be added to Flash files, and is akin to the regular html alt tag that's been used for decades to describe graphics. You basically add short plain text to describe what's happening within the Canvas tag.
This is all very interesting and I'm glad our discussions started my researching it further because its revealed the accessibility problems and solutions in both Flash and HTML5.
http://webaim.org/blog/future-web-accessibility-html5-video/
An alternate media stream would be, as I have been saying, Flash in addition to HTML5.
There is no set date for when this will be fixed, it falls under the soon timeframe, and when we're talking about large organizations.
The Canvas tag, which is one of the big features that lets HTML5 do some of the advanced things that Flash can, is incompatible with accessibility aids. From the Adobe video, accessibility support with the canvas tag in 2010 is similar to accessibility support with Flash in 2001.
http://webaim.org/blog/future-web-accessibility-html-canvas/
This is the same kind of fallback content that can be added to Flash files, and is akin to the regular html alt tag that's been used for decades to describe graphics. You basically add short plain text to describe what's happening within the Canvas tag.
This is all very interesting and I'm glad our discussions started my researching it further because its revealed the accessibility problems and solutions in both Flash and HTML5.
Last edited:
Yeah, after the claim that it isn't accessible, I did a 2 second Google and got all sorts of information on it, including from Adobe.
Plus as another poster put (extremely well) you can do multiple versions of a site.
Before I play devils avocet, I just want to say am for HTML5 100%. Now, You have to understand from a Flash Developers stand point though. HTML5 is code based. Flash is graphic based. Only big sites like Google, Amazon, Apple.com, could really use HTML5. Until recently, Adobe released a GUI for graphic designers to make HTML5 content. Furthermore, Flash is already a functional product, more so than HTML5. Google is using Flash as a marketing tool for selling Android products and is disgust me. Google should be helping technology move forward.
This page describes how a screen reader would read a simple form created in Flash:
http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/flashplayer/overview.html
FloatingBones, since you have more experience with accessibility needs, is there a problem with how this information is relayed to the user?
This discussion has been helpful in that I will build all these accessibility aids into future projects, and if I have some downtime I'll try add them to the existing projects I still have access to.
http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/flashplayer/overview.html
FloatingBones, since you have more experience with accessibility needs, is there a problem with how this information is relayed to the user?
I may have misunderstood you, but Flash is both. ActionScript has matured into a robust programming language which is why you can create advanced applications which would not be possible with something that is mainly graphics-based. In my experience there are two kinds of creators, Flash designers who stay primarily on the timeline and Flash programmers who stay primarily in code. A small minority are both.
I'm curious why FloatingBones never mentioned all of the accessibility features currently in Flash before claiming that Flash and accessibility are mutually exclusive. I wonder how many people are taking his word at face value without doing any independent research. Perhaps he didn't mean Flash in general, but existing Flash sites not built using the currently available accessibility aids available in Flash. FB, will you clarify?
This discussion has been helpful in that I will build all these accessibility aids into future projects, and if I have some downtime I'll try add them to the existing projects I still have access to.
Last edited:
Nope. All that we thought we "knew" has changed. On last week's Windows Weekly, Paul Thurott notes that Microsoft is now giving out a very different story from what they said in September:
Windows Weekly Episode 237 (Timestamp 2:49) said:
Much more discussion on the podcast. Paul and Mary Jo, and Leo, are all very happy about this change. Mary Jo comments that a real iPad competitor must work this way: "You should cut the cord. Only Metro Apps." If you want legacy apps, go with Intel. Paul agrees with that 100%: "How stupid would it be for the iPad to run MacOS apps poorly. It would be so Microsoft to do that wrong."
darngooddesign said:
Unless Microsoft flip-flops back again, #1, #2, #4, and #5 are totally blown out of the water.
Oh, well. As Paul notes, if you the customer want a legacy environment, then stick with the Intel version. If you want a clean break, go with the ARM tablet. Your choice.
As I noted at the time you posted this, the whole damn thing was speculation.
Nope. There is no "fact" that you will be able to sideload anything you want. Sideloading would cripple the Microsoft ARM Tablet App Store: legitimate and illegitimate versions of software could just sidestep the store.
Microsoft's Steven Sinofsky fails to realize is that there will always be compromises in products that can support legacy apps and legacy ways to distribute software. "No compromises" is something that only exists in designs in the far future. Somewhere between the end of the Build conference and last week, reality set in.
I don't believe that Microsoft will flip-flop again, but it could happen. At some point, those 180-degree reverses become their own compromise.
Yes, Flash is dead; apps like Puffin will provide a bridge for users until legacy Flash websites are modernized.
LTD: it is useful to get the word out about how Microsoft's plans have [reportedly] changed with their ARM Tablets. We're now in a strange position where Thurrott's breaking story directly contradicts what Microsoft staffers have stated on the msdn blog. Either these reporters are way off in their story, or MS needs to officially update their public blogs. If I were developing for Windows 8, I would not be comfortable with these contradictory signals from the mother ship.
I have not seen this updated story about ARM Tablets discussed in the iPad forums -- or elsewhere in MacRumors. Did I miss it?
Nope. All that we thought we "knew" has changed. On last week's Windows Weekly, Paul Thurott notes that Microsoft is now giving out a very different story from what they said in September:
Much more discussion on the podcast. Paul and Mary Jo, and Leo, are all very happy about this change. Mary Jo comments that a real iPad competitor must work this way: "You should cut the cord. Only Metro Apps." If you want legacy apps, go with Intel. Paul agrees with that 100%: "How stupid would it be for the iPad to run MacOS apps poorly. It would be so Microsoft to do that wrong."
Unless Microsoft flip-flops back again, #1, #2, #4, and #5 are totally blown out of the water.
Oh, well. As Paul notes, if you the customer want a legacy environment, then stick with the Intel version. If you want a clean break, go with the ARM tablet. Your choice.
As I noted at the time you posted this, the whole damn thing was speculation.
Nope. There is no "fact" that you will be able to sideload anything you want. Sideloading would cripple the Microsoft ARM Tablet App Store: legitimate and illegitimate versions of software could just sidestep the store.
Microsoft's Steven Sinofsky fails to realize is that there will always be compromises in products that can support legacy apps and legacy ways to distribute software. "No compromises" is something that only exists in designs in the far future. Somewhere between the end of the Build conference and last week, reality set in.
I don't believe that Microsoft will flip-flop again, but it could happen. At some point, those 180-degree reverses become their own compromise.
Well this is interesting. So no "full desktop" cum-tablet-interface for Windows 8 tablets? Or rather, no desktop-centric applications for tablets (that obviously require tablet-specific versions)?
Looks like MS have finally woken up.
There a reason the iPad does what it does so well.
Not only that, having that "option" will most likely mean compromises made somewhere. I suspect Flash isn't something that'll be available in the app store but rather has to be included with Safari as part of the shipping OS. Plus there are always security issues that will no doubt be worsened by having that option.