I might have misunderstood you post, but there are already browsers available in the App Store than run Flash content just fine.
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 might have misunderstood you post, but there are already browsers available in the App Store than run Flash content just fine.
Flash looks pretty much finished. HTML5 seems to be the future seeing alot of sites built in it to suit tablets now.
Terrible idea. Then it's no better than the iPad, basically. They could have launched it this year.
"Stupid"? It would be fantastic if the iPad ran OS X programs. My idea for this stuff before the iPad launched was a toggleable interface. Many programs would be updated to support the new touch interface natively, but you could fall back to the normal interface too (and vice versa for that matter).
Apple and Microsoft are the only companies in a serious position to pull that off. I actually thought Apple had the best shot at it...but they just went the easy route and released a giant iPod. Microsoft has the ability to pull off something far more useful here.
The winners here...Intel and AMD.
They've already got products that work decently in tablets, and that'll only get better next year, the year after that...
When your choice becomes get an ARM based Windows 8 tablet that's actually just an iPod/iPad competitor, or get an x86 Windows 8 tablet that's a real PC, the ARM stuff will be at a gigantic disadvantage. I don't know why people would even bother building them, at least not in higher price points. (Maybe some $200 models or something, but...)
There are none that I'm aware of. Puffin certainly isn't. It's just streaming something rendered elsewhere, right? That's no replacement for a capable local browser, even aside from security issues.
It is today. Flash is used all over the place, constantly. Maybe it won't be 2 years from now, who knows. But just because Android tablets are going to be just as crippled doesn't suddenly make Flash irrelevant, it just makes these "lite" tablets more irrelevant.
It has always done the job, for those precious few occasions when Flash actually matters.
Aside from that, Flash has had no effect on the proliferation of iOS, which today is the dominant mobile OS in the market.
Probably the majority of sites use flash, and dumb clients like that would only be useful for a small minority of them.
Isn't that Android? Or maybe not thanks to the iPod? In any case, that's irrelevant. It's still less useful than it could be.
Flash Browsers?
Not that I'm trying to argue word semantics here, but I think it would be more useful to say that flash is "dying", it certainly isn't dead yet. Many websites are still using Flash.
As for the flash browsers...they aren't the same as having it on the device itself.
I have Photon Web browser. It's satisfactory for video, but sites can look somewhat blurry or out of focus. Best way to describe is that it looks like an out of focus ad that a site posted. Rendering isn't the same.
Not that I'm trying to argue word semantics here, but I think it would be more useful to say that flash is "dying", it certainly isn't dead yet. Many websites are still using Flash.
As for the flash browsers...they aren't the same as having it on the device itself.
I have Photon Web browser. It's satisfactory for video, but sites can look somewhat blurry or out of focus. Best way to describe is that it looks like an out of focus ad that a site posted. Rendering isn't the same.
Hmmm. I can't quite tell with messages like this if they are deep sarcasm or should be taken at face value. This time, I'll take the message at face value.
Leo, Paul, and Mary Jo completely disagree with your assessment. While Leo is an Apple enthusiast, Paul and Mary Jo are professionals in the PC industry. Most importantly, Microsoft changed their direction -- and they thought it important enough to reverse the announcement they made ~75 days ago.
The real tell is your claim is that the direction-change is the source of some delay. How do you figure that? This is less functionality and less testing; why should that take more time? MS has consistently said that W8 would be released in 2012. Did you hear otherwise?
Why? How would that work?
This is where I become unsure: is this actually subtle sarcasm?
"Giant iPod" seems to have been used as a pejorative; "giant iPhone" would have been far more accurate. Using a similar platform as a springboard made similar sense -- for both developers and users of iPhone apps. Developers were able to rapidly adopt their applications to run natively at the higher resolution. Since then, developers have gone on to create tens of thousands of iPad-only applications. It was a dramatically smooth adoption: ensuring that applications were available from day one while fluidly shifting to amazing ipad-customied applications.
You also seem to not realize: the iPad came first in Apple's internal development. It's not that the iPad is giant iPhone; it's more that the iPhone was a tiny tablet.
The customer is also a winner: they get a choice over machines that have a toggle and machines that don't.
What products are you referring to?
Simply repeating your pejorative doesn't make it true.
That is definitely what you think. Whether or not it's true is still up in the air.
The iPad approach has the advantage of simplicity. It also has the advantage of increased security: there is one way for executable code to land on the machine. Ultimately, the marketplace will determine which machine actually has an advantage.
For years, Adobe used the phrase "full web experience" to describe a browser with Flash (but Adobe seems to have abandoned that campaign over a year ago). Your spin-phrase is "capable local browser" -- which kinda begs the question.
Security issues??? Flash has -- and continues -- to have glaring security deficiencies. Just google on
zero day adobe flash
on the site grc.com to see the Malware Hit Parade.
The way to avoid any security issues is to eliminate your use of Flash. Virtually all banks offer an iOS app these days -- a far better solution than using a browser on an iPad.
No. Flash is irrelevant today. Microsoft's dropping of Flash on ARM-based Win8 tablets is just confirmation that it is dead. You did read about Adobe's announcement last month, didn't you?
There is no excuse at this point for websites to not be using H.264 at this point. All streaming servers -- including Adobe's -- will now serve up their data Flash-free.
Leo, Paul, and Mary Jo completely disagree with your assessment. While Leo is an Apple enthusiast, Paul and Mary Jo are professionals in the PC industry. Most importantly, Microsoft changed their direction -- and they thought it important enough to reverse the announcement they made ~75 days ago.
The real tell is your claim is that the direction-change is the source of some delay. How do you figure that? This is less functionality and less testing; why should that take more time? MS has consistently said that W8 would be released in 2012. Did you hear otherwise?
Why? How would that work?
This is where I become unsure: is this actually subtle sarcasm?
"Giant iPod" seems to have been used as a pejorative; "giant iPhone" would have been far more accurate. Using a similar platform as a springboard made similar sense -- for both developers and users of iPhone apps. Developers were able to rapidly adopt their applications to run natively at the higher resolution. Since then, developers have gone on to create tens of thousands of iPad-only applications. It was a dramatically smooth adoption: ensuring that applications were available from day one while fluidly shifting to amazing ipad-customied applications.
You also seem to not realize: the iPad came first in Apple's internal development. It's not that the iPad is giant iPhone; it's more that the iPhone was a tiny tablet.
The customer is also a winner: they get a choice over machines that have a toggle and machines that don't.
What products are you referring to?
Simply repeating your pejorative doesn't make it true.
That is definitely what you think. Whether or not it's true is still up in the air.
The iPad approach has the advantage of simplicity. It also has the advantage of increased security: there is one way for executable code to land on the machine. Ultimately, the marketplace will determine which machine actually has an advantage.
For years, Adobe used the phrase "full web experience" to describe a browser with Flash (but Adobe seems to have abandoned that campaign over a year ago). Your spin-phrase is "capable local browser" -- which kinda begs the question.
Security issues??? Flash has -- and continues -- to have glaring security deficiencies. Just google on
zero day adobe flash
on the site grc.com to see the Malware Hit Parade.
The way to avoid any security issues is to eliminate your use of Flash. Virtually all banks offer an iOS app these days -- a far better solution than using a browser on an iPad.
No. Flash is irrelevant today. Microsoft's dropping of Flash on ARM-based Win8 tablets is just confirmation that it is dead. You did read about Adobe's announcement last month, didn't you?
There is no excuse at this point for websites to not be using H.264 at this point. All streaming servers -- including Adobe's -- will now serve up their data Flash-free.
Its interesting to note that Floating Bones resurrected this thread to talk about Windows, but not to address the evidence i presented that Flash does work with accessibility aids.
FloatingBones, would you mind addressing all accessibility points I brought. Particularly in light of this post...
I provided some evidence to the contrary.
Admittedly, Flash is no longer relevant for the majority of the web, but in the interest of defending your point please respond to my posts.
However, you are correct that it now looks like Windows 8 ARM devices wont have desktop mode.
FloatingBones, would you mind addressing all accessibility points I brought. Particularly in light of this post...
I provided some evidence to the contrary.
Admittedly, Flash is no longer relevant for the majority of the web, but in the interest of defending your point please respond to my posts.
However, you are correct that it now looks like Windows 8 ARM devices wont have desktop mode.
Last edited:
I don't care what you said about Flash, I want my ESPN3
We live in this world with so many things are imperfect, including Apple products (I used to think Apple products are perfect until I discovered MacRumors...). Apple are much closer to perfect than many others product, such Flash. The problem is, like many others, I'm a sports fan. All I want is to be able watch ESPN3 on my iPad. So far, all the reason I hear about why iOS don't support Flash is that Flash is a bad thing, is drug... Yes, Flash is bad and even Adobe knows that. But at this point, it's so popular and so many people still use it. There are over half a million apps for iOS but yet, there is none plays ESPN3. That's sad...
There are apps for Flash and they claim to be able to play ESPN3. Don't waste your money on them. They're much worst then using Android pad.
We live in this world with so many things are imperfect, including Apple products (I used to think Apple products are perfect until I discovered MacRumors...). Apple are much closer to perfect than many others product, such Flash. The problem is, like many others, I'm a sports fan. All I want is to be able watch ESPN3 on my iPad. So far, all the reason I hear about why iOS don't support Flash is that Flash is a bad thing, is drug... Yes, Flash is bad and even Adobe knows that. But at this point, it's so popular and so many people still use it. There are over half a million apps for iOS but yet, there is none plays ESPN3. That's sad...
There are apps for Flash and they claim to be able to play ESPN3. Don't waste your money on them. They're much worst then using Android pad.
No, that's not what I said.
What I said was that tablet devices using an ARM processor will only work in Metro mode. Big difference! If you had taken the time to listen to the Windows Weekly podcast, you would have noticed that Mary Jo explicitly asked about ARM-based laptops, and that Paul did not know whether or not there would be a desktop mode for ARM-based laptops.
In this message, you told us about what "we know". Now, Microsoft has apparently made a 180-degree change. Even before the Build conference in September, what capabilities the various permutations of Intel/ARM and laptop/tablet would have in Windows 8 were already confused. The announcements made at Build did little to clarify the picture. We really "know" nothing about this with any certainty. Microsoft could clarify the picture with simple little chart, but they have failed to do so. In short, we don't know diddly. In the future, please take care when using the verb "know" when talking about such things: the "looks like" you used in your last posting was a far better choice.
Microsoft looks like they're choosing to put all of this -- ARM phones, ARM tablets, Intel tablets, ARM laptops (maybe), Intel laptops -- under the brand of "Windows 8". If that sticks through next year, it'll take the prize as the most fractured OS in our history.
Actually, it was a conversation about "choice" with Flash on handhelds in general:
If the current rumors from Redmond are correct, then your claim was false. Users won't "get a choice" (at least on the ARM variant of a WIN8 tablet computer).
Since Adobe has announced they've discontinued development of Flash Player on mobile devices, all of this has become moot. Flash has lost all shreds of viability as a universal means of delivering content.
IIRC, you were talking about a proprietary PC-only extension to the Flash player. You gave a URL to a website making those claims. Did you bother running it? Does it work on existing Flash pages? How does it play with the existing accessibility adapters in Windows?
See above. Would you mind addressing the question I asked repeatedly in this discussion? It's a question that none of the Flash-advocates have ever competently addressed:
Do you see any way to make the web accessible for all without flushing Flash?
In case you haven't figured it out, I'll state it explicitly: for all means all users on all platforms. I see no solution; do you? Even Adobe has acknowledged that Flash is a Fail on handheld devices.
Flash was never relevant for those on the web who wanted their data accessible to all. Apple realized the problematic nature of Flash on the web in 2007; we are well on the way to a Flash-free web. Apple has done far more to promote an accessible web than Adobe ever will.
I don't care what technology is used I just want to be able to watch freaking videos in the websites I visit or search for (no not porn )
Whether that means the iPad supporting flash or the web moving away from flash, I don't care, but it is kinda annoying when I have to go and watch a video on my pc cause the iPad doesn't support flash. Admittedly this has only happened once in the week or so ive owned it
)Whether that means the iPad supporting flash or the web moving away from flash, I don't care, but it is kinda annoying when I have to go and watch a video on my pc cause the iPad doesn't support flash. Admittedly this has only happened once in the week or so ive owned it
Whether that means the iPad supporting flash or the web moving away from flash, I don't care, but it is kinda annoying when I have to go and watch a video on my pc cause the iPad doesn't support flash. Admittedly this has only happened once in the week or so ive owned it
The best thing for you to do is to open up trouble tickets with websites that are still using Flash to deliver their content. Tell them that Adobe themselves has dropped support for Flash on mobile devices. Tell them that Microsoft's W8 ARM tablets will have no browser support for Flash (unless, of course, Microsoft flip-flops again). Tell them their website is working badly and will continue to work badly until they get rid of their Flash delivery for content.
I participate in the Adopt-a-Highway program in my neighborhood. This is a tremendous program; I appreciate all the volunteers who keep the litter off the streets. We can all help get rid of litter on the Internet, too. Call it the Adopt-an-Internet-Highway program.
Last edited:
The best thing for you to do is to open up trouble tickets with websites that are still using Flash to deliver their content. Tell them that Adobe themselves has dropped support for Flash on mobile devices. Tell them that Microsoft's W8 ARM tablets will have no browser support for Flash (unless, of course, Microsoft flip-flops again). Tell them their website is working badly and will continue to work badly until they get rid of their Flash content.
I participate in the Adopt-a-Highway program in my neighborhood. This is a tremendous program; I appreciate all the volunteers who keep the litter off the streets. We can all help get rid of litter on the Internet, too. Call it the Adopt-an-Internet-Highway program.
As a consumer I'm not going to post feedback on every non-html5 I visit, I just want them to work. Most would feel the same.
I hold participants of MR forums to a higher standard than most consumers. It's a knowledgable and caring crowd. We actually have the power to improve the web -- one website at a time. We can accelerate the transition to a Flash-free web.
Have you ever read Steve Jobs's Thoughts on Flash memo? Do you realize that there are segments of our society for whom Flash has never ever "worked"?.
I wish people would stop wishing.
I presented plenty of evidence that Flash works with acessibility aids. Afterwards you stopped discussing a matter you were arguing very hard on. I doubt it was coincidence, most likely you realized you were partially wrong, completely wrong, or were unaware of the accessibility support (which I already posted) built into Flash. Which is it?
Have you tried it and what is your experience with it? Based on your lack of response for months, you haven't. I thought you were perhaps researching the info I provided so you could make an informed response, but at no point have you said this so you're still making claims based on a lack of information.
To anyone joining the discussion late here is the synopsis.
1. FB said there are no accessibility aids in Flash.
2. I spent a little time googling and researching and provided links to information saying that Flash works with screen readers and other aids
3. FB still thinks there are no accessibility aids in Flash.
-----
You can only know things based on information provided. And when presented information changes we know different things. For example, at one point we knew that the world was created in six days. Now we know differently because the information presented has changed. That does not change the fact that what we previously knew was based on the information then provided. You are correct that until there is an official statement from Msoft, we don't know anything with certainty.
Yes. Based on the now current rumors this is correct, based on the then current statements from Msoft it wasn't.
You are correct that we now don't know about ARM laptops. I said ARM devices because the information provided didn't differentiate between the two kinds of devices.
This is why the single OS strategy Msoft initially said it would have made a lot of sense. It will be easy enough to call one OS Windopws 8 Phone, but I don't know how they will differentiate the different computers. People buying the Intel tablets will want to be able to do work with a mouse, otherwise they would just buy a limited ARM tablet, so how will Msoft keep the two separate. Its going to require some smart and strong branding both with the OS and requiring all manufacturers to abide by their naming conventions. Maybe they will not allow any ARM desktop apps at all, which really negates the need for an W8 ARM laptop.
No, you haven't. Exactly what part of all users on all platforms do you fail to understand?
See above. Adobe has never offered a solution to accessibility. A proprietary single-platform "solution" to Flash accessibility is an oxymoron. Now that Adobe has abandoned development of Flash for mobile devices, it makes even less sense to continue this discussion.
darngooddesign said:
I'm sorry. I don't have a PC. If you think this is a viable solution on PCs, you need to demonstrate that it actually works. You made the claim; the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is correct. If you are going to be a champion for Adobe's products, I suggest that you actually run them -- and report to us how they work.
The better question: why do you care? With development abandoned for mobile devices, Flash is dead as a universal way to deliver content. Flash is therefore dead as a universal way to deliver accessible content.
AFAICT, the only way to get an accessible web -- all users on all platforms -- is to flush Flash. This is something that Apple has known for many years; they drew a line in the sand with the introduction of the iPhone in 2007. Jobs publicly discussed that earlier decision in his April 2010 Thoughts on Flash memo. Adobe started publicly advocating moving from Flash to HTML in October of 2010. And Adobe announced that they have abandoned Flash development on mobile devices in November of this year.
How do you make the web accessible for all without flushing Flash? You can't. Will the diehard Flash enthusiasts ever acknowledge that fact? AFAICT, they can't.
There does appear to be a one-time opportunity for developers to help websites migrate off of their Flash-only websites. Flash developers could use Adobe's announcement -- and the reports that Win8 ARM Tablets will be Flash-free -- as an opportunity to get clients to modernize their Flash-only websites. I hope that Flash developers will take advantage of this opportunity.
darngooddesign said:In this message, you told us about what "we know". Now, Microsoft has apparently made a 180-degree change. Even before the Build conference in September, what capabilities the various permutations of Intel/ARM and laptop/tablet would have in Windows 8 were already confused. The announcements made at Build did little to clarify the picture. We really "know" nothing about this with any certainty. Microsoft could clarify the picture with simple little chart, but they have failed to do so. In short, we don't know diddly. In the future, please take care when using the verb "know" when talking about such things: the "looks like" you used in your last posting was a far better choice.
You can only know things based on information provided. And when presented information changes we know different things.
My point was that your verb shifted form "know" when it looked like ARM Tablets could directly run flash to "looks like" with the update from Paul Thurrott this month. "Know" was never a good verb to use. The only thing the public definitively knows is that Microsoft has flip-flopped over what capabilities their various devices would have. Developers are undoubtably concerned -- and a bit frustrated -- over the lack of a clear story from Microsoft.
There's clearly a huge idealogical debate happening within Microsoft, and there is a huge cost to wavering on the decisions. Hardware vendors are making bets, and they need clear direction about what software choices MS will make.
Did MS's [apparent] decision to be Metro-only on W8 Arm Tablets influence Adobe's decision to drop development of Flash for mobile devices? Or had Adobe already made the decision to drop mobile devs? We'll probably never definitively "know".
Last edited:
I already provided evidence that Adobe has offered solutions to accessibility that work with screen readers and other devices.No, you haven't. Exactly what part of all users on all platforms do you fail to understand?
So your answer is that since you can't test something it must not be true. You first claimed there were no accessibility aids built into Flash, the onus is on you to defend your point against my evidence to the contrary.
I care because I happen to like what Flash can do, and I'd rather not see it go on all devices just because of tablets. I care because you keep repeating a soundbite which is not correct trying to drown out other more level-headed information.
Flash doesn't have to be a universal solution, it can be used in addition to html solutions. I already discussed this and provided proof of redirects when you refused to believe they existed.
You refuse to admit Flash has accessibility aids built into it, even when presented with evidence to the contrary.
Just recently a friend who works for a large soda manufacturer asked me for my suggestion on delivering web video. After covering the choices and the pros/cons of using Flash video vs. HTML video her team has decided to continue using Flash for the video. The reason for this is it has better cc support not to mention integrates into their infrastructure better. They aren't worried about iOS because they provide both apps and mobile html versions which deliver the same content to all devices.
I used the word "know" because Msoft stated it would have a single OS strategy. Then I used the words "looks like" because there was an unofficial statement by Thurrot. The only things we KNOW is that Msoft has flip-flopped and we'll never really know the reason why. In the end there is a lot we don't currently know because there hasn't been an official statement by Msoft on the matter; there is a lot that looks like fact but isn't. As we get more information the things we know will change as will the things that look like they will happen.
The real question is how will they sort out the divide of device and OS versions. It really would be best for them to offer the desktop on ARM devices so people aren't confused about the capabilities between Intel tablets & ARM Tablets and ARM Tablets & ARM Laptops.
Do you see any way to make the web accessible for all without flushing Flash? [...]
Exactly what part of all users on all platforms do you fail to understand?
I already provided evidence that Adobe has offered solutions to accessibility that work with screen readers and other devices.
We now have our answer: you don't understand the phrase at all. The proprietary technology does absolutely nothing to make the web accessible for all. Flash isn't available on iOS devices, and Adobe has abandoned all Flash development for handheld devices. As Bonny noted in the thread:
For accessibility, Flash is not part of the solution, it's actually a big part of the problem. Smart Flash developers would use this as an opportunity to move the thousands of tiny Flash-only websites off of the Flash platform. Others would continue the indefensible claim that Flash somehow still "offers a solution" to the accessibility problem. That dog won't hunt.
I'm not sure you understand how a fact-based discussion works: if someone makes a claim, the onus is on them to back up that claim with facts. You have claimed that there's a proprietary single-platform version of Flash that supports accessibility, but you've provided no facts.
Have you ever bothered to try to run this proprietary extension? If not, why not?
There are no accessibility aids built into Flash. There is absolutely nothing I can run on any of my computers that supports my computer's accessibility adapters in Flash.
You gave us a URL to a website about a Windows-only accessibility extension to Flash. You seem to have never run this on your Windows machines -- to see if it actually does something useful on existing Flash websites. And you have failed to provide a reference to any reviews of this proprietary extension.
One of the most important design points of Flash is that it's WORA. Do you understand: with this Windows desktop-only extension to Flash, Adobe has broken WORA.
Do you acknowledge what Flash cannot do? Flash cannot be used to deliver accessible content to all users on all platforms. Since Adobe has dropped development for mobile devices, Flash is unsuitable for universally delivering content via the web.
What can Flash do? Flash is fine for specialty apps targeted to a particular groups of users. While Flash is a non-starter for mobile device web browsing, all of the mobile device App Stores support wrapped Flash/Flex applications. I like to think of this as the "opt in" model for using Flash: users only run Flash code if they explicitly ask for it. Machinarium is an example of a Flash-based app (a game); it briefly enjoyed the #1 ranking for iPad apps in Apple's app store this summer. It's still in the top 200 paid iPad apps (#128 this morning).
I don't understand what this means. Flash apps are available on all handheld devices: the developer just has to use Adobe's tool to package the app for the various App stores.
"Just because of tablets" doesn't make sense, either. Adobe has dropped Flash development for all mobile devices.
Then please provide us with level-headed information! Run the version on your PC and tell us how it uses the PC's accessibility adapters. Or find a review from a PC magazine or blogger of this product. Give us some indication that it actually works.
Flash does not support accessibility. A single-platform "solution" that breaks WORA does not mean that Flash supports accessibility.
Please be very clear: Flash is NEVER the universal solution. Since Flash can't be used that way, websites should provide their information through HTML. This is exactly what Adobe has been recommending for over a year.
Flash could be used to provide information in a supplementary fashion. I believe the App Store model is an excellent way to provide this.
You seem to be obsessed with the announcement, but you have never tried the software. That is strange.
The existence of a proprietary single-platform fork of Flash does NOT mean that "Flash has accessibility".
The lack of closed captioning in HTML5 streams has been a problem. Since Adobe has pledged that they'll bring Flash features to HTML5, I'm fondly hoping that they will help resolve this issue promptly.
I have little concern for websites that provide multiple solutions. I'm far more concerned with the small businesses that have a Flash-only website. It's just plain silly for a restaurant website to display their menu in Flash.
There's an opportunity for Flash developers to go out to those Flash-only sites and get them modernized.
Now you know
: Microsoft has been vacillating over the capabilities of their devices. I have yet to see an "official" announcement confirming the story that Thurrott broke two weeks ago.I disagree. Microsoft realized that a tablet device that also allowed a promiscuous desktop mode (with sideloading, etc.) would create a massive amount of confusion for its customers. The decision-makers at Microsoft chose to adopt Apple's "walled garden" strategy.
My suggestion to you is to stop using the word "know" about unreleased hardware/software.
Microsoft disagrees. As reported by Thurrott, they though their earlier decision was wrong and have reversed themselves.
As I noted earlier, Leo, Paul, and Mary Jo all enthusiastically agree with Microsoft's [apparent] reversal.
@darn: what ever happened to the project you were discussing earlier in this thread:
In this message, you showed a code fragment. You said that you had tested this code in multiple browsers.
Whatever happened to this project? Have you abandoned it?
I think that @radiogoober nailed this a while back:
I can't believe darn good design is still trying to defend flash.
Provide an HTML site in addition so you can have content on your iOS device. Just like all the mobile sites that popped up when the iPhone came out.
Yes, Flash works with accessibility aids.
I don't think you understand how a discussion works. You make a claim. I make a counter claim. You tell me how my claim is correct or incorrect. Saying I'm wrong because you can't test it is not a way to dispute my info.
How has it broken that? Write the SWF once, it works on regular computers and computers with screen readers. Its still WORA.
That is why you have a regular and mobile site. Something for everyone
It doesn't break WORA. You create a regular SWF. That regular SWF sends its info and text to readers. That SWF is no different than a SWF used an a regular site. Its the same file.
I agree that Flash should be used in concert with HTML
Its not a propriatary fork of Flash. You create a regular SWF. That regular SWF sends its info and text to readers. That SWF is no different than a SWF used an a regular site. Its the same file.
But currently and for an unknown amount of time Flash video has better support for deaf users because of its excellent closed captioning capabilities.
That's bad site design regardless of the technology used. Menus should be HTML or PDFs, not Flash. There are other similar bad choices that can be made with just an HTML site.
You're correct now we "know" different things.Now you know
Which is more confusing to regular users?
1. This OS works exactly the same regardless of which device you are using.
2. You might be able to use the desktop, but what kind of processor is it running?
I said know based on statements Microsoft made.
Microsoft hasn't officially said anything. Somone has unofficially said that, but it does look like ARM devices won't get the desktop. Which I think will stop most people from buying ARM laptops.
Project works fine. I have an HTML5 site in addition to my Flash site and the redirects work the way they're supposed to. Two sites delivering the same content.
Why not? Its more entertaining than discussing whether the next iPad will have a retina screen.
Last edited:
This advice runs counter to Adobe itself -- the Flash Mothership -- is saying. Here's what John Nack said over a year ago on Adobe's blog about the future use of Flash on websites:
Adobe's John Nack said:
Your "solution" fails the John Nack test. Good luck finding clients willing to spend for two separate websites.
Even if clients were to do this, there are huge technical problems. For instance, how can a website developer know programmatically if a Click to Flash blocker is installed and enabled on a client's machine?
darngooddesign said:
If Flash supports accessibility, why doesn't it run on our Macs?
@darn: this is a fact-based discussion. Stating things that you know are factually wrong is a violation of the rules for discussion. Cut it out, please.OK. Your claim that "Flash works with accessibility aids" is wrong. If I fire up Flash on my MacBook, it does NOT support accessibility. If I fire up Flash on an Android computer, it does NOT support accessibility. You are making claims in the discussion that you know are factually wrong.
WORA means that the code behaves the same way on all platforms. If I'm running on a PC, those accessibility adapters are [reportedly] available. If I'm running on any other platform, those accessibility adapters are NOT available. Adobe has placed an artificial constraint on Flash users: even though many platforms (PC, Mac OS, Android, etc.) have accessibility adapters, users must be running on a PC to [reportedly] get Flash with accessibility.
Here's another way to understand: if a developer wishes to create a website accessible on all platforms, then they cannot use Flash.
By adding the feature on a single platform, Adobe has succeeded in breaking WORA in Flash. It's one of the most boneheaded things that Adobe could have done with Flash. They made a promise of WORA, then they broke the promise.
...but the vast majority of sites don't create parallel Flash and a Flash-free site for their webpage. You know that.
Are you really agreeing with me? Do you agree that the App Store model is the appropriate way to deploy Flash content?
The forking I meant was the forking of functionality: making accessibility work in only a single platform. While it may all be SWF, the accessibility code only runs on one platform. Adobe has broken WORA.
So what? Since all of the streaming servers serve up both Flash and HTML, there's no reason for content providers to make any decision either way.
For anyone who was rolling their own content, it would be a terrible decision to roll out a Flash-only solution today.
While data can be presented badly with any encoding, the fundamental error of many of those websites was presenting their data exclusively in Flash.
That's a false dilemma. Your first point is flawed because programs can't run "exactly" the same on a laptop computer and a tablet computer.
I don't know if your second point is valid. I have yet to see a clear communication what capabilities an Intel-based tablet will have vs. what capabilities an ARM-based tablet will have. AFAIK, we have yet to see any confirmation of Thurrott's announcement that ARM-based tablets will not have a desktop mode.
When Microsoft is [reportedly] using the same name of "Windows 8" for telephones, tablet computers, laptops, and desktop machines, odds approach 100% that everybody will be confused over what it means. Microsoft's apparent change of direction since the Build conference don't help any, either. Microsoft's claim that there are "no compromises" in their effort is rather silly: there will always be compromises.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. As I noted in this message, all of the regulars on Windows Weekly enthusiastically embraced this change. They think Microsoft's predilection to backwards compatibility is the wrong choice at this point; it's time for a clean break. If Microsoft permitted sideloading, they would allow people to sidestep their app store.
If the ARM Tablets fail, we'll never quite know why. Part of the failure could be assigned to Microsoft's failure to respond rapidly to the iPad.
If ARM Tablets fail, part of the failure could be assigned to Microsoft's failure to provide leadership in clearly defining and communicating the capabilities of the device to developers and interested customers.
So you say. I believe you also claimed that the Javascript dispatching code "works perfectly" on all browsers -- something that strains credulity.
You have repeatedly talked about the code, but you've never given a URL for anyone to verify that your claims are true. Why not?
There is no entertainment value in claiming that the Flash platform somehow "supports accessibility" because it [reportedly] supports Flash on a single platform. Such low-grade claims are of no use to the discussion as a whole; they indicate you really don't understand the nuances of WORA.
We Mac users cannot run that code to verify if the PC-only Flash accessibility code actually works. Is there some reason that you have never tried to run it on your PCs?
Last edited:
Flash runs well on my tablet so this is not true. No stuttering or slideshows--just smooth playback.