This would be such a smart move on Google's part. I strongly suggest that they do something like this, especially with Flex integration like Yahoo! has done. The possibilities are endless.
Are there any other hardcore ActionScripters out there who agree? Flash is no longer a silly design tool, it is a powerful web application builder that will be very influential in shaping the web in the near future. Especially with ActionScript 3 coming out.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:34:50PM -0000, shardex wrote:
> This would be such a smart move on Google's part. I strongly suggest
> that they do something like this, especially with Flex integration like
> Yahoo! has done. The possibilities are endless.
Why? I've happily disabled flash on every browser I've ever used (if it
enabled it to start with). I've never been to a site that required me to
use it that I considered it worthwhile enabling it for. At least with
javascript, I enable it when necessary. Is flash used for anything useful,
i.e. not adverts/spam and games?
why yes, Flash is used for many useful things. One simple example is video. Google uses Flash to embed video when you do a video search. That is just one simple example but if you really wanted to know, you could just do a general search on Google.
One brilliant aspect of Flash is that it is cross platform compatible, none of this crappy browser type and version number work arounds that we have to deal with in IE/FireFox etc. Again, that is just another simple example.
Just because the tool is used poorly by certain groups does not make the tool bad. That would, of course, be faulty logic.
Paul, I'm sorry but you're most likely in the minority. Flash is the most widely-supported plugin of all, and Flash updates have historically spread across 95% of users in very rapid periods of time due to its easy in-browser updates.
Obviously you've never done any development in Flash and don't understand the power of vector shapes and ActionScript's architecture. ActionScript, after all, is ECMAScript-based. So basically all we're talking about here is extending what already exists with vector capabilities. If you're a designer who is concerned with making usable, beautiful applications, this is a very attractive feature.
shardex> One brilliant aspect of Flash is that it is cross
shardex> platform compatible, none of this crappy browser type and
shardex> version number work arounds that we have to deal with in
shardex> IE/FireFox etc. Again, that is just another simple
shardex> example.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Flash is well supported on
Linux, especially not on non-intel compatible architectures. This does
not equal "cross platform compatible" IMHO.
-- Brian May <b...@snoopy.apana.org.au>
Brian, I was mainly referring to Apple/ Windows platforms and all of their different available browsers. But yes, the Flash Player is supported on Linux. I do not know off hand the adoption rate figures for Flash on Linux though. That's a good question though and I suppose I really should look into it more but as far as my development work is concerned I have always needed to concentrate my efforts on the vast majority of Internet users who use Win or Mac. I say that, even thought I love Linux but in the commercial world, I have to concentrate on the majority.
Also from Macromedia: "to provide consumers with a seamless Flash viewing experience, Macromedia distributes Macromedia Flash Player through many key partners, including Microsoft, Apple, Netscape, Novell, TurboLinux, RedHat and AOL. Macromedia Flash Player is pre-installed in several web browsers and on many computers. It is included in Windows XP (including all new Windows XP computers) and Apple Macintosh operating systems."
while I use Flash for a variety of projects, I general to not support using it in web development when you are not looking for glitzy animation effects. Its a proprietary platform, so you have to pay to develop. Poopy on that! When Mozilla fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinaly gets around to having full vector support and maybe if we could get some advances in javascript then we might need Flash even less. Dont get me wrong, I like the tool, but non-proprietary standards are much more valuable.
I am at a 'toss-up' stage between ajax and Flash. I agree that Flash is more ubiquitous as a browser capability, although I haven't used Linux for a while and never really knew what it supported. I think that Moz etc supports Flash in Linux; don't know Apple Safari.
I do think Flash is much easier to implement, and much more capable as a user interface - much, much more capable. Like I say, on windows, it is far easier as well, none of this : function loadXMLDoc(url) { // branch for native XMLHttpRequest object if (window.XMLHttpRequest) { req = new XMLHttpRequest(); req.onreadystatechange = processReqChange; req.open("GET", url, true); req.send(null); // branch for IE/Windows ActiveX version } else if (window.ActiveXObject) { isIE = true; req = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP"); if (req) { req.onreadystatechange = processReqChange; req.open("GET", url, true); req.send(); } }"
Flash is a lot more powerful than many programmers think. It is a great tool when used properly. I feel sorry for those programmers that cannot understand the importance of an appealing user interface. It is the end users that make programmers useable and it is tools like Flash that will help interfaces catch up to technology so that all users can use complex technology.
It is similar to the switch from command line OS's and Mac/Windows OS's. When the Mac first came out how many programmers thought it was a simple toy with no purpose or power? I guess we have seen what has happened to command line OS's.
For those of you that use Linux I think it is great that you use it, but remember how much of a minority you are. When you program for the web you are programming for the world and the world is on Windows and Mac OS's, so get over it.
For a great example of how Flash can be used with the Google Maps API, look at the project I'm working on. It does all the dirty work, including interfacing with the Database. I have read about people that are having trouble with under 100 markers being extremely slow. With Flash as my main interface tool I have had as many as 3900 markers on my maps and it works fine. It is a little slow doing some advanced search functions, but it hold it's own.
Except that you have to pay Macromedia a minimum of $399! to do any of what you are alluding to, and that does not even get you a backend engine. Which means you are still relying on something like php and mysql unless you want to pay more.
I dont have to pay anything to develop using XHTML, Javascript, php, linux, apache, mysql, mp3, etc etc.
This is a huge world of difference for people being able to experiment and publish their own things. If we all had to pay hundreds of dollars to develop on the internet and host sites (the roll of apache and linux in holding down hosting costs can not be underscored enough!), then the internet would not be nearly as accessable and populist as it is.
To your point about nice looking UI, which everyone likes, the Google Map is an excellent example of building great UI using non-proprietary frameworks. Yeah, Flash does some fancy footwork, but it is the non-proprietary standards that make the internet dynamic and accessable to all.
>For a great example of how Flash can be used with the Google Maps API,
>look at the project I'm working on. It does all the dirty work,
>including interfacing with the Database. I have read about people that
>are having trouble with under 100 markers being extremely slow. With
>Flash as my main interface tool I have had as many as 3900 markers on
>my maps and it works fine. It is a little slow doing some advanced
>search functions, but it hold it's own.
Can you imagine how things on the Internet would be if Microsoft had its way and ruled the world? I would have become a game warden or forest ranger by now if that was the case.
Man you people are such absolutists. Because Yahoo included a Flash/ActionScript branch to their API does not mean that the API is suddenly proprietary. It simply allows for additional development in different directions with different media. Seriously people, I'm all for open source - I've worked steadily on a major open source project for years now - but this has nothing to do with open source. GOOGLE IS ALSO PROPRIETARY.
Not sure who you are talking to. I just a couple days ago advocated that the Google Maps API be exended for use in Flash, I wrote on this message board that it was a great idea by Yahoo to do so. I am merely rebutting Robert Thomas' assertion that somehow Flash is THE tool that makes things usable for every day people. My possition is that for all its ease of use and flexibility for creating very nice UI features, its the non-proprietary standards that are the backbone of the populist accessability of the internet. I am not anti-Flash in the sense that I dont think it does some things very nicely, as I said I build many projects with Flash where I need slick animations. But its just silly to think that Flash is liberating compared to HTML, javascript, linux, apache, mysql (which is not great, but is free), php etc...
I don't think Flash is the end all and be all. At the same time I think that those who throw it out just because you need to pay for the tool a disservice as well. For many of the years I have been doing web design and development I try to find a good tool for the job at hand. I have usually used a mix of technology for most of the projects I have worked on, trying to use each tool for what it does the best. I fought against Flash for many years, because you could do many of the same things in JavaScript and DHTML. I think the point I was trying to make is that Flash doesn't suck. It is the bad use of the tool that sucks. It is the people that try to make it do things that are better done with other tools. There is no one tool for anything, but at the same time not seeing the value of a tool is bad as well.
Well, about flash and open source everybody need to look here: osflash.org
But, in my opinion, google used javascript because it´s cheap! And, the most important thing is that engineers behind it discussed thousands of items in their checklists before selecting javascript. So, if it was choosed is because a good reason exists.
Me and you, simple mortals, must agree that most brilliant minds are now working at google facilities. So, if a move to another technology is the right thing to do, they already had done this before... Even without our opnion!
I don't understand how your use of Flash for controls (Satellite/Hybrid, Zoom level, checkboxes and radio buttons) make a visitor's experience better than if it was implemented with css and javascript.
shardex> Brian, I was mainly referring to Apple/ Windows platforms
shardex> and all of their different available browsers. But yes,
This hardly makes it "cross platform compatible" as in your original
statement. There are other OS out there besides Windows and MacOS.
shardex> the Flash Player is supported on Linux. I do not know off
On non-i386 Linux, there is only one implementation of flash, but it
is close to useless as most websites that require flash will not work
with it.
-- Brian May <b...@snoopy.apana.org.au>
Brian, you are right, I was not being as accurate as I should have been. I guess in my enthusiasm I misspoke, I was merely trying to point out that Flash works in most browsers and on most platforms without any change to the code. Whatever you code in AS stays that way and AS does not need to conduct browser or platforms checks or workarounds like JavaScript does.
I don't know about you, but if JavaScript did not need to do all that stuff, then it would be a much better tool. And by better, I mean less room for error and therefore requiring less development and QA time which means developmentally more efficient and more stable.
We have already seen the weird browser issues in IE vs FireFox with Google Maps, Sure they have fixed most of them but all that fixing costs money and takes time. Not to mention all the frustration it causes for developers.
These are all valid complaints. I do not always advocate Flash over JavaScript, there is a time and a place for both. Flash has always had a bad rap in the coders world, but I am willing to go out on a limb and predict that web developers who do not understand the power that Flash brings to the web application development table will eventually be left behind. I know, that's a powerful, loaded statement and flame away but since I am predicting the future, there's not much anyone can say until time has passed.
