You’ve probably heard that Apple recently announced the iPad. The absence of Flash Player on the device seems to have awakened the HTML5 vs. Flash debate. Apparently, it’s the final nail in the coffin for Flash.
The arguments run wide, strong, and legitimate on both sides. Apple CEO Steve Jobs calls Flash Player buggy. John Gruber of Daring Fireball says that Apple wants to maintain their own ecosystem—a formula Adobe’s software doesn’t easily fit into. On the other end, Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch argues that Flash is a great content delivery vehicle. Mike Chambers, Principal Product Manager for Flash platform developer relations at Adobe, expresses his concerns over closed platforms. Interactive developer Grant Skinner reflects on the advantages of Flash.
However, the issue is larger than which one is better. It’s about preference and politics. It’s an arms race. This is the Cold War of the Web.
Ceasefire#section2
Both the standards community and the Flash community are extremely good at sharing knowledge and supporting the people within their respective groups. The relationship across communities, however, isn’t nearly as cordial. Two things are happening: either the people within each camp stay to themselves, or one ignorantly hurls insults at the other.
As new technologies emerge, their following naturally starts small. An effective rallying cry is to find—or create—a common enemy. Huge strides such as Doug Bowman’s Wired redesign, Dave Shea’s CSS Zen Garden, and Jeffrey Zeldman’s Designing With Web Standards had a significant influence, not only on the standards community, but on the entire web design industry. They positioned standards as an alternative to Flash and table-based sites, not in conflict with them. However, less enlightened followers wrongly interpreted these champions’ examples as the first assault. As Adobe Photoshop Principal Product Manager John Nack says, “people want a certain ‘killer’ narrative.”
The same thing is happening today. Those pushing the HTML5 specification forward, such as Ian Hickson, Jeremy Keith, and the NYC gathering of geeks, are offering it as a new alternative with some major advantages over existing technologies. Yet again, some have dubbed it the harbinger of doom for Flash.
The antagonistic nature of this debate is destroying the industry. Designers and developers waste their time playing the “one-up” game, as opposed to collaborating. Specialization has its advantages, but only as a subset of a larger whole. Jamie Kosoy, my colleague and Associate Technical Director at Big Spaceship, says it well:
We don’t have a single “Flash developer” at Big Spaceship. In fact, we grimace at titles like that.…We happen to be good at (and love) Flash, but we also happen to be good at (and love) a couple trillion different other technologies.…We believe in strategic thinking and great design and pushing the limits. Nowhere do we say it has to be done in technology X or programming language Y in order to be a successful and engaging project, and we don’t believe the users who engage in the projects we put out there do either.
A line in the sand#section3
The problem with rallying behind a technology is that it traps us within the confines of its constraints. We easily shift “don’t know” and “not sure” into “can’t” and “won’t.” Creativity is dictated by programming languages. How sad.
Technologies aren’t inherently bad or good. They’re only appropriate or inappropriate for certain circumstances. They’re a means to an end, not solutions within themselves. Each one is powerful in its own right to accomplish a certain goal. The responsibility to use an appropriate technology lies with the one who made the choice. Unfortunately, we’ve misinterpreted irresponsible development as inadequate technology.
Case in point: Loading. Flash provides powerful methods to track the download progress of every miniscule element. And what have we chosen to do with it? We load everything up front and make the user suffer through minutes of a loading sequence, instead of loading assets progresssively as they’re requested. The Flash platform does not deserve the blame for bloated websites—the developers who made these poor decisions do.
Until we realize the foolishness of faith in technology, we’ll see the same cycle repeated.
Doomed to repeat the past#section4
JavaScript has grown exceedingly popular of late, with much credit due to easy-to-use libraries like jQuery and the rediscovered usefulness of Ajax. More and more, sites use JavaScript to provide great functionality for the people who visit. More so, many experiments—like Scott Schiller’s site and Browser Ball—push the boundaries of what JavaScript is typically used for. The same is true for HTML5, with amazing displays such as 9Elements’ HTML5 Canvas and Audio Experiment or Jilion’s more practical SublimeVideo player.
These new executions bring interesting questions, many related to user experience. If a feature needs a lot of code or graphics to power it, do we need to give the user progress indication (read: preloader) before they can use it? Once we use HTML5 video to interact with other videos, text, and graphics, will we need blending modes in HTML6 to create more seamless online environments? Will JavaScript developers realize the value that sound brings to an online experience and have to create ways to handle audio? Will we need a visual editor so that designers who don’t code can take advantage of <canvas>? Will heavily scripted web applications become intense processor hogs?
If this sounds familiar to you, it should. These are the kinds of questions the Flash community explored throughout its early years. Regardless of your opinion about Flash, it’s difficult to deny the tremendous growth it has experienced. From a simple drawing application, to a full-fledged scripting language, to powerful streaming video capabilities, and more, the Flash platform has expanded exponentially to respond to the needs of its users—the people who use it to create and the people who use the end result. For better or worse, Flash has shaped the way people absorb online content.
We now have the advantage of learning from that journey, and we’re already reaping the benefits. For instance, any interaction model that modifies the full page refresh breaks the browser’s back button functionality. While it took eight years from Flash’s inception to birth a solution such as SWFAddress, JavaScript developers have the benefit of hindsight and were able to implement a similar solution for JavaScript-based applications much faster.
I’ll go so far as to assert that most technological advances are born from something that would be good for people using it. When we put stock in technology and try to be creative for creativity’s sake, we almost always repeat our mistakes. When we try and solve problems instead, we force ourselves to care. Innovation is a natural side effect.
Worth fighting for#section5
But we take pride in our technologies. If I’m not striving for my guru ranking in a particular programming language or design style, then what really matters? I’ve hinted at it throughout the whole article, but let me make it painfully obvious.
People.
People matter. Not users, but people. A user is a faceless entity, robotically performing tasks that we test and optimize. A person lives, laughs, cries, loves, hates—and uses the sites and applications we make. My mom. Your five-year-old. His grandfather. Her best friend. Their science class. They don’t tell us how much they appreciate our progressive enhancement or how we use the drawing API or our impeccable use of attribute selectors. They only say that a website was confusing or hard to read or fun to play with. That’s the real motivation for excellence: bringing ease, joy, and fun to the people around us.
We should be getting to the point where people can’t tell how a site was built. I love coming across a site where how it was made is not immediately apparent to me. That’s how it should be: Create something excellent where the technology is transparent, and allow only the curious to look under the hood to actually see what’s going on. JavaScript, Flash, HTML5, tables, Shockwave, Unity—no one cares when people using it can do what they’re supposed to. When something is broken—whether it’s functionality or the user experience—that’s when you’ll hear whining about platforms. Create a great experience for people and you’ll receive due praise, regardless of the technology.
We want you#section6
The bickering is getting old. Here’s what we can do.
Start supporting initiatives instead of bashing them. Do you think Flash sucks? Don’t write a “Dear Adobe” rant on your blog; contact the Adobe team directly and tell them what you think could be improved. Think HTML5 is a joke? Get involved with the working group to make it better. Got a problem with how a certain site is built? Approach the creators with your concerns and suggestions, privately and humbly.
Agencies: Stop writing job listings for HTML5 designers or ActionScript gurus. You’re just fanning the flames. Instead, invest in creative people who know how to execute in a number of ways, people who prioritize learning new tools to solve a problem over honing their chops. Don’t sell (or discourage) Flash or standards to your clients; instead, sell creative brand extensions, accessible content, enjoyable experiences, and simple maintainability.
Allow technologies to die on their own. Macromedia Director is no longer popular because its usefulness decreased, not because we crucified it. The old way of writing JavaScript is fizzling out on its own, because we support unobtrusive and DOM-based methods.
Teach. Approach your local college (or high school!) web design program and offer to instruct the new generation of designers and developers. Web design education is stagnant; it will take dedicated people who are willing to challenge the status quo to change that. Get involved with the wonderful work that’s being done in the area of web design education, such as the WaSP InterAct program, Opera Web Standards curriculum, or Adobe Education Technologies.
Finally, remember what really matters: People. For everyone’s sake, it’s time we all learned to get along.
I think Jquery still has much to learn and I don’t think we can truly compare itself with Flash until our computers become so powerful that the visual line between them becomes blurred. jQuery clearly does animation but not to the extent that Flash is capable of and so until then, I don’t think they can really be compared on the same level. On a side note, I think Flash and or jQuery may very well both become extinct in the near future in favor of cleaner and, ultimately, more user friendly interfaces. Having to wait for a menu item to fade in or some kind of animation to occur can become quite irritating when you’re simply looking for some information, but anyway, great article about how these technologies have changed the web.
Hello Dan, I think your article speaks to the core of what’s important in design and development: The end result and how it impacts those who use it. The challenge is that once individuals invest a sizeable amount of time in a particular technology, they are hesitant to switch to another. In art, some people prefer watercolors while others prefer oil paintings, and others may prefer collages. Each requires very different tools and mindset to accomplish.
We have to embrace the different technologies available to us and pick the right one based on the problem at hand rather than using the one we have learned to solve every problem.
I think its all out in the public .. no mincing words – no askance
its html 5 versus flash
me thinks ….
regards
from nesher+israel+lednichenko
Really great article Dan!
Well written, well articulated, well done!
Dan, i’m commenting again here. (Hope you don’t mind.) I’ve been thinking about this whole fiasco. We all know the web and standards are not perfect. /ie “Almost standards and Quirks Mode” ..
I just can’t help thinking that all this has everything to do with money, power and business. Getting to the top and staying there. Maybe it’s a fleeting thought or i’m in a extra sensitive mood. 🙂
In any case happy i could get it off my chest over here, with people who actually care about the web..
Excellent article. The way people become so passionate about their style of web design has always baffled me. There is more than one solution to a problem and focusing on what is best for your users instead of focusing on the platform used is the only true way for the web to keep moving forward.
Thanks for this article, I absolutely agree — and I love this quote which says it all really,
“Technologies aren’t inherently bad or good. They’re only appropriate or inappropriate for certain circumstances. They’re a means to an end, not solutions within themselves.”
Like you suggest, it’s easy to sit on the fence and shout rude words at Flash; it’s done the job well so far and lots of ‘people’ enjoy their Treasure Madness & Cafe World games so why bash it.
I think HTML5 + CSS3 are going to offer a lot more to the Web Designers pallette, allowing them to express their ideas more freely and really try out some devilishly cool apps. But like a little kid it’s still got some learning to do, and especially where javascript is concerned it can learn a lot from Flash’s history.
I reckon if we all learn to get along and play well with the other kids then the people who actually use our creations won’t mind a bit, they just mind when it goes kaplowey in their face.
Great work Dan
🙂
I still feel Apple’s relunctance to put Flash in Mobile Safari may be down to how processor intensive it is, let’s face it the iPhone is no CRAY.
If this was the case then it’d be good reason for Adobe to nurture their relationship with Apple and give them freedom to build an iPhone version of Flash. Heck, this knowledge share may also improve Flash on the long run.
Somethings got to give, but I don’t think the answer is taking Flash out back and beating him with an axe.
It’s definitely the problem we’re faced with where I am. So much management focus is on selling the tech we can use, and unfortunately it works. It’s not only about telling people that “we can do your site in Flash” that is bad, it’s that on the recipient side it impresses them and ticks the box they’d set before the meeting.
Web professionals, to me, should be that…”web” professionals with whatever that entails. Great article.
I also see from the commentator here the same mentality that runs through some articles here on ALA. It’s all well and good IE9 supporting HTML 5 but the reality will be that at least 20-50%(depending on your market) will NOT be HTML5 enabled.
Like it or not, folks, if you want rich content you either have to ignore a proportion of your market if you’re going to pin your colours only to HTML5, or you have to accept that to reach as many as possible you may have to also/instead use Flash.
We need, due to the archaic way that PEOPLE use the web with browsers of their own choice that don’t conform necessarily to what we would prefer to work with, to know how to do things in the best way for each situation…
Great article and one of only a few adult repsonses to this whole Apple v Flash thing.
Also check Ray Valdes blog:
http://blogs.gartner.com/ray_valdes/2010/02/10/html5-and-flash/
We should also be thinking about People as creative individuals and producers of content who want good tools to work with, not only as consumers. So whether those tools are Flash or any other authoring environment it doesn’t matter.
Very eloquently written article. I’ve just started a job that covers only a select group of the areas I’ve learned over many years, and it makes me wonder, is that right? Should I leave skills behind, because of how my job has been labelled, and what it’s remit covers? My last job required me to do new things all the time, which was great, but then you worry about being a jack of all trades, master of none. You’re absolutely right, we shouldn’t get worried about the technology, only about whether people like the experience we create for them.
My idea is just that yes, they need to just get along and make it work. Another is for flash to learn to work within all browsers and platforms. I kind of blame Adobe over Apple. If Adobe can’t find a work around, then they need to. Why get upset with Apply for not going the extra mile, thats Adobe’s problem. If my website doesnt work on the ipad, do i blame Apple for that? No, i’ll just have to redesign my site.
I don’t use Flash and don’t particularly like it or Air as development tools. But the real reason I avoid it? I cringe whenever I have to go to a Flash-based site! Most are slow to load (even over a very fast connection), klunky and awkward to use, many with obnoxious audio. I often feel like I’m stuck in some site designer’s closet, rather than being able to go find what _I_ want to find and see. That’s partially the fault of Flash, but mostly due to the way it’s used, over and over. The “I’m so artsy” sites are especially egregious (less is often really _much_ less, not more). And, by the way, it’s also a huge security risk – there are many exploitable security issues with Flash. So, even if it is a turf war between the “A-s”, I understand Apple’s reluctance.
I find it interesting that there is so little discussion about use of Silverlight and XAML by this community. The potential for developing actually useful sites, with access to and innovative presentation of business data, seems like its being totally ignored with all the hype about HTML5 and the iPad. (Go look at an HP multi-touch tablet running Windows7 and see how much more it can do than an iPad!) Silverlight apps in and out of a browser will run on PCs, Macs, and soon on phones. As “Web Professionals”, why the concentration on just Apple and Adobe?
Excellent argument here and you make solid points throughout. Two minor things: the way I read Job’s statement that “flash is buggy” is not as a value judgement, but more a statement of what he sees as fact. One glance at Apple tells you they don’t like “buggy.” And I do wish you folks would use a serif font for your articles. I know, I’m old-fashioned, but the little serifs do help move the eyes to the right, thus making it easier to read. For me this one little detail goes a long way in undermining the site’s ethos, and thus your own, in arguments like the one you just made.
Really enjoyed the article and was nodding away to all the points made.
I wrote “this article”:http://www.kevadamson.com/talking-of-design/article/a-flash-from-the-past recently about how designers and developers should be looking at Flash sites now more than ever.
_”An article discussing how, as standards designers and developers, and with the emergence of animation and transitions in CSS, we should take off our accessibility hats and invest more time viewing the best examples of animated Flash websites.”_
Sorry for “pimping”, but I feel it has relevance 🙂
Nowadays Flash is a tool like chainsaw in the hands of abusing people.
Great article!
It is really up to the designers and developers to make the web an easier place. People with small experience on the web should be welcomed, and not having to go through a getting started guide in able to understand the web! The technologies used are of secondary importance; we’ve seen Flash lead, when it’s been used appropriately.
Firstly thank you for that good article. When i look to future i see html best way for website architect. Flash make really good visual but at searching engine not good like as design. html is more seo friendly and i think it’s so importand think for websites…
Flash does have it’s place on the web still, especially until HTML5 is more widely supported, but I think apple has done itself a disservice by not allowing flash player on the ipad