Anthony Franco has a nice article pointing out common objections to building Flash applications and the rebuttals one might use in answering them.
Some of which—unfortunately—I found to be unconvincing. For example, the ultimate answers to several of the issues (SEOs and accessibility) is simply to build two sites. Or "dual web experiences", as he calls them.
Somehow I don't see "use Flash and do twice the work" as a major selling point.
In the same vein, he states that a very common misuse of Flash is to build entire web sites with it. (Even though his web site is entirely Flash built.)
He also points out several ways one could reduce the footprint... but do most people do so? To quote, "With Flash, I could [sic] have created 1 large image, and 2 small transparent images and compiled them in layers to get the same results, thus reducing the file size."
Could have. But didn't.
And while the Flash player may be installed on 98% of the machines out there, I know quite a few people (including myself) who use FlashBlock or browse with plugins turned off in order to avoid receiving a deluge of Rich Internet ADVERTISING.
With the result that when I visit "Effective UI" I see... nothing at all. Hardly effective.
In short, Flash'es wholesale adoption by the advertising agency types isn't helping it's case.
And at the very least, if you're going to build page, sites, or significant portions of pages using Flash, you also need to provide for those circumstances in which it doesn't exist.
He ends with: Flash can be very powerful in the right hands and in the right circumstances.
Which is true. But also seems to be a maxim that's rarely followed.
Comments