Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 14th Feb 2010 22:17 UTC
Internet & Networking There's a bit of ruckus going on at the moment in the world of HTML5. A number of people are claiming that Adobe has blocked the latest publication of the HTML5 standard. However, after diving into the actual mailing list threads, it becomes obvious quite quickly that it's nothing but a misunderstanding. Update: Masinter replies: "No part of HTML5 is, or was ever, 'blocked' in the W3C HTML Working Group - not HTML5, not Canvas 2D Graphics, not Microdata, not Video - not by me, not by Adobe."
Thread beginning with comment 409385
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by Laurence on Mon 15th Feb 2010 11:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

The hate comes from a variety of users from all platforms:

* FOSS and OS X users for being neglected with sub-standard ports

* Users who don't have powerful machines and find simple webpages can often max out their machine.

* Surfers who stumble across a whole site built in Flash and find they can use the most basic of functions (back buttons, copy/paste, open in new window/tab)

* People who like to browse the web on internet-ready non-PC / Mac equipment (portable devices, integrated devices like games consoles and TVs, etc).

* People who just get sick of intrusive ad banners (some even come bundled with sound effects).

And the problem is compounded by the fact that if and when you do stumble across a Flash heavy site (excluding ads), there's often no way to view the site without Flash - thus either forcing the user to run Flash or lose content.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by wargum on Mon 15th Feb 2010 12:55 in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

* FOSS and OS X users for being neglected with sub-standard ports

Admitted, the quality of the Windows version is superior, but for 10.1, Adobe will improve at least the OS X version heavily. They promise to bring CPU decoded video on par with the Windows version. They can't use the graphics processor's decoder chips directly on OS X though, because Apple does not have an API for that, yet. This is clearly Apple's fault, we have to be fair here. Second, they announced that 10.1 will use Core Animation on the Mac, which will probably boost graphic calculations a lot.

* Users who don't have powerful machines and find simple webpages can often max out their machine.

No sympathy from my side, here. Look, if you buy an Atom based device and expect it to do everything that a "real" laptop/desktop can do, that is your fault. Adobe does improve H.264 based video decoding with Flash Player 10.1 though, by using specialised decoder chips available in some of these machines.

* Surfers who stumble across a whole site built in Flash and find they can use the most basic of functions (back buttons, copy/paste, open in new window/tab)

That is a problem, Adobe needs to improve on accessibility, very true. But you know what? This is ultimately the task of the site author(s). Let's say Adobe's authoring tools will support HTML5 tomorrow, with all canvas glory and stuff. How can you even assume that people will not just continue building unaccesible sites, because they don't care? Technology can help, but it will always be misused, bear this in mind, please.

* People who like to browse the web on internet-ready non-PC / Mac equipment (portable devices, integrated devices like games consoles and TVs, etc).

You haven't heard of the Open Screen Project yet, right? Adobe hands you the code, if you need to port the Flash Player. That's the main focus of Adobe right now, bring Flash to more devices like smartphones, etc. and use dedicated hardware for "heavy" tasks like video decoding or graphic calculations. And btw, Flash is available on the Wii and the PS3, that's 2 out of 3 for the current generation of game consoles, not too shabby, heh? ;-)

* People who just get sick of intrusive ad banners (some even come bundled with sound effects).

Are HTML5 based ads less intrusive? Why? Sorry, but this is not an argument. Ads will stay with us even if Flash becomes irrelevant.

And the problem is compounded by the fact that if and when you do stumble across a Flash heavy site (excluding ads), there's often no way to view the site without Flash - thus either forcing the user to run Flash or lose content.

Again as stated before, this is ultimately the task of the site author(s).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by Laurence on Mon 15th Feb 2010 13:51 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Admitted, the quality of the Windows version is superior, but for 10.1, Adobe will improve at least the OS X version heavily. They promise to bring CPU decoded video on par with the Windows version. They can't use the graphics processor's decoder chips directly on OS X though, because Apple does not have an API for that, yet. This is clearly Apple's fault, we have to be fair here. Second, they announced that 10.1 will use Core Animation on the Mac, which will probably boost graphic calculations a lot.


That's all completely irrelevant to the here and now.

No sympathy from my side, here. Look, if you buy an Atom based device and expect it to do everything that a "real" laptop/desktop can do, that is your fault. Adobe does improve H.264 based video decoding with Flash Player 10.1 though, by using specialised decoder chips available in some of these machines.


What about people still using P4's and 1GB RAM? (In fact, I know some people who run even lower spec systems)

And what about people who aren't on high incomes or even lucky enough to live in one of the more developed western countries.

Most home users don't upgrade their computer every 3 years. Most home users don't see a computer as a toy that needs updating frequently. They see it as a necessary evil and expect to keep using it for 5 to 10 years.

So why should we be excluding rich internet content from people who don't want to spend hundreds on their computer every 2 years. It's not as if the same content can't be rendered on systems via other media formats.

That is a problem, Adobe needs to improve on accessibility, very true. But you know what? This is ultimately the task of the site author(s). Let's say Adobe's authoring tools will support HTML5 tomorrow, with all canvas glory and stuff. How can you even assume that people will not just continue building unaccesible sites, because they don't care? Technology can help, but it will always be misused, bear this in mind, please.


You're still missing the point.
I'm stating why people dislike Flash.

Most people don't give a toss who's to blame, so they blame the technology.

So my point was 100% accurate.

You haven't heard of the Open Screen Project yet, right? Adobe hands you the code, if you need to port the Flash Player. That's the main focus of Adobe right now, bring Flash to more devices like smartphones, etc. and use dedicated hardware for "heavy" tasks like video decoding or graphic calculations. And btw, Flash is available on the Wii and the PS3, that's 2 out of 3 for the current generation of game consoles, not too shabby, heh? ;-)


And what happens when Adobe moves to the next iteration of Flash? You are completely reliant on your games console updating it's firmware.

I'd sooner see HTML5 and not have to worry about firmware updates with every update to Flash.

And as for hand held devices - I'm still yet to be convinced that Flash will run smoothly on them when on content heavy sites. HTML5 would.

Are HTML5 based ads less intrusive? Why? Sorry, but this is not an argument. Ads will stay with us even if Flash becomes irrelevant.

Of course they will. But Flash Ads are what people notice for the now - thus it's what they complain about thus my point about why they dislike Flash.

Switch off nerd mode for one moment and think about what I wrote.
It wasn't a technical manual for Flash - it was a list of reasons why Flash was unpopular.
Some maybe unjust, but Flash is famous for those annoying ads that cripple your machine.


Again as stated before, this is ultimately the task of the site author(s).

You're still making excusing for Flash.
I can see you love the technology but for once try switching of your bias and try to have an objective look at what people are complaining about.

Most of your post consists of either shifting the blame (you even blamed users for trying to surf the internet on low spec machines rather than Adobe's shoddy plug ins!!) or arguing that Adobe plan (note: not yet implemented in consumer devices) to fix the problem.

Well all of that is just completely irrelevant to the plight of the average web surfer; Those that hate Flash, hate Flash for the reasons I've specified.
Excuses from Adobe aside, those are still the reasons.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by boldingd on Tue 16th Feb 2010 20:19 in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

While I'm certainly in the flash-hating camp, and I agree with your other points, I just have to point out, this, at least, is just as much the fault of the page designer as it is the fault of Adobe:

* Surfers who stumble across a whole site built in Flash and find they can use the most basic of functions (back buttons, copy/paste, open in new window/tab)


There could conceivably be safe-and-sane uses of Flash in web design -- i.e. if provision is made for fall-back in the event that the user does not have (or has disabled) Flash. Mis-use of Flash in a pathological design is more the fault of the designer.

Reply Parent Score: 2