Discuss: Semantic Flash: Slippery When Wet

by Dan Mall

11 RE: Unnecessary Use of Flash

That’s simply not true, you use your server side language to produce your content which you can then view the source code for. If I use a server side language to create an image it’s rendered as an image with an img tag and the same goes for any other created content.

How do you view the source of an swf file?

posted at 12:38 pm on February 27, 2007 by Ross Riley

12 RE: Unnecessary Use of Flash

And how do you save the image as a JPEG file?

posted at 12:43 pm on February 27, 2007 by Tor Løvskogen

13 Nothing to see in 64bit

I’m on a 64bit version of GNU/Linux. There is no official version of flash that supports a 64bit OS. I use one of the FOSS flash players, which sometimes works, and sometimes doesn’t. In this case it doesn’t, which you think would be okay… except actually it removes the ordinary image too! Not only do I not see the pretty reflection, I don’t see the cover at all.

This should not be acceptable for a public website.

posted at 01:28 pm on February 27, 2007 by Dannii Willis

14 Untitled

with flash 8 you can easily create a right click “save image” menu

posted at 01:54 pm on February 27, 2007 by gareth jones

15 Saving images

And how do you save the image as a JPEG file?

There’s always “Print Screen” – not ideal, but a very useful trick that everybody should learn!

posted at 03:39 pm on February 27, 2007 by Stephen Down

16 RE: Saving images

Funny.

posted at 04:16 pm on February 27, 2007 by Tor Løvskogen

17 Saving Images and Server Side Scripts

And how do you save the image as a JPEG file?

It may not be possible in the example, but I would think a few extra lines of ActionScript and you could customize flash’s contextual menu and provide a much more descriptive link to a high res version, maybe even a zip version.

With Flash you could actually make the enhanced image “more” accessible to those with Flash leaving the default image and browser contextual menu for those without.

How do you view the source of an swf file?

For some people this is an advantage, they don’t want people downloading their images for use willy nilly all over the internet. If that doesn’t fly though, my question is why do you need to view the source? When viewing the example source I see three images, which is what I see in the rendered page. Sure the inline images are not the fancy version, but for the large majority of internet users, who cares?

posted at 04:18 pm on February 27, 2007 by Mark Huot

18 Hiding the initial image

The only problem I have with this new method (and I checked out the swfIR page, it’s the same there, not just in this example) is that the original image loads first and is displayed, before being replaced by the flash movie (at least on my setup). This may be confusing for some users, and reveals the “magic” behind the trick. I think for swfIR to catch on, even given all of the concerns raised so far, it needs to hide the original image before replacing it with flash.

posted at 04:31 pm on February 27, 2007 by Lee Clemmer

19

@Micah:

In my opinion, flash should always be an option of last resort, when there is simply no other feasible way to achieve one’s goals.

Obviously, I disagree. Flash is a technology, just like XHTML, and should be used where appropriate. If it fits as a solution, it may very well and should be the first option.

sIFR, on the other hand, seems like a legitimate use. It’s something that doesn’t affect the accessibility of the site for those without flash, and does something that can’t really be done well in any other way (you could render an image server-side, but that causes other problems and you lose the accessibility of the text).

If sIFR is a legitimate use, then why isn’t other use of Flash? sIFR didn’t originally launch fully supporting accessibility, but those features were built in retroactively as part of their initiative to make it better. sIFR is a great technique, not only because of what it can do, but because it shows that the features are available in Flash and ready to exploit. It’s the responsibility of the designers and developers to implement them.

@Anson: That’s certainly one way to do it. They both require a line of Actionscript each, so it’s just a matter of preference.

@Dannii: Please see my previous comment about degradation.

posted at 04:51 pm on February 27, 2007 by Dan Mall

20 Untitled

My problem is that at work (government) all flash is blocked no matter what, even if we create it. Makes most sites unusable that have implemented flash in anyway even if the site checks for flash being supported. Our browsers support flash, but the firewall lets nothing through.

This solution looks o.k. in principle, but won’t be one I’ll be trying out.

posted at 05:22 pm on February 27, 2007 by Kendall Conrad