Discuss: Semantic Flash: Slippery When Wet

by Dan Mall

21 Booorrriiinnnggg

I can do this trick automatically using RMagick or any other GraphicsMagick/ImageMagick wrapper. Unless I’m forced to deploy to a shared host that refuses to work with me on making these libraries available I don’t need to add a potential browser compatability headache into this scenario.

B+ for effort though. I personally don’t have a problem using Flash where it enhances the user experience but I always want to have a fallback and I never want my non-Flash work to be noticeably distinct. The only demands I want to put on my users is that they use a modestly capable web browser and enable Javascript when they come visiting my rich-interface web applications.

posted at 05:27 pm on February 27, 2007 by James Thompson

22 Re: Booorrriiinnnggg

@“Booorrriiinnnggg”:http://www.alistapart.com/comments/semanticflash?page=3#21
One advantage I see to the flash method is that users with small screens that don’t support Flash/JS such as PDA’s and cell phone’s aren’t bothered by scrolling an extra 100px past a fade. They just see the plain unstyled image.

posted at 05:36 pm on February 27, 2007 by Mark Huot

23 Not Bad!

I love this technique, and think it has a lot of potential. Yes, there is some fleshing out to do, and sure some of these things can already be accomplished through imagemajick etc. This seems to be more of a designers answer to such a problem.

posted at 06:28 pm on February 27, 2007 by Jonas Flint

24 Irritating flicker

I don’t like these kind of content-replace solutions because they show the original content first, causing an ugly flicker after the page has loaded and the enhanced content kicks in.

Most people probably don’t worry about this flicker, but to me, it’s too much of an irritation to implement such a solution.

posted at 06:54 pm on February 27, 2007 by Blaise Kal

25 Standards

Sure you can do work arounds, add accessibility or right click capabilities on top of flash. But why not render an html image and have those capabilities baked in?

Processing the images server side and rendering them inline provides all the accesibility and functionality that the browser/html/css provide. Each designer/developer shouldn’t have to roll their own(potentially differing) solutions, and the user should get the same usage/functionality they expect from page to page and site to site.

posted at 07:31 pm on February 27, 2007 by Wesley Beary

26 Misconceptions

I left HTML development for Flash development long ago, and have never looked back, so perhaps I am a tad biased, but then again, so is everyone here. “Traditional” Web developers’ misconceptions about Flash are so old, so wrong, so ignorant, it’s just sad and tired. I usually ignore it as white noise, but I’ll rise to the bait this time. I guess I’m just bored.

In no particular order:
Flash is not all about annoying banner ads, just like JavaScript is not all about annoying pop-ups. The fact that Flash is turned off on some computers is not its fault, it’s the fault of the above-mentioned misconceptions. Even still, Flash has the largest installed base of any plug-in out there; expect that to rise with Adobe’s support. Unlike HTML, Flash is consistently cross browser, cross platform; I encounter a browser/platform issue maybe once a year in my work, and it’s usually due to the inconsistencies of the way different browsers/platforms handle Flash within the HTML, not due to Flash itself (e.g. for full-window, scalable sites, Firefox is buggy if you include a Doctype tag). Unlike CSS, Flash can handle 100% heights flawlessly. Unlike “traditional” web development, Flash can live outside the browser, with or without Web connectivity, on kiosks, CD-ROMs, desktop applications, phones, and a growing list of other devices (note: browser kiosk modes are not the same thing). As far as I know, Flash Remoting is the fastest server-client communication protocol out there. Flash right-click menus are fully programmable/customizable. Flash (Flash 8, that is) font rendering is much clearer and sharper than any browser text. Flash can render any font you have (yes, this is a big deal, even if you don’t understand why). Text can be selectable…or it can be not-selectable…unlike HTML, you have the freedom to decide. Flash content can be exposed to search engines (although that requires specialized knowledge…but then again, so does HTML, so what’s the big deal?). Flash can provide “deep-linking” to internal content. Flash can tap into the browser Back/Forward buttons.

I think I had better stop. Oh yes, one more thing: the example in the article was just that: an example. It is not a definitive solution, nor is it the best solution, by the author’s own admission. The flicker is not inherent to Flash, but to the specific way that solution was programmed.

posted at 07:33 pm on February 27, 2007 by Noah Dziobecki

27

James: You can certainly accomplish the same end result using other methods, like ImageMagick. However, the true value of doing it client-side is that you’re only styling the content. Much like CSS, the original content (the image) is untouched. If someone wants to download and use your image somewhere else, what good is it if it’s already manipulated server-side with rotation, a shadow and on a less than desirable background?

Blaise: The flicker is caused by the window.onload handler. It can definitely be solved through other methods, one example being Simon Willison’s addLoadEvent. In the example, I left it out for the sake of brevity, but it’s certainly a way to improve the script.

posted at 07:37 pm on February 27, 2007 by Dan Mall

28 Reflection in Flash 8+

In this example you the image is loaded twice, but in Flash 8 using BitmapData you can “clone” the original image, flip it, apply a gradient mask and place it under the original. Thus creating a reflection but only loading once.

I noticed the comments on serverside technology, but that is the problem right there. What happens if you want this technique on a localized kiosk? Working with clients in the corporate training enviroment I found one thing very quickly and that is these modules will never have access to the internet in its normal sense.

Overall this article is a great example of how Flash can be used while at the same time it shouldn’t be used for everything and the same goes for every other technology.

posted at 08:51 pm on February 27, 2007 by Matthew Keefe

29 RE: Misconceptions

Thats good and all, but even if people got Flash, what about the places that block all of Flash, like Kendall Conrad says? They would signal “flash detected”, but no content would show up.

posted at 08:53 pm on February 27, 2007 by Tor Løvskogen

30 Why replace image

In this particular example I don’t see why you’d have to replace the original image. You only want to add a mirror image, so why not leave it to that. That way people who don’t have a Flash-enabled browser still can see the original images, others see the original and the newly added reflection.

posted at 09:10 pm on February 27, 2007 by Sander Aarts